613 Commandments

[JoeMo]

Quote:

May I suggest it's about grace, as well as faith

May I add that grace and faith are interdependent - we recieve grace through faith; and faith increases our grace.

[Samie]

Objections to the Adventist interpretation of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel are constantly being raised , even among some who call themselves Adventists. But the verses of Dan 9:24-27 refute at least 6 such objections and vindicate the following:

[JoeMo]

jackson,

So far I agree with Samie. I also disagree with your last four points.

3. There is just as much (if not more) Bible substantiation (IMO) for the 70 to refer to the building of a 3rd temple in Jerusalem in the future.

4. It does so approximately, if you accept that the day for a year principle applies to all prophecy (I don't). It does apply to the specific prophecies where it is referred to. If it applied to all prophecy, then the millennium referred to in Revelation 20 and 21 would really be 360,000 years long, like it allegedly applies in Rev. 1 -17.

5 and 6. I agree with the 1st 69 weeks taking us to (arguably) the baptism or crucifixion of Christ; however, taking a futurist view, the 70th week could apply to the 7 year end-time tribulation and the mid-week cut-off could refer to the last half of the tribulation. It took me years of study to reach this conclusion (and I still reserve the right to be wrong); and it would take me 20 pages to try and justify it. I wouldn't stake my eternal life on this assertion.

[Samie]

3..The 70 week prophecy is past not present or future

4..The prophecy is explained by the day for a year principle

[Samie]

5..The 69th week ended at Jesus' baptism, not his birth

6.The middle of the 70th week is the end of Jesus' ministry and the last half of the 70th week ends the dispensation of the Jews with the stoning of Stephen, and the gospel being taken to the gentiles.

Disagree.

As Scriptures indicate in my previous post, the 70 week prophecy will yet find fulfillment shortly before the 2nd Coming.

The term "Messiah" in Dan 9:25,26, from the Hebrew "mashiyach", does not NECESSARILY refer to our Lord, in contrast with the NT usage of the same word "Messiah" (Greek "Messias"). In the OT, "mashiyach" is the same Hebrew word translated "anointed" in other parts of the OT. Both the Persian King Cyrus and David were referred to as God's anointed (Ps 81:1; Isa45:1). It is only in Dan 9:25,26 where "mashiyach" is translated in the KJV into "Messiah".

If we are to apply the year-for-a-day principle, the 69 weeks (or 69 x 7 = 483 days or years) from 457 BC, would bring us to 27 AD, the year commonly believed to be the year Jesus was baptized. But the Bible does NOT seem to agree.

Luke records that Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius reign as emperor (Luke 3:1,21). History EXPLICITLY tells us Tiberius started his reign in 14 AD. The 15th year is therefore 28 AD, NOT 27 AD.

You believe that the taking away of the "sacrifices and oblations" in Dan 9:27 points to Jesus' ministry. In other parts of Daniel, the taking away of the "sacrifices and oblations" is the taking away of the "daily", an act ATTRIBUTED to the nemesis of truth (see Dan 11:31-36).

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

Where does Scripture say that when the sacrifices were "symbolically fulfilled" that God's people were supposed to stop following God's instructions regarding animal sacrifices?

I could not find a scripture where we are explicitly commanded to stop animal sacrifice, but the following passage from Hebrews 10 certainly implies that animal sacrifices are no longer necessary:

Quote:

First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Heb. 10:8-14

Hello Joe,

First, let me ask what you are willing to accept in order to set aside or to nullify the Word of God? God has plainly stated through Moses (who was repeatedly endorsed as God's faithful spokesman) that certain things were to be done throughout all the generations of the Israelites. Are you so eager to set aside God's Word that you would do so based merely on something that is implied by a selective interpretation of a passage that was written by an unknown author?

Even if we were positive that the passage was written by the Apostle Paul, does Paul have the authority to nullify the words of God? If Paul was actually teaching contrary to the existing Scriptures of his day (the Old Testament), that in itself would disqualify him from being a true messenger of God. We know that Paul was not teaching contrary to the Old Testament because the noble Bereans would not have been able to confirm Paul's teachings from the Old Testament unless his teachings agreed with the Old Testament. Acts 21:20 tells us that the Hebrew believers were "all zealous for the Law" [of Moses]. Do you think the author of the book of Hebrews could convince these zealous Hebrew believers that animal sacrifices were done away with by writing something that merely implies (maybe) that sacrifices were no longer necessary? If animal sacrifices were no longer necessary, and that message was an important part of Paul's gospel, then Paul betrayed his own gospel on his last trip to Jerusalem when he went up to the Temple to offer the required sacrifice for the vow he made weeks earlier in Acts 18:18. Yet the Lord himself commended Paul for what he did in Jerusalem during that last visit (Acts 23:11).

