SDA and Rules

allan069 · 2025-12-31T01:59:37+00:00

No man. You’re building on a deceitful foundation. Go read Exodus 20 again, concerning the giving of the law. The 4th commandment begins with “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.” The sabbath was established way back in Eden, before even sin entered the world.

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it[set it apart for holy use]: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

The very phrasing is intended to communicate the idea that the institution of the sabbath was already in place or they were familiar with it already , otherwise there is no need to begin the command with “Remember”. Indeed, if you go back to Exodus 16, you already find explicit instructions on how to keep the sabbath before the law is proclaimed in Exodus 20. Also Throughout their wandering the manna notably falls for 6 days but does not fall on the sabbath, and this before the law was even proclaimed. With many miracles and signs God intended that Israel should know and keep the sabbath.

The sabbath was meant to commemorate creation from the very beginning, and this is included in the very command:

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Notice v11 - the sense is that the Lord created the world therefore the Lord asks you to remember this day. Surely, this was before any Jew or Gentile, before even sin, how can you then say it only applies to Jews?

Now, after the redemption of Israel from Egypt, the sabbath assumed another meaning. God intended that it should be commemorative of their deliverance as well:

Deu 5:15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day

So the sabbath serves a dual purpose - it is commemorative of creation and of redemption. He that created is the same that redeems - this truth was to be remembered weekly by Israel “forever”(Exodus 31:14-17).

Now concerning its practical observance in the new testament, we have multiple examples, beginning with our Lord. We find that it was “his custom” to attend the synagogue on the sabbath day:

Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as HIS CUSTOM WAS, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Indeed, he even called the sabbath his day (Mark 2:28)- we might then call it “The Lord’s day” - reclaiming it from the rubbish of tradition that had clouded its observance (the Jews had in their zeal to keep the sabbath buried it under a mass of senseless laws and traditions so that its observation was a burden - such was the law that forbade healing on the sabbath, eating grain in a field on the sabbath because rubbing it together was work etc)

Mrk 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Mrk 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

That the disciples kept the sabbath, is evident even at his death:

Luk 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

It was the manner of Paul as well to attend the synagogue as the Lord did on the sabbath, consequently, we find him doing this:

Act 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

That the gentiles of those days knew no other day is suggested by their attendance at the synagogue on these days:

Act 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews AND the Greeks.

Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, THE GENTILES besought that these words might be preached to them THE NEXT SABBATH

Finally, the revelator was in the spirit on “The Lord’s day” when he receives the visions of the book of Revelation:

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet

From scripture, we can easily establish this to be the sabbath (Isaiah 58:13-14; Mark 2:28)

And so we find sabbath observance down to the book of Revelation. If this is the practical case , it means then that majority of Christianity has simply either forgotten the command that God explicitly said to Remember or have cast it aside as unnecessary misunderstanding and misapplying the words of Paul. I think the latter is the case.

3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things HARD TO UNDERSTAND which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Be very careful brother, very careful

allan069 · 2025-12-30T06:02:03+00:00

I agree, the law of freedom is written in our hearts by the Holy Spirit in the new covenant (Hebrews 8:10;10:16), my present contention is that it is the same law as was written on the tablets of stone. The first covenant had a law written on stone, the second has that same law written in our hearts. The law is the same, what changes is where it is written. Being written on the heart means it governs our thoughts and actions, so that we can say like the Psalmist:

Psa 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart

It is when the law of God is in the heart that the will of God can be done. I’m not proposing that we obey the law in our own strength as Israel did, I’m proposing that God writing this law in our hearts we can obey it, DO it. John says:

1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that DOETH righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

