[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Brasso

Sure helps to read the Bible. Fulfill here is to be taken for it's actual meaning, which is "to fill up". Not the RCC's definition which apparently means to end. The opposite of whet Messiah said in the first half of that sentence.

Ahhh, I see. You claim to infallibly know which of a range of meanings each particular word means in scripture.

I didn't know you had arrogated that particular authority to yourself.

I also wasn't aware that you were such an authority on Greek that you could correct all the translators who have made it their life's work to painstakenly determine what english word would best be used here.

Yes, the Greek word pleroo is sometimes used to mean fill up, as in Mt 13:48, but far, far more often it is used in the sense of fulfilment of prophesy or the like.

As it is here.

Mr 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."

Of course, your interpretation necessarily means that much of the NT is rendered non-sensical, but hey, you don't seem to be worried about context in the slightest.


St. Paul, for instance, keeps saying that we are not under the Law (Romans 3, 6, & 7, 1Cor 9 & 14, Galatians 3, 4, & 5 for example). You keep saying we are.

I choose to believe St. Paul. You are upset because he calls out you Judaisers as being against the Gospel. I agree again with St. Paul.

But, don't let the Bible get in the way of your religion.

The NT was produced by my religion.

Your religion merely distorts what we wrote.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

Ahhh, I see. You claim to infallibly know which of a range of meanings each particular word means in scripture.

I didn't know you had arrogated that particular authority to yourself.

I also wasn't aware that you were such an authority on Greek that you could correct all the translators who have made it their life's work to painstakenly determine what english word would best be used here.

Yes, the Greek word pleroo is sometimes used to mean fill up, as in Mt 13:48, but far, far more often it is used in the sense of fulfilment of prophesy or the like.

As it is here.

Mr 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."

Of course, your interpretation necessarily means that much of the NT is rendered non-sensical, but hey, you don't seem to be worried about context in the slightest.


St. Paul, for instance, keeps saying that we are not under the Law (Romans 3, 6, & 7, 1Cor 9 & 14, Galatians 3, 4, & 5 for example). You keep saying we are.

I choose to believe St. Paul. You are upset because he calls out you Judaisers as being against the Gospel. I agree again with St. Paul.


The NT was produced by my religion.

Your religion merely distorts what we wrote.

Wrong. The New Testament was written by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit and by men educated in the Old Testament. It was written by men who had a first hand experience with Jesus Christ.

He called people like, Peter, the man you base your whole religion on based on a misapplication of a few verses in Matthew 18. The reason he called Peter that, is because Peter was advocating circumcision and feast days as the basis of salvation rather than faith and trust in Jesus Christ. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the 10 Commandments which your religion decided to try to change by claiming authority that rightfully belongs to God alone.

God's eternal 10 Commandments were never done away with. They still exist. They don't save us. Jesus saves us. And this same Jesus says IF we love Him we should keep those commands because of love.

Also, you accuse us a a works based salvation, which we have never advocated.

But, tell me, as a Non-Catholic, who is by your definition a heretic, under your religion is there salvation for me? I cannot and will not perform the rites of the Catholic Church, therefore am I lost in your estimation?

I will never be buried on "hallowed" ground, receive last rights by a Catholic Priest, attend masse, recite the rosary, accept a communion where I am told the bread and juice are the actual flesh and blood of Christ, or receive absolution from a Catholic Priest. Based upon these "Works" and not keeping them, according to your religion will I be condemned to hell?

If I am, in your estimation condemned to hell for not performing these "works" then whose religion is really based on works rather than faith?

[Brasso]

St. Paul, for instance, keeps saying that we are not under the Law (Romans 3, 6, & 7, 1Cor 9 & 14, Galatians 3, 4, & 5 for example). You keep saying we are.

No. It's your ignorance of Scripture that keeps making false statements about what I say. I've never said such a thing. When it comes to the Word, you are unlearned. Even in the examples you gave above to supposedly disprove the definition of words, you disprove yourself.

