| Author | Message | ||
| Max |
Allenette again, Kuchar's fundamental error is the same as that of SDAs -- failure to recognize that Jesus Christ is as much God as the Father is! Once this realization is "plugged in" to his argument, it falls in upon itself of its own weight and fails to persuade. Blessings! | ||
| Max |
Lori, Two more texts that suport the teaching that God the Son IS the only perfect and complete moral law of God the Father: ^^Christ ... is the image of God." 2 Corinthians 4:4 NIV. ^^Anyone who has seen me [Jesus] has seen the Father.^^ John 14:9 NIV. Be of good cheer! | ||
| Lori |
Hi, Max, You may have to explain a little further why you are offering me further proof that Jesus Christ is God.......I agree with that completely. I don't see "moral" and "representative" as interchangeable terms like you seem to be using them. The definitions of each word don't denote them as exactly synonymous........do they? I've got a busy week, so it may be a few days before I can "check in" again, but I'll be back to read your answer........later. Lori | ||
| Max |
Greetings Lori, Of course we already know that Jesus is God. Now we need to expand our ideas of what the relationship is between God the Father and God the Son. 1.The Son is the IMAGE of the Father. NIV COLOSSIANS 1:15. ì[Our Lord Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.î NIV 2 CORINTHIANS 2:4. ìChrist ... is the image of God.î 2. He is the HUMAN LIKENESS of the Father in SERVANT FORM. PHILIPPIANS 2:6-7. ì[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking on the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.î 3. He was the LIGHT of the Father illuminating earth. NIV JOHN 12:45-56. ìWhen [a man] looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. I have come into the world as a light....î 4. ALL THE FULLNESS of the Father (as well as of the Holy Spirit) dwelt in him. NIV Colossians 2:9. "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." 5. He is the RADIANCE and the EXACT REPRESENTATION of the Father NIV HEBREWS 1:1-3. ìIn the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets [for example, Moses giving the Ten Commandments], but in these last days [69 AD] he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of Godís glory and the exact representation of his being.î 6. The Father did HIS WORK through the Son. NIV JOHN 14:9-10. ìAnyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ëShow us the Fatherí? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.î 8. He even bore the Father's NAME. NIV ISAIAH 9:6. ìHe [the son to be born] will be called ... Everlasting Father....î CONCLUSION The point, Lori, is that our friends the Adventists are using Ellen White's statement that the Ten Commandments (and other Old Testament laws) are the "transcript of God's character" to enforce Sabbath-keeping, tithe-paying, ham-shunning, jewelry-shunning, wine-shunning and people-shunning (SDA remnant doctrine) behaviors. And, believe me, they would include circumcizing also if Paul had not spoken out so adamantly against it! But nowhere in Scripture is the idea that the Ten Commandments (and the other Old Testament laws) are "the transcript of God's character." Scripture makes a very different case, as we have seen in the eight texts above (and others). The case that Scripture makes is that the Ten Commandments (and other OT laws) are NOT the transcript of God's character. They are nothing more than imperfect, incomplete and temporary SHADOWS pointing the the perfect, complete and eternal spiritual reality of Jesus Christ and His Commandments. In Scripture the closest we can come to the prhase "transcript of God's character" is the phrase "exact representation of his being." Now I have nothing against Jesus Christ on earth being the "transcript of God's character" in human flesh, although I prefer the scriptural phrase "exact representation of his being." So if Christ -- not the Ten Commandments -- is "the transcript of God's character," then we should look to Christ's Commandments rather than the Ten Commandments (and other OT laws) for guidance in our believer's life of loving obedience to God. For nowhere in the Commandments of Jesus are found Sabbath-keeping, tithe-paying, ham-shunning, jewelry-shunning, wine-shunning, people-shunning (SDA remnant teaching) and circumcizing behaviors! Therefore, if the Ten Commandments (and other OT laws) do not completely, perfectly and eternally represent God the Father, then we should look to Christ rather than to them. And if Jesus Christ and his Commandments do represent "the transcript of God's character," then Sabbath-keeping, tithe-paying, ham-shunning, jewelry-shunning, wine-shunning, people-shunning (remnantizing), and circumcizing behaviors are simply not on the true believer's obedience list. Many Adventists know they are in bondage and may well be open to receiving this truth. But being unaware of this truth, they accuse us (FAF and other Christ followers) of doing away with God's moral law. And then, they say, "You can go out and do anything you want," meaning lawless behavior and the casting off of all moral restraint. They need to be convinced by Scripture alone that since Christ came, all lawful behavior and all moral restraint are exactly and permanently contained in Christ and His Commandments. These the Holy Spirit has written on our hearts. And we show them by our loving behaviors toward one another. In real grace, Max of the Cross | ||
| Max |
Patti, Cindy, Lori, Allenette, ... , and any I may have missed, God bless you all! It's been sheer delight trading Scriptures with you! Max of the Cross | ||
| Terry |
Max, Are you saying that all 613 commandments of the Old Law deal only with mores? Just curious..not trying to start an argument, but many Christians say that the so-called "603" were just ceremonial. We know that it isn't so, yet there were some that dealt with 'ceremonial' cleanliness. Are these to be considered moral commands, as well? Just wanted to know your thoughts. Terry | ||