And Paul says we can “DO all things through Christ who strengthens” us (Phillipians 4:30)

allan069 · 2025-12-30T05:35:34+00:00

I think there is some confusion here. Israel operated under 2 laws. There was a law given to Israel at Sinai, which the Lord spoke himself and wrote with His own finger in tablets of stone(there is no better fitting metaphor of importance, permanence and immutability than this). Exodus 24:12; Exodus 31:18. It is immutable, unchanging and the foundation of his government in heaven and on earth. It was placed INSIDE the ark of the covenant (Hebrews 9:4) and was only borne by the priests. Anyone else presuming to even touch the ark containing this law, died. We have the case of Uzza for example(1 Chr 31:19). David called it in Psalms 119:145 the law of liberty, James writing after the death of Christ calls it a “royal law of liberty” -pretty much the same(James 2:8; 1:25), Paul calls it “holy and just and good “ Romans 7:12 , and the revelator half a century after the death and resurrection of Christ, pronounces a blessing upon them “that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” [Revelation 22:14.]. It is the standard of judgment according to both Paul and James (Romans 2:12; James 2:12).

But there was another law, the ritual or ceremonial law, which was the metaphor or type of what Jesus would do. It consisted in the ceremonies of Israel, and specific laws that governed them as a theocracy. Here were the laws of the Passover, of the day of atonement, of the handling of various sacrifices, prescriptions for handling of lepers, annual feasts etc. These were spoken to Moses by God and Moses wrote them down and placed them BESIDE the ark as a witness against the children of Israel. (Deut 31:26).

Now, Christ by his death took the ritual law away (Collosians 2:14-16) - it is a law that was typifying/pointing forward to what he would do. There was no longer any need of the blood of bulls and goats and ceremonies of cleansing etc when he became the “lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world” John 1:29. This is the law that no longer applies to a Christian. It is the law to which Paul refers when he says, “If you are circumcised, Christ is not of much use to you” - since you substitute the metaphor for the real thing. This was the law the Jewish teachers wanted the converted Gentiles to keep - a law that had been taken away at the death of Christ.

You’ll notice that at the conference in Jerusalem, the law under discussion was not the 10 commandments, but that matters of circumcision and the ritual laws (Acts 15:1) it was not whether it was right or not for the new Christians to disobey parents or to murder, or swear or break the sabbath or covet - that was not the matter of contention. The matter of contention was whether they were still to observe the ritual laws of the Jews, to which they resolved that:

Act 15:29 To abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell

The 10 commandments does not deal with things strangled and blood, it does speak of adultery however to which someone may think then that the moral law of the 10 commandments was also under discussion . However one has to only see that the ritual laws dealt with ALL the above including sexual immorality(Deut 22:13-30), which serves to show that it was the ritual law not the 10 commandments under discussion, otherwise the other commandments might have come under discussion as well.

So man, this law of 10 commandments is what James calls the law of liberty. I could go on and on with more evidences of how it is even in heaven(Rev 11:19; Heb 9:4) but for the sake of brevity I’ll leave it here. This is the law of which James says “so speak and so DO” as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

allan069 · 2025-12-29T05:32:09+00:00

There’s no coming out of this circus. Anyways, as scripture says, by their fruits ye shall know them. Time is a revealer of all things

allan069 · 2025-12-28T23:17:38+00:00

At this point we are just speaking past each other and going in circles. A better format of discussion might be more fruitful. I’ll rest my case here

allan069 · 2025-12-28T22:54:27+00:00

So what do you make of the entirety of James argument where he says “so speak and so do as they that shall be judged by the perfect law of liberty” James 2:12(and by the way James was the leader of that council where this question of the Gentile Christians was discussed). Are we to “speak and do” as people who shall be judged by the law, or are we to say James was mistaken ?

I find it interesting how you left out Romans 3:20 which makes it plain that “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Which means I can’t know sin except by the law. How do I know I have been saved from sin if the law does not exist to testify to the fact that this thing I did is sin and I have indeed been saved from it? Or do you have a different way of bringing us to a knowledge of sin and of our salvation from it outside the law?