I tire of correcting you and even more tired of your childish, ignorant responses. It's obvious you have no grasp of Scripture. Please quit embarrasing yourself.

If you want to say, "The Catholic Church says......", fine. But don't blaspheme yourself by attempting to tell us what the Bible says. Cause you have no clue what it says.

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. If that has not happened, then Jesus was untruthful or incapable.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

He did it.

Jesus used the reasoning of fulfilling to mean establishing in some ways. That is why He said :

Matthew 5:19 Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Why would Jesus teach that there was a blessing in doing and teaching the Commandments if they were no longer in force?

Jesus did not lie so by your reasoning it is ok for you to lie? Jesus kept the Seventh-day Sabbath. Does this mean that it is ok to desecrate that holy day?

What Jesus did was fulfill the prophecies concerning Him and one of those was to make the Law honorable.

Isaiah 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honorable.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Brasso

No. It's your ignorance of Scripture that keeps making false statements about what I say. I've never said such a thing. When it comes to the Word, you are unlearned. Even in the examples you gave above to supposedly disprove the definition of words, you disprove yourself.

I tire of correcting you and even more tired of your childish, ignorant responses. It's obvious you have no grasp of Scripture. Please quit embarrasing yourself.

If you want to say, "The Catholic Church says......", fine. But don't blaspheme yourself by attempting to tell us what the Bible says. Cause you have no clue what it says.

Your bluster is so very amusing. Thanks for the laugh!!

You're starting to sound like a cross between Vizzini from Princess bride and an enraged Barney Frank -- only less articulate.

I think your cognitive dissonance is about to make your head explode! I hope nobody's standing near you!

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

Jesus used the reasoning of fulfilling to mean establishing in some ways. That is why He said :

Matthew 5:19 Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Why would Jesus teach that there was a blessing in doing and teaching the Commandments if they were no longer in force?

He said THESE commandments. Those that He gave at the sermon on the mount.

Jesus did not lie so by your reasoning it is ok for you to lie?

Of course not. That's why I don't do so.

Jesus kept the Seventh-day Sabbath. Does this mean that it is ok to desecrate that holy day?

Jesus was born "under the Law".

Ga 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Get that? Those of us who don't insist on Judaising are redeemed from under the law, and are instead sons.

Why do you insist on being under the law, insist on being a slave, rather than being an adopted son of God?

Ga 4:7 So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.

What Jesus did was fulfill the prophecies concerning Him and one of those was to make the Law honorable.

Isaiah 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honorable.

He magnified the law by transforming it at the sermon on the mount (among other teachings). He also magnified the sabbath from one day per week to every day, and most particularly from celebrating the creation to celebrating the redemption (an act far greater even than the creation).

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

He said THESE commandments. Those that He gave at the sermon on the mount.

It is obvious that you are trying to distort the Bible verse for your own purposes. This is why men cannot be blindly trusted to interpret scripture.

This is the context of the Commandments that Jesus was talking about the Law and the prophets:

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

It is obvious that you are trying to distort the Bible verse for your own purposes. This is why men cannot be blindly trusted to interpret scripture.

This is the context of the Commandments that Jesus was talking about the Law and the prophets:

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

So, you think that not one little thing in the law or the prophets can change? That's your infallible interpretation?

How about circumcision, which is a huge deal in the law?
How about the granting of a divorce, which was allowed in the law?
How about the sacrificial system?
How about the mandate to kill adulterers, or people who disrespect their parents? Is that mandate still in effect?

[FCoulter]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

So, you think that not one little thing in the law or the prophets can change? That's your infallible interpretation?

How about circumcision, which is a huge deal in the law?
How about the granting of a divorce, which was allowed in the law?
How about the sacrificial system?
How about the mandate to kill adulterers, or people who disrespect their parents? Is that mandate still in effect?

http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_fullfilllaw.pdf

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

So, you think that not one little thing in the law or the prophets can change? That's your infallible interpretation?

How about circumcision, which is a huge deal in the law?
How about the granting of a divorce, which was allowed in the law?
How about the sacrificial system?
How about the mandate to kill adulterers, or people who disrespect their parents? Is that mandate still in effect?