SDA's (and other Christians) tell us that it was Jesus that spoke to Moses at Sinai. Jesus specifically taught, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." (Luke 21:33) Yet we've been willing to cast away what Jesus told Moses based merely on what? Tradition? Assumptions? Something that Paul may have implied?

Also, the passage in Hebrews 10 deals only with sin offerings. It doesn't deal with all the other types of offerings that weren't sin offerings (ie peace offerings, fellowship offerings, votive offerings, dedication offerings, feast offerings, the red heifer, etc.) .

Also, there are other viable interpretations of the passage in Hebrews 10 that don't imply that the sacrifices were no longer necessary. If you look at the structure of the passage, it sequentially quotes two sections from Psalm 40, then emphasizes that the one comes before the other, and then refers back to those two things as "the first" and "the second". The "first" talks about the sin offerings that God says he takes no pleasure in (probably because he would rather have obedience rather than have sinning-followed-by-sin-offerings), even though they are offered according to the Law. The "second" talks about obedience, or doing the will of God. Then comes the statement "He takes away the first to establish the second". The word translated as "takes away", can also be translated as "takes up" (This is what pharaoh's daughter did to Moses when she found him) and it can also be translated as "kills".

We already know that it was God's will for Jesus to die for our sins (even though Psalm 40 and Hebrews 10 says that God takes no pleasure in sin offerings). And we know that Jesus came to do God's will (even though he prayed, "Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done." ). Jesus came to do God's will by being a sin offering (as in "a body you have prepared for me" as mentioned in "the first" passage quoted from Psalm 40) So it is quite possible that Hebrews 10 is telling us that because Jesus came to do God's will, he "takes up" that role of sacrifice in order to establish obedience to God's will in himself and to establish obedience to God's will in everyone who is redeemed, or made perfect.

Also, the passage in Hebrews 10 is not talking about a change in the status animal sacrifices. Verse 11 says that animal sacrifices could "never take away sins". That means that they couldn't take away sins when God first showed Adam's family how to offer sacrifices, and they couldn't take away sins when God instructed Moses and Aaron how to offer animal sacrifices. Since the animal sacrifices could never take away sins, they were just as effective when the book of Hebrews was written as they were when the book of Leviticus was written-- except that when Hebrews was written people understood more of the symbolism of the sacrifices, so they were more effective as a teaching tool concerning Messiah. That time period while the sacrifices were still being offered, after the ascension of Jesus and before the destruction of the Temple forty years later, was the most effective time of evangelism among Jews.

[JoeMo]

Hi Ron,

I know many who would say "Amen" to your post. There are many Messianic Jews and other movements who anticipate a new Temple in Jerusalem and restoration of sacrifices. Many of them also keep the OT annual Sabbaths and festivals. While I respect the sincerity of your and their logic and faith, from my studies, I have come to a different conclusion. To me, when Hebrews says several times that Christ was sacrificed once and for all, I must infer that additional sacrifices are no longer necessary.

As far as the sacrificial system being a great teaching tool, while slitting animals throats , bleeding them out, and roasting them on an open fire may have been socially acceptable and spiritually significant 2,000 - 3,000 years ago, in this day and age it would just gross most people out.

[Ron Amnsn]

For an explicit example of part of the first covenant being done away with, see Galatians:

Quote:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? (Gal 3:1-5)

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.(Gal. 5:2-6)

Galatians does have some passages that can be interpreted to make it sound like parts of God's Word have been done away with, especially if we interpret Galatians as if the issue in Paul's letter was Christianity vs Judaism.

Near the end of Paul's ministry Paul testified in court, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." (Acts 24:14) Here Paul is using "the Law" and "the Prophets" in the usual manner to refer to the Law of Moses and the Old Testament prophets. This is very problematic for the common interpretation of Galatians that holds that Paul set aside parts of God's Law of Moses. If that interpretation is correct, that means that Paul blatantly lied to Felix in court, because the common interpretation of Galatians does not agree with the Law nor with the Prophets. If Paul lied when testifying before Felix about his own beliefs, then Paul would merely be an opportunist rather than a man of integrity and his writings would be unreliable.