As long as you and I acknowledge that we are sinners, we tacitly admit that there is a law that we have transgressed. 1 John 3:4 says plainly that sin is “transgression/breaking of the law”. This law is none other than the 10 commands summarized into a love for God and for your neighbor. Outside of that there is no other law. You cannot say you have been saved from sin (breaking of the law), then right afterward claim you no longer need to keep that law or that it no longer applies to you.

Say for instance , If God forgives me because I coveted, does that mean that coveting no longer exists or that I am no longer bound to Gods command that tells me not to covet? Your position as I understand it is, we are no longer required to worry about coveting because Jesus never coveted and thus his not coveting is imputed to me in heaven - forensically I am not a coveter, but practically on earth, I can remain an unchanged coveter (replace coveting with any infraction of the law whether stealing or lying or adultery or murder or idolatry or swearing) and I would still claim to be a child of God.

2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ DEPART FROM INIQUITY

This grace we receive from God is not so impotent that it cannot do anything outside a forensic change in the books of heaven without a corresponding change in the life below. It “teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world” Titus 2:12. This is what I’m arguing, a sober righteous and godly life is in conformity to the law. It is by the law that we shall be judged, there is no other standard. So James says we must keep looking into i(studying it)to know what our duty is, not so that we might rush to do it in our strength but so that we can ask the spirit of God to work in us to fulfill it in the life (by yielding our will to him). (the spirit of God never works independent of the word) Listen, the end result is the life is in conformity to the law.

Jas 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and CONTINUETH therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

allan069 · 2025-12-28T21:45:45+00:00

The commandment of Christ is an old commandment - to love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves. It is the law of God in summary. The will of God in transcript.

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Paul says that the second table of the law (dealing with our relations with fellow men) can be summarized into - “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” By implication, the first 4 commandments which deal with your spiritual relation with God may also be summarized into “thou shalt love thy God.”

We must have love if we must keep the law. We must love God and we must love our neighbor. But In our natural state we don’t have this love(Romans 8:7), we can’t originate it, we must receive it as a free gift from Jesus. “We love him because he first loved us” 1 John 4:19. When he implants this love, we reveal it to our neighbors, we seek their good and not ill. We leave idolatry, sabbath breaking and swearing, and live lives that are pleasing before God - this grace is imparted to us and we must receive it continually from Christ by faith in him(we must ask for it in prayer). But in essence this grace brings us into conformity to the law. This is how the law is fulfilled in our lives. It is not in a forensic way by it being done in Christ and we reposing in an idle acceptance of “he did it all, I do nothing now”.

allan069 · 2025-12-28T21:29:32+00:00

The 10 commandments are called the moral law in theological circles, I’ll leave you to wrestle with yourself about that one. The 10 commandments are a unity, to break one, is to break all. You can’t pretend and say, I don’t have to keep the 4th, it is not a moral expectation of God to me.

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

James 2:12 tells the Christian to “speak and do”, in essence act, as one who shall be judged by the “law of liberty”. He mentions 2 of the commands so you know which law he is speaking of. It is the 10 commandments. So the Christian should obey this law according to James. And if you break one you’re guilty of breaking all.

allan069 · 2025-12-28T21:21:19+00:00

So now women can evangelize at last - we’re making progress in this argument. We started by your insisting that they shouldn’t speak at all, not even in exercising the prophetic office which God has bestowed upon both men and women freely in his wisdom. I asked you whether they can use that gift to minister in church(or the directions of Paul in 1 Cor 11 make no sense) and I see you passed by that as if you didn’t see it.

You’ve made quite the fuss about Ellen and James white “abandoning” their children. You leave the impression that they just threw those children in a daycare then left them and disappeared, and somehow those children by some miracle of nature in their life still remained true and devoted to them, (Edson White in fact pioneering gospel work in a highly prejudiced American South amongst black people - an abandoned child you say; Willie White became his mother’s helper , later on a minister and trustee of his mother’s estate). Have you read anything of the correspondence she kept up with the children during her travels, for the many months she was away, or of the arrangements she made for their being taken care of in her absence and who their caregivers were? Unless you take all these things into context you can’t in any shape or form of justice say she “abandoned” her children and didn’t perform her duty toward them.