All of the examples you mentioned are from the Book of the Law written by Moses. They are distinct from the Ten Commandments which was spoken and written by God Himself. That is why the Seventh-Day Sabbath is so important. The Seventh-Day Sabbath is the only commandment that points to the Creator as being the author of the moral law.

Deuteronomy 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
4:14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

Psalm 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

God's Covenant does not change. It is man that broke it, but that did not change it.

Isaiah 24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
24:6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by FCoulter

http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_fullfilllaw.pdf

Interesting how you correctly give the range of meanings of the Greek word, and then just "arbitrarily" pick, without any backup, the one meaning that happens to correspond with your pre-conceived notions. Hmmm ...

Of course, much of the rest of the article has misconceptions as its premesis.

But yet there's a grain of truth in it. The physical DOES preceed the spiritual. The SPIRITUAL meaning of the sabbath is fulfilled in Christ and in the celebration of the resurrection (redemption), rather than the celebration of the creation.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

All of the examples you mentioned are from the Book of the Law written by Moses. They are distinct from the Ten Commandments which was spoken and written by God Himself. That is why the Seventh-Day Sabbath is so important. The Seventh-Day Sabbath is the only commandment that points to the Creator as being the author of the moral law.

Are you moving the goalposts, or are you just honestly losing track of the argument?

YOUR argument was that by "not one jot or tittle" will change means that NOTHING in the law will change for all time.

I didn't ask whether the 10 commandments were distinct; that's a different argument. I think that the examples I gave show that many jots and tittles have changed, and so your interpretation of what Jesus meant is incorrect. I hope you're not arguing, nor trying to make it seem like I'm arguing, that Jesus was incorrect. No, I'm arguing that YOUR INTERPRETATION of what Jesus meant is incorrect.

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

Are you moving the goalposts, or are you just honestly losing track of the argument?

YOUR argument was that by "not one jot or tittle" will change means that NOTHING in the law will change for all time.

No I never said nothing would change for all time. That was Brasso. What Jesus said was that until they were fulfilled they would not change.

From the Bible:

Matthew
5:18 For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

That Sabbath rest has not yet been ushered in, therefore, the keeping of the Seventh-day Sabbath is still in effect and will continue even in the New Earth.

From the Bible:

Hebrews 4:9 There remains therefore a rest (keeping of a Sabbath) to the people of God.
4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

How do I know the Seventh-day is holy? God calls the Seveth day His holy day.
From the Bible:

Isaiah 58:13 If you turn away your foot from the sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words:
58:14 Then shall you delight yourself in the LORD; and I will cause you to ride on the high places of the earth, and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken it.

Isaiah

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

Are you moving the goalposts, or are you just honestly losing track of the argument?

YOUR argument was that by "not one jot or tittle" will change means that NOTHING in the law will change for all time.

I didn't ask whether the 10 commandments were distinct; that's a different argument. I think that the examples I gave show that many jots and tittles have changed, and so your interpretation of what Jesus meant is incorrect. I hope you're not arguing, nor trying to make it seem like I'm arguing, that Jesus was incorrect. No, I'm arguing that YOUR INTERPRETATION of what Jesus meant is incorrect.

It seems pretty plain to me:

Matthew 5:17-20, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."


Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law by keeping it perfectly, and then becomming the sacrifice for our salvation.

As far as the prophets are concerned:

Jesus fulfilled Old Testament Prophecies.avi - YouTube

Jesus fulfilled Old Testament Prophecies.avi - YouTube

You still haven't answered my question that I have posed to you. Because, I don't participate in the works of Catholicism: Being given last rites, being buried in "hallowed ground", not attending masse, not participating in a ceremony that states that bread and wine are made by a priest into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, or seeking absolution from a priest-do you say I will go to hell? If so, is this not a works based salvation?

We have stated that the Law of God is eternal, but we have never asserted that it is the means of salvation, that is only through our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 3:16-21, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ¹⁹ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. ²¹ But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."