I believe the apostle Paul was a man of impeccable integrity and conviction and that his testimony before Felix was absolutely true. His testimony agrees totally with the findings of the Jews in the synagogue at Berea when they searched the Old Testament Scriptures daily to determine whether the teachings of Paul were true. I also believe that Paul's writings are totally reliable, when they are interpreted in a way that agrees with Paul's testimony before Felix about his own beliefs.

We would do well to explore the context of Galatians until we find an interpretation of Galatians that is compatible with Paul's testimony that he believes "everything that agrees with the Law".

In the Qumran writings found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the phrase "works of the law" is used, not to refer to obeying the Law of Moses, but to refer to the entrance requirements of the local community that newly arriving people were required to comply with before being accepted into the community. The issue in the book of Galatians was related to accepting Gentile believers into the Jewish community, so it would make sense that Paul was using the phrase "works of the law" to refer to the "entrance requirements" for new community members.

When we look carefully at the way Paul uses the words "circumcise" and "circumcision" in his writings, we find that there are either different meanings, or Paul wrote contradictions about circumcision. For example, in Galatians 5:2 Paul says, "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all" yet Paul him self circumcised Timothy, which would have made Christ of no value to Timothy if what Paul did to Timothy was the same kind of circumcision that Paul wrote about in Galatians 5:2.

There are interpretations of the intra-Judaism issues dealt with in Galatians that are compatible with Paul's testimony before Felix about his own beliefs.

[stinsonmarri]

If you read Rev 5:6 shows why Paul wrote about sacrifices could never take away sin. Also no Temple showed that the sacrifices were over. At the death of YAHSHUA the evening sacrifice got a way and the curtains was torn by an Hand to the Most Holy Place and was seen for the first time by the congregation. All of this prove that sacrifice were no longer needed.

Happy Sabbath!

[stinsonmarri]

Hi Ron,

I know many who would say "Amen" to your post. There are many Messianic Jews and other movements who anticipate a new Temple in Jerusalem and restoration of sacrifices. Many of them also keep the OT annual Sabbaths and festivals. While I respect the sincerity of your and their logic and faith, from my studies, I have come to a different conclusion. To me, when Hebrews says several times that Christ was sacrificed once and for all, I must infer that additional sacrifices are no longer necessary.

As far as the sacrificial system being a great teaching tool, while slitting animals throats , bleeding them out, and roasting them on an open fire may have been socially acceptable and spiritually significant 2,000 - 3,000 years ago, in this day and age it would just gross most people out.

Show me in the Hebrew language that they called the Holy Appointed Convocations Sabbath? I am a SDA and I observe them because YAHWEH said to, they belong to HIM. Plus they are found in Gen 1:14 and the Scribes changed the meaning of the Hebrew word Moed which also found in Lev Chapter 23. The Sabbath is a Moed or Statutes that is kept weekly. Sabbaton is a Hebrew word that means special occasion and not the word Sabbath! Once again the original Hebrew Text was tampered with and changed. Dan 7:25 clearly state that man would attempt to changed both HIS HOLY FIXED TIME and HIS LAW in which they have. Christmas, New year, Valentine, Halloween are all fix time by Satan through the Catholic Church and they are all a lie. They are called feast days because they over indulge on these festivals. The KJV who were Catholic changed the word with feast or season to obliterate what YAHWEH had Commanded to observe besides the weekly Sabbath. There is no excuse and stop blaming Paul for what he did not say in Colossians. Paul also said if anyone take or add to the gospel even the angels they are against THE MOST HIGH ELOHIM and they will be curse! Ps Chapter 19 gives a complete account of all YAHWEH'S Law, Commandments, Testimony, Precept and Statutes (these are the Holy Fix Time Laws). Ex 24:12 says Law and Commandments and Gen 26:5 state that Abraham kept HIS Law, Commandments Judgment, and Statues. Finally, YAHWEH HIMSELF said in Deut 5:31 the exact same thing. If we would realize who translated the Bible and what they believed as EGW stated they changed word. EW p. 220, 221 Stop leaning on man's traditions and doctrines and uphold ELOHIM'S!

Happy Sabbath!