| Max |
Hi Terry, No I'm not saying that all 613 OT commandments deal only with mores. "Mores" has two definitions (and I'm not sure which sense you're using): (1) "the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group," in this case "the Israelites." This sense could include ceremonial-religious laws, such as, "Do not erect a sacred stone [to another god], Deuteronomy 16:22. Imagine a law like that in the USA today were there is separation of church and state. For example, no Hindu temples allowed in America? Personally, I'd vote against any such law. (2) "habits" or "manners" generally. In ancient Israel there was a law, "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together," Deut. 22:11. There is no obvious health or moral or sacrificial or religious principle in operation here. It seems to be simply a custom. Yet it had the force of law, and observant Jews keep it to this very day. In ancient Israel there was no separation between church and state, and so religious laws were mixed in and mixed up with civil laws. Laws that are obviously health regulations had the enforcement of God behind them. For example: NIV Deuteronomy 23:9 When you are encamped against your enemies, keep away from everything impure. 10 If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there. 11 But as evening approaches he is to wash himself, and at sunset he may return to the camp. 12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. 14 For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you. Imagine a law like that imposed on General Patton and his mechanized 3rd Army when he was storming from Italy to the German border in WWII to rescue U.S. and British troops pinned down in "the Battle of the Bulge"? It boggles the mind! These are enough of my thoughts for now. What are your thoughts? | ||
| Bruceh |
Terry How About The Two Greatest Commandments. Commandmnet 418 (of the 613 commandments) deut 6:5 You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind. or Commandment 243 (of the 613 commanndments) Lev 19:18 You shall Love your neighbor as yourself. Notice that the Two Greatest Commandments ar in the Boobk of the Law or the 613 Commandments and not a part the Big Ten Commandments. There is no such thing as moral, cerimonial, and civil Law, it is all THE LAW or the Torah or the Whole Law. These distinctions are the works of mans philosophy and thinking, if I am wrong show me from the BIBLE where it say otherwise. Bruce Heinrich | ||
| Max |
I agree, Bruce. The Old Testament recognizes no distinctions or separations among moral, ceremonial and civil laws. All are intermingled. For example, when sick you didn't go to a doctor, you went to a priest! Nor does the New Testament, when speaking of the OT "law," make any such distinctions. It was all a single unit. | ||
| Bruceh |
Max This has been a problem with the Church, we think that civil matters should be settled in the secular court rather then in the Church, that healing should be done in the hospital and not in the Church (I do not mean we do not need the Hospital and medical sevices), that moral law are determined by Government and not the Church. We need to put these all back in the Church where they belong. Bruce Heinri | ||
| Lori |
I've never been taught that the 10 commandments represented the character or attributes of God. They were simply, THE LAW. I understand you wanting to point others away from the law and to Christ but I don't think that using terms, that aren't exactly the same, to get your point across is the right approach to use. Christ being "the exact representation of the image of God"--and the subsequent conclusion that you are using the word "moral" as an equal to the term of representation--(Christ is the exact moral of the image of God(?)) These words aren't the same. You never answered my question as how you could use the two different words--as one. Furthermore, it seems by reading what you did post(and also finding the same post in other discussions without the addition of my name, but otherwise the same) that you are only "leading" others for the strict purpose of accomplishing your own agenda. What is going on with you? You can't "beat" an Adventist out of legalism. That's not the way you got out, is it? I know it's not the way I got out. Come on, Max, a "computer stick" just isn't going to do it. | ||
| Max |
Hi Lori, I don't know for sure whether your post was directed in my direction, but I think it was. At any rate here's evidence from one of SDA's all-time apologists and spokespersons: M.L. Andreasen ^^The picture, then, is that of a court scene. God's government is at stake. Satan is the accuser; God Himself is the accused and is on trial. He has been charged with injustice, with requiring His creatures to do that which they cannot do, and yet punishing them for not doing it. The law is the specific point of attack, but the law being merely a TRANSCRIPT OF GOD'S CHARACTER, it is God and His character that are the points at issue.^^ Source: "God's Demonstration," www.biblerevelations.org/cosmic_war/god_de monstration If you need more evidence of this foundational SDA teaching, I'll be happy to provide it. | ||
| Max |
Hi Lori, I'm confused about your question: ^^You never answered my question as how you could use the two different words--as one. ^^Christ being "the exact representation of the image of God"--and the subsequent conclusion that you are using the word "moral" as an equal to the term of representation -- (Christ is the exact moral of the image of God(?)) These words aren't the same.^^ I'm a bit confused as to exactly what your question is, but I'll answer as best I can: No, I don't believe "moral" and "image" are the same. And I have never posted otherwise. | ||
| Max |