However, we want to keep the law because of our love for Jesus.

John 14:15-21, "¹⁵ “If you love me, keep my commands. ¹⁶ And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ¹⁷ the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be^[c] in you. ¹⁸ I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. ¹⁹ Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. ²⁰ On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. ²¹ Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

John 14:23-25, " Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. ²⁴ Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
²⁵ “All this I have spoken while still with you. ²⁶ But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. ²⁷ Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."

Why are you angry with us? We are only professing what God has given us.

Revelation 12:17, "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring —those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

Why? Out of a need for a loving relationship with Jesus.

Don't you love Jesus too? If so, won't you want to please Him and keep His Commandments?

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

It seems pretty plain to me:

Matthew 5:17-20, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."


Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law by keeping it perfectly, and then becomming the sacrifice for our salvation.

Fine. So, the Mosaic Law is fulfilled, and we are no longer under that law, but the Law of Christ.

You still haven't answered my question that I have posed to you. Because, I don't participate in the works of Catholicism: Being given last rites, being buried in "hallowed ground", not attending masse, not participating in a ceremony that states that bread and wine are made by a priest into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, or seeking absolution from a priest-do you say I will go to hell? If so, is this not a works based salvation?

We don't say whether any particular person will go to hell or not. I'm not the judge.

We have stated that the Law of God is eternal, but we have never asserted that it is the means of salvation, that is only through our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 3:16-21, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. [SIZE=2][COLOR=darkred]¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ¹⁹

Yes. But as I have explained to you, look up the meaning of the word "believe" in the Greek. It means more than just plain "believe"; it also means to trust, to follow, to obey.

However, we want to keep the law because of our love for Jesus.

But some things, such as circumcision for the sake of salvation, will only work against the Law of Christ:

Ga 5:2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

If you're uncircumcised, stay that way. If you're circumcised, stay that way:
1Co 7:18 Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.

Therefore, it's not the OLD law that we are to keep, at least not the ceremonial and sacrificial portion.

Why are you angry with us? We are only professing what God has given us.

I'm not angry. I'm somewhat amused, albeit sometimes frustrated because the things you're professing are not FROM God.

Don't you love Jesus too? If so, won't you want to please Him and keep His Commandments?

Of course I love Jesus. That's why I feel the need to correct your errors about Him, His teaching, and His bride.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

Fine. So, the Mosaic Law is fulfilled, and we are no longer under that law, but the Law of Christ.

I am not referring to the ceremonial law that pointed toward Jesus, I am not referring to the civil law that governed Israel, we are talking about the moral eternal law of God.

We don't say whether any particular person will go to hell or not. I'm not the judge.

This is something we share in common.

Yes. But as I have explained to you, look up the meaning of the word "believe" in the Greek. It means more than just plain "believe"; it also means to trust, to follow, to obey.

Because we love Jesus we want to obey Him. We are told that if we have seen Him, we have also seen the father. Therefore, they are in concert in all things. Jesus never spoke against the 10 Commandments. Rather, He took us from the letter to the very spirit of the law.

But some things, such as circumcision for the sake of salvation, will only work against the Law of Christ:

Ga 5:2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

If you're uncircumcised, stay that way. If you're circumcised, stay that way:
1Co 7:18 Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.

Don't worry, no one is is suggesting you be circumcised, or anyone for that matter. For my part, I have been because I was born on a military base, and they did that to all the male children. I had that done to my son because I did not know how to instruct him how to clean his foreskin, considering I never had one.

Circumcision does not gain any meritorious reward from God toward salvation. On this we can also agree.

Therefore, it's not the OLD law that we are to keep, at least not the ceremonial and sacrificial portion.

You are correct, only the moral 10 Commandments remain.

I'm not angry. I'm somewhat amused, albeit sometimes frustrated because the things you're professing are not FROM God.

Again, something we share in common.

Of course I love Jesus. That's why I feel the need to correct your errors about Him, His teaching, and His bride.

Again, on this point we also agree. I suspect this is the most agreeable post we've ever shared.