[8thdaypriest]

Objections to the Adventist interpretation of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel are constantly being raised , even among some who call themselves Adventists. But the verses of Dan 9:24-27 refute at least 6 such objections and vindicate the following:

1. Jesus' death ends the sacrificial system forever,nailing the ceremonial laws to the cross.

2. The start of the 70 week prophecy day prophecy was 457 BC

3..The 70 week prophecy is past not present or future

4..The prophecy is explained by the day for a year principle

5..The 69th week ended at Jesus' baptism, not his birth

6.The middle of the 70th week is the end of Jesus' ministry and the last half of the 70th week ends the dispensation of the Jews with the stoning of Stephen, and the gospel being taken to the gentiles.

REGARDING THE 2300 evening/mornings

1. There is no archeological evidence that Jesus Christ died in 31AD. There are proponents of 30 but more of 33. NASA says there was a blood moon on the night which ended Passover and began the 15th of Nissan in 33AD.

As to the day of the week - I'm still partial to Friday for His death, tho I know others would debate that.

2. Daniel was told to "seal up the book" until "the time of the end" (Dan. 12:4). No one YET understands the visions of Daniel completely or correctly. It is still a sealed book.

1844 was NOT yet the "time of the end".

Like Peter, Paul and other apostles, the early SDA pioneers just got that one wrong.

I do not believe that we will FULLY understand these prophecies until the latter rain is poured out upon "all flesh" and their fulfillment is upon us.

3. As I read it, the angel Gabriel come to give Daniel further understanding of "the vision" of Daniel Cpt 8. He says (Dan. 8:17) "understand son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end."

In verse 19 he says, "I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation" for at the appointed time the end shall be." Then he talks about the ram and the goat of Cpt 8.

I don't understand how anyone can say that the goat attacked the ram back in 333 BC.

[8thdaypriest]

REGARDING PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION FOR GENTILE CONVERTS:

Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 7:18-20 “Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.”

This just about sums it up.

Joshua was a type of Jesus Christ. After Israel crossed the Jordan, he "circumcised the people" because they had not been circumcised during the wilderness wandering. Then they kept the Passover in the promised land.

Jesus Christ will circumcise us physically when we are changed in a moment. The old "flesh" will be gone, and we will assume new spiritual bodies, as we cross the sky.

This is WHY Ezekiel wrote that no man could enter the Temple who is uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh.

We must be both - but Jesus Christ will perform it.

Every command in the Sinai Covenant was a prophecy - including physical circumcision.

There is a longer study on the topic of circumcision at my website.

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[Ron Amnsn]

Objections to the Adventist interpretation of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel are constantly being raised , even among some who call themselves Adventists. But the verses of Dan 9:24-27 refute at least 6 such objections and vindicate the following:

1. Jesus' death ends the sacrificial system forever,nailing the ceremonial laws to the cross.

Hello Jackson,

I don't see how Dan 9:24-27 could vindicate what you say here.

There are two people called "he" in the passage from Daniel. One is them is Messiah and the other is the prince who will destroy the city. Both arrive toward the end of the 490-year prophecy. History shows that it was Titus and his army that put an end to the sacrifices of the Temple service and destroyed the city. This wasn't the first time the Temple sacrifices had been "ended". The sacrifices had also been stopped earlier when Nebuchadnezzar took Judah into captivity.

The Bible doesn't say that the ceremonial laws were nailed to the cross. No one has ever shown that the Scriptures actually divide the Laws of God into categories such as "ceremonial", "moral", or "civil". All such categories are merely man-made traditions.

Also, dogmasin is the Greek word that Paul used in Colossians 2:14 to identify what was nailed to the cross. Dogmasin is a form of the Greek word dogma. If we look up every occurrence of dogma (in all its forms) in the Greek Old Testament that was being used in Paul's day (the Septuagint) we find that dogma never refers to any of God's laws, instructions, statutes, or ordinances. Paul was evidently referring to the handwritten placards that listed the crimes of those crucified. Jesus took the placards listing our guilt and nailed them to his own cross when he paid the penalty for those sins.

Also, nailing the "ceremonial law" to the cross evidently wouldn't invalidate it. Jesus himself was nailed to the cross yet Jesus is still valid, probably more valid than before he was nailed to the cross.

[8thdaypriest]

I agree in one aspect. It was NOT the ceremonial law that was nailed to His cross.

Here is the verse in several translations:

WHAT WAS NAILED TO HIS CROSS?