Lori again, I'm not wanting to point others away from the law and toward Christ. I'm trying to point others to the fact that the end of the law is Christ, that the law is a shadow pointing to Christ, that the law is a tutor (even babysitter!) leading to Christ, that Christ fulfilled the law completely and then some, and many other similar points -- but never to point others away from something that is pointing to Christ. | ||
| Max |
To all: THE TALL PALM TREE IN THE DESERT Ever been out on a flat desert at sunrise and seen the long shadow of a tall palm tree? Even if you don't see the tree, you see the shadow clearly and starkly. And if you follow the shadow you arrive at the tree. Very simple. You no longer need the shadow to find the tree anymore once you arrive at the tree. Your arrival doesn't mean the shadow disappears. It's still there and it still points to the tree. Nor do you need the shadow any more in order to enjoy the tree's benefits -- drink the juice from its coconuts (if it is a coconut palm) or eat its fruit (if it is a date palm). But the shadow remains, lifeless and unbeneficial. Except for its pointing function, which remains valid. For example, in case you got lost again in the night, at sunrise the shadow would lead you right back to the tree again. Blessings to all! | ||
| Max |
SDAs say: LAW = TRANSCRIPT OF GOD'S CHARACTER ^^Everyone's life and character will come before the judgement. The basis of the judgement is the Law of God (Eccl. 12:13,14). The Law of God is a transcript of God's character. Its purpose is to reveal how we are to love God and mankind.^^ Source: John W. Fowler, "The Fate of the Lost and the Fires of Hell," It Is Written Prophecy Seminar, Seventh-day Adventist Church, posted July 13, 1998. http://www.tagnet.org/fowler98/Meeting%2013 %20Notes.htm | ||
| Max |
EGW: 10C = "Transcript of God's Character" "We have only glimmering light in regard to the exceeding breadth of the law of God. The law spoken from Sinai is a TRANSCRIPT OF GOD'S CHARACTER. Many who claim to be teachers of the truth have no conception of what they are handling when they are presenting the law to the people, because they have not studied it; they have not put their mental powers to the task of understanding its significance." Ellen G. White, "The Relation of Christ to the Law Is Not Understood," Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, February 4, 1890, paragraph 1. | ||
| Max |
EGW "Transcript of God's Character" references equating the Ten Commandments to it. That I May Know Him, page 366, paragraph 2 Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, June 17, 1895, paragraph 3 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Feburary 4, 1890, paragraph 1 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 25, 1899, paragraph 10 The Signs of the Times, Feburary 13, 1893, paragraph 1 The Signs of the Times, June 13, 1900, paragraph 7 The Signs of the Times, November 30, 1904, paragraph 6 The Signs of the Times, December 15, 1914, paragraph 1 Manuscript Releases Volume Fourteen, page 347, paragraph 2 | ||
| Cindy |
Max, Yes..., I have always heard that the 10 Commandments were the "transcript of God's character"... and I've been thru dozens of evangelistic "crusades" and "net" meetings as well as being surrounded by relatives who are or have been Adventist pastors. Enjoyed your palm tree illustration! Why do so many point to the shadow instead of the reality of Christ? So many think we need to know specifics on how to live the Christian life...and that the 10 Commandment Law clearly spells it out! And they put so much emphasis in the fact that it was written by the finger of God, in STONE! I think there is such a limitation to the Sinai Law. So much more depth is found in the New Covenant. And the fact that the New Covenant will be written on our HEARTS is so much of a BETTER PROMISE!! The promises in Ezekial 11 and 36 are great!! "I will give them an undivided heart"... "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you"... "I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." So what's so great about stone? The only wonderful One is the "stumbling stone"...JESUS!! I love these words, "You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire, to darkness, gloom and storm, to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: 'If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.' The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, 'I am trembling with fear.' But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. YOU HAVE COME TO GOD, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to JESUS THE MEDIATOR OF A NEW COVENANT, and to the SPRINKLED BLOOD that speaks a BETTER word than the blood of Abel." Hebrews 12: 18-24 We can come BOLDLY to the throne of GRACE because of Jesus' perfect and complete life, death, and resurrection for us! What a contrast these texts show! Grace always, | ||
| Max |
Lori, I finally see what I think may be the problem concerning use of the word "moral" and "image." In the first place I see now that you were comparing "moral" with "representative," not with "image," although that may be a distinction without a difference, as the saying goes. I said, ^^God the Son IS the only perfect and complete moral law of God the Father.^^ I said, ^^"Christ ... is the image of God." 2 Corinthians 4:4 NIV.^^ And I quoted, ^^NIV HEBREWS 1:1-3. ì.... The Son is the radiance of Godís glory and the exact representation of his being.î Then you said, ^^I don't see "moral" and "representative" as interchangeable terms like you seem to be using them.^^ The terms I was using interchangeably were "moral law" and "representation," not "moral" and "representation." "Moral," by itself, is an adjective in this context, whereas "representation" is a noun. But grammatically "moral law" functions as a noun, and so I was using two nouns interchangeably. I was not using an adjective interchangeably with a noun. Does this clear up the confusion? Blessings only, Max |