[FCoulter]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I am not referring to the ceremonial law that pointed toward Jesus, I am not referring to the civil law that governed Israel, we are talking about the moral eternal law of God.





This is something we share in common.




Because we love Jesus we want to obey Him. We are told that if we have seen Him, we have also seen the father. Therefore, they are in concert in all things. Jesus never spoke against the 10 Commandments. Rather, He took us from the letter to the very spirit of the law.



Don't worry, no one is is suggesting you be circumcised, or anyone for that matter. For my part, I have been because I was born on a military base, and they did that to all the male children. I had that done to my son because I did not know how to instruct him how to clean his foreskin, considering I never had one.

Circumcision does not gain any meritorious reward from God toward salvation. On this we can also agree.



You are correct, only the moral 10 Commandments remain.



Again, something we share in common.



Again, on this point we also agree. I suspect this is the most agreeable post we've ever shared.

This is why the SDAs like other protestants are just daughter churches of the catholic church. You are closer than you think king.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by FCoulter

This is why the SDAs like other protestants are just daughter churches of the catholic church. You are closer than you think king.

Sorry, we are part of the continuing reformation, and in no wise a daughter of Catholcism.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Sorry, we are part of the continuing reformation, and in no wise a daughter of Catholcism.

More fruit of the doctrine of sola scriptura which you both claim to follow.

The resultant spirit of confusion is not of the Holy Spirit.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

More fruit of the doctrine of sola scriptura which you both claim to follow.

The resultant spirit of confusion is not of the Holy Spirit.

I have seen no scripture from him to substantiate that claim, so the error is not that of Sola Scriptura.

[Brasso]

Not one jot or tittle...

Who are you going to believe?

It's not spiritual. It's literal. It's as specific as it can get. Not one single yod. The very idea that it could pass away comes from your carnal minds, not the Bible. It comes from you twisting the Word to your own destruction.

[FCoulter]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

More fruit of the doctrine of sola scriptura which you both claim to follow.

The resultant spirit of confusion is not of the Holy Spirit.

There is more to being a Sola Scrip. Than just obeying some of Gods commands. A SDA does have alot more in common with the catholic church than they do a S.S. Let's look at both. S.S believe ALL scrpiture is God breathed,they obey ALL commands given by God not just the big 10. SDA dont keept Gods annual Sabbaths, neither does the CC. SDA are trinitarian same as the CC. Sola scrpt is NOT. The list goes on and on,SDA are a spin off of the RCC, keeping of easter,Christmas,And other pagan days the CC brought into christianity proves this

[ImpeachObama]

Fred, Methodist and Baptist were the original influence and faith of the original founders of SDA. Just because they don't keep the ceremonial laws, feasts and annual Sabbath days does not make them the consideration of a daughter church. Especially since many have done the dirty work of calling Romans out. Many will be awakened to truth and more truth when the right time comes. Many will also hold onto their traditions of old. Keeping Xmas and Easter? That's more of an individual's choice than the choice of the denomination I would say. Easy on the stone throwing.

[rgregoryb]

Originally Posted by FCoulter

This is why the SDAs like other protestants are just daughter churches of the catholic church. You are closer than you think king.

this is getting hilarious.......you really believe that your little tiny group is the real remnant church and all others are apostate..

[FCoulter]

Originally Posted by ImpeachObama

Fred, Methodist and Baptist were the original influence and faith of the original founders of SDA. Just because they don't keep the ceremonial laws, feasts and annual Sabbath days does not make them the consideration of a daughter church. Especially since many have done the dirty work of calling Romans out. Many will be awakened to truth and more truth when the right time comes. Many will also hold onto their traditions of old. Keeping Xmas and Easter? That's more of an individual's choice than the choice of the denomination I would say. Easy on the stone throwing.

I am sorry, I was not trying to cast stones. I was pointing out that the SDA church has more beliefs in common with the RCC than they do with a Sola Script church.As for keeping xmas,easter, or any other pagan celebration with Christ name on it, directly came to Christianity through the RCC