Colossians 2:14 “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” (KJV)

Colossians 2:14 “. . . having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to His cross.” (NKJV)

Colossians 2:14 “having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;” (ASV)

Colossians 2:14 “having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. (NIV)

Colossians 2:14 “having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” (NAS)

Colossians 2:14 “erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross” (NRSV).

I think you can tell from the ASV, NIV, NRSV and NAS versions, that it was the charges, or the debt, or the “bond”, or the record of our transgressions (according to the law) - that was nailed to the cross.

We still use the expression today. He has paid his debt to society, or his debt to the law. We mean that the person has completed his sentence in prison.

It was common in the Roman Empire to post a placard over the accused at his execution, which listed the charges. Paul is referring to this custom. The charges against Christ were posted over His head - nailed to His cross. “King of the Jews” it read. The Sanhedrin tried to get Pilot to change it to “He said king of the Jews” but Pilot refused.

In the eyes of Heaven, OUR DEBT was posted over His head. It was OUR DEBT which He paid.

Isaiah 53:6 “All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (NKJ).

The record of our transgressions - NOT THE LAW ITSELF - was nailed to the cross.

There are several studies on the Law and Covenants posted on my website.

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[8thdaypriest]

The Scriptures may not say in so many words - "the sacrifices are no longer necessary for salvation" - but the author of Hebrews does write, "the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change of the law".

If you "change" the priesthood - from Aaronic to Melchizedek - there is NO PLACE to take an animal for sacrifice. The command in Deutermonomy required the sacrifice be brought to a priest of the order of Aaron, AT THE TEMPLE in Jerusalem.

There are some within the Hebrew Roots or Messianic community who do not accept the Book of Hebrews as inspired. This is why.

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpont

[JoeMo]

The term "Annointed One" in verses 25 and 26 could refer to Christ, or it could point to another "annointed one" (capitalization was added by translators). For example God referred to Cyrus as His annointed one (See Isaiah 45:1). Cyrus is not the annointed one referred to in Daniel 9.

[Samie]

Daniel 9:24-27 refers to Jesus the messiah, the prince, the anointed one, who during the last week of this 70 prophetic week would be cut-off, causing the oblation and sacrifice to cease, make reconciliation for iniquity, and end the dispensation of the Jews, with the gospel to go to the Gentiles

This is a beautiful , encompassing prophecy. Daniel 9:24-27 unmistakable refers to Jesus; his anointing, his mission, his death, and the end of the ceremonial law. Let us not through prejudice against Adventist doctrine in general force us to reject such clear evidence.

Let all the naysayers out there remember Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

If you think Dan 9:24-27 does not reveal the time and mission of the Messiah then you had better have some other prophetic verses that do just that or you put Amos in error and give the Jewish nation an excuse for not "knowing the time of their visitation".

Instead of dreaming up all kinds of objections to such clear texts, tell everyone which verses you feel are more relevant in prophesizing the time and mission of the Messiah.

One must be ready to defend his position via Scriptures rather than evade it, as you seem to do now. You posted, and objections came. Instead of addressing the objections, you simply insisted you are right, and that objectors to your position are simply dreaming.

To me, that's one sign of a closed mind, and a futile attempt to cover up what is indefensible from Scriptures.

[8thdaypriest]

This thread has moved waaaay off topic, and is now debating the 2300 evening/mornings.

Maybe you could start another thread on that topic?

I was interested in the 613 commands in the Torah,

and whether or not we can bring ALL of those commands into the New Covenant.

We have now debated about the sacrifice of animals and the Aaronic priesthood.

How about some of the other laws?

The "Nutrition Action Newsletter" last winter had a good article on pork, and how it is not healthy to consume.

Loved it!!

Anyone out there know if chicken is a "clean" meat, and if NOT - then can you explain why it's not.

Other than chicken being processed in China.

FoxNews had feature today about chicken grown in US being shipped all the way to China for processing.

Then flown back.

YUK!!! The label doesn't even have to say it's from China, because the birds were grown in the US.

Course - if chicken is unclean - then so are the eggs.

I like eggs. We have 9 chickens ourselves. We feed them flaxseed and fresh greens every day.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

#705039

Commonly known as the Lord's prayer.

""Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven."Matt 6:9,10

I concluded from this that since death is not going to reign in heaven or within God's will there, it is not necessary for me to subsist by killing His creation, and both abortion and slaughtering His creation are unnecessary here.

"What is the price of two sparrows--one copper coin? But not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it."Matthew 10:29 NLT

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The "Nutrition Action Newsletter"

Excellent publication. We have subscribed for years. I recommend it to all.

[Samie]

Hi Bro. Jackson,

I started another thread where we can discuss our issue without cluttering this thread of 8thdaypriest.

I posted my reply to your post on that new thread: " About The 70-Week Prophecy"

[Ron Amnsn]

And NO - I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT EVERY DNA DESCENDANT OF JACOB IS AN ISRAELITE. It's NOT about DNA. It's about faith.

"They are NOT all Israel who are of [descended from] Israel [Jacob]." ONLY those of faith are Israel.

You quote too selectively.

In Romans 9 Paul starts out by saying how earnestly he desires salvation for his brethren, the physical descendants of Jacob-- so much so that he wishes that he himself would be accursed from Christ if it would bring benefit to those unbelieving Israelites. That is the attitude toward Israel that Paul's true gospel brings. On the other hand, I detect that those who believe your "gospel" have already discarded the unbelieving Israelites as unworthy. That difference in attitude is a huge red warning flag that your interpretation of Paul's writings is not the same as Paul's interpretation of his own writings.

Then Paul continues in Romans 9:3 by saying that his unbelieving physical kinsmen are Israelites, who still own the adoption as sons, and still own the covenants, and still own the giving of the Law, and still own the promises, and who still are heirs of the Patriarchs. Paul wrote this a few decades after the Jewish leaders had already killed Jesus.

Then, just before the part you quoted Paul says, "it is not as though the word of God has failed"(verse 6). Yet you quote the next phrase as if the word of God actually has failed, and as if the promises of God have failed, and as if the covenant of God has failed.

Then Paul says, "They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." and gives the example of Ishmael (who was the son of Abraham using his flesh to produce offspring) in contrast to Isaac (who was the son that Abraham received totally through the promise of God). It is in this context that Paul says, "it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants". And most people quit reading right there so they can regard themselves as the true descendants of Abraham, as opposed to those unfaithful Jews that they have already discarded. But Paul wasn't finished writing. Paul goes on to tell us specifically which promise he was referring to-- "For this is a word of promise: 'At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.'" So according to Paul it was the descendants of Isaac that were the true descendants of promise, not the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's firstborn. And Paul goes on to show that it is the descendants of Jacob that are the children of promise, not the descendants of Esau, Isaac's firstborn. Thus it is by God's choice who inherits the promise (and what the lump of clay becomes).

Then Paul, writing to the Gentile and Jewish believers in Rome, makes the main point of the discourse. Paul declares that God has called the Gentiles also along with the Jews, and quotes from the Old Testament prophets to support his assertion. And what is it that Paul says is the evidence that Gentiles are chosen and have faith? That the Gentiles have "attained righteousness" (Romans 9:30) without pursuing it through the flesh (as Abraham produced Ishmael). This righteousness revealed in Gentiles is not different than the righteousness that is revealed in Jesus. It is not different than the righteousness revealed in Abraham. It is not different than the the righteousness revealed in the faithful remnant of Israel exemplified by the parents of John the baptizer, about which the New Testament tells us "they were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." (Luke 1:6) This righteousness is the result of being filled with the Spirit (Ezekiel 11:20, 36:27) as a result of the new covenant that God makes with Israel and Judah. The New Testament doesn't give us a different standard of righteousness than the Old Testament. If anything, the NT raises the bar by giving us the example of Jesus as the definition of righteousness.

Then Paul continues on in Romans 11:1-2 to declare, "I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew." Then after affirming that God preserves a faithful remnant in Israel, Paul says in verse 11, "I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous." Unfortunately, most modern Gentile believers are not living in a way that would make the unbelieving Jews jealous in any way.

Then Paul explains that through faith (which in Greek and Hebrew encompasses faithfulness) Gentile believers are grafted in to the root of Israel. They do not replace Israel, nor do they form a "church" that is separate from the literal Israelites.

Throughout this long discourse Paul repeatedly affirms that God's promises to the literal Israelites are still valid and that God can be merciful to those he chooses to be merciful to.

Then, speaking of the unbelieving Israelites Paul says, "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;" (Romans 11:28) That's because God still honors the promises that he made to "the fathers".

So which of the literal Israelites is it that Paul says are "not of Israel"? There are some branches that are cut off. According to the Scriptures there are certain sins that would result in people being "cut off from Israel". God knows which Israelites have been cut off, which have not been cut off, and which have been grafted back in to their own olive tree.

As Gentiles, we are privileged to be grafted in among the natural branches of Israel.

[Ron Amnsn]

1. Hebrews says "there is a change of the law" which includes a CHANGE of the priesthood.

It doesn't say "a change of the high priesthood". The entire priesthood is changed from Aaron/Levite to Melchizedek.

Again you quote too selectively. By quoting selectively you could "prove" almost anything.

Also, you reversed cause and effect, turning the result into the cause.

What Hebrews 7:12 says is, "For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also."

Is the author saying that the Law is being changed from the Law of Moses to Sharia Law or British law? Or is the author saying that the Word of God is no longer a reliable guide for living because God's Law has been changed in some unknown way and we have no reliable way of knowing how it was changed, so we each are free to change God's Law to suit ourselves? No. The author actually tells us what the change is.

If we just take the English translation from the NASB version that I quoted above, the author narrows down the possible changes considerably. He tells us that when the priesthood is changed the "change of law" happens because "of necessity", rather than by whim or because the Law was obsolete. So from the NASB the only changes in the Law that can possibly be suggested from this verse would be changes that are actually necessitated by a change in priesthood.

But digging a little deeper, a literal translation of the Greek doesn't seem to support any change to the law at all, but rather it says that the Law itself is what necessitates the change that occurs. The last part of the verse says literally, "from necessity and law a change happens". This interpretation is supported by the next verses in the passage, where the author refers to the laws concerning the priesthood:

"For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests."

And in Hebrews 8:14 the author again refers to the laws concerning the priesthood: "Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;"

Notice that the author speaks in the present tense about the Levitical priests who were still serving at the altar when Hebrews was written. The author affirms that the Law that prevents Jesus from being a priest on earth (because he was from the wrong tribe) and the Levitical priesthood were still both valid and unchanged at the time Hebrews was written (decades after the death of Jesus). That agrees totally with what the Old Testament says about the perpetuity of the Law and the priesthood given to Aaron and his descendents. It also shows that the the Levitical priesthood and the Melchizedekian priesthood were operating concurrently. Of course, we already knew that because clear back in Psalms 110 Jesus was declared "a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" at a time when the Levitical priesthood was in full operation.

But more importantly, this verse shows specifically what change is necessitated by the Law when Jesus became a priest. It is a change of location because, "if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all". Obviously, the heavenly Temple operates in a different jurisdiction under a different set of laws than the earthly Temple. That is an important change.

Going back to Hebrews 7:12 we find that a change of location is also mentioned there as well. In the phrase "When the priesthood is changed" the Greek word that is translated as "changed" has the connotation of a change of location.

So, what about Hebrews 7:18-19 where it says, "For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God."

What commandment is "set aside" because it is weak and useless? Since this is written to Jewish people who often discuss the relative importance of laws that come into conflict with each other in certain situations, we also need to ask what it means when they say a commandment is "set aside", "weak", and "useless". It means that in the instance under discussion a "stronger" law takes precedence for that situation. In this case, the author specifically mentions the law that does not apply. Two verses earlier in verse 16 he says, "not on the basis of a law of physical requirement" which refers to the lineage through Aaron and Phinehas which was a legal requirement for Levitical priests. And what takes precedence in this instance? The author specifies that too. It is the "power of an indestructible life" (as opposed to "weakness" and "useless" (or inapplicability) of the legal lineage requirement for Levitical priests).

When the he says this legal requirement was "set aside", "weak", and "useless" the author of Hebrews is not saying that it is permanently obsolete. As noted above, the author himself applies that same legal lineage requirement to earthly priests in verse 14 of the next chapter.

[8thdaypriest]

Questions for Ron:

Do you believe that Yeshua Messiah will reign on this earth during the upcoming 7th millennium?

Do you also believe that system of blood sacrifices will be restored, at a restored Temple at Jerusalem when Yeshua Messiah reigns on the earth?

How long will this system of blood sacrifice continue?

[BobRyan]

Questions for Ron:

Do you believe that Yeshua Messiah will reign on this earth during the upcoming 7th millennium?

Do you also believe that system of blood sacrifices will be restored, at a restored Temple at Jerusalem when Yeshua Messiah reigns on the earth?

How long will this system of blood sacrifice continue?

Is Ron not a Seventh-day Adventist??

Oh no wait! I see his icon says "Ron... not an SDA" -- ok never mind.

I also would like to know what he thinks of those issues.