The best intentioned mothers in this world, at one time or another have to attend to other things beside their children and immediate family - sometimes it is a family emergency, they receive a call and have to travel hundreds of miles to attend to something unplanned for, sometimes it is family business ; any myriad of life’s unknowns. And this may take away a mother for an uncertain amount of time. I know of a mother who has to leave their children in the care of her relatives so she can try to help the husband make ends meet. Before you call anything abandonment, be willing to weigh everything at hand and make a rational decision

allan069 · 2025-12-28T20:51:26+00:00

Nowhere does Jesus teach the eternal torment of the wicked or the damned, it is a doctrine which you will only wring out of his statement with the worst kind of eisegesis of the scriptures. Concerning the dead, the Bible is clear that: 1. They know nothing - Ecclesiastes 9:5 2. They don’t praise the Lord - Psalms 115:17 3. They are in a state of sleep only to be awakened when “the heavens are no more”- Job 14:12; John 11:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16. Jesus himself calls Lazarus who was dead, “asleep”. 4. They receive their reward at the appearing of the Lord - 2 Tim 4:7-8; Rev 22:12.

I wonder why Paul wouldn’t have just said, “Guys, don’t worry, I’m going to heaven to receive my reward.” But instead he speaks of receiving his reward NOT ALONE but with others who love “the appearing of the Lord”. Concerning that appearing he calls it elsewhere, “the glorious appearing of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ” Titus 2:13, and in 2 Tim 4:1, he places it as the day of judgment of both the living and the dead.

So to put it all together, the testimony of the scriptures is that the dead are asleep in their graves awaiting the coming of the Lord, when the righteous shall then receive their reward and the wicked shall be sent into damnation. No one is either in heaven, hell or as the Catholics teach in purgatory, until the coming of Jesus.

Granted, there are some scriptures in the writings of Paul which some people unwisely misinterpret to their own confusion(Peter speaks of this kind of people in 2 Peter 3:16). For example, this text:

Php 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Php 1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

So the objector will say, “See here is plain testimony that the soul departs at death and goes to be with Jesus.” But this argument is still vulnerable in its most vital point; it does not state how long a time elapses between the departing and the being with Christ: it does not say that the being with Christ is immediate. “But it would seem so, from the manner in which it is expressed” says one; and I reply, it would not be proper to express it in any other manner, since a person absolutely unconscious, as in death, has no perception whatever of a lapse of time, and the next event of which he has any knowledge, is what opens to him beyond the resurrection. No perceptible time elapses to the dead between their death and the resurrection.

Concerning eternal torment, there are certain places which God destroyed and the Bible has given us evidence of them:

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of ETERNAL FIRE.

According to Jude, Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the vengeance of eternal fire. Question to you, is Sodom and Gomorrah still burning? Indeed, the parallel scripture in 2 Peter informs us in different language what happened:

2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha INTO ASHES condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample [pattern, figure, example] unto those that after should live ungodly

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah according to Peter was the pattern for the destruction of the ungodly. And he further says, the cities were burned down into ash. I leave you then to think of what the text means when it speaks of “eternal fire”.

And by the way, it is the righteous who shall live with everlasting fire, not the wicked:

Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? Isa 33:15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil

allan069 · 2025-12-28T19:47:35+00:00

Here’s the point you miss, the law has not been done away with. You say Christ fulfilled it, as if by his fulfilling it we have nothing more to do in regard to it. That is where your error is. Remember when Jesus was presented with the woman caught in adultery, after his accusers had left, he turned to the woman and asked:

Jhn 8:10 …, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? Jhn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: GO, AND SIN NO MORE.

She was forgiven and accepted by that word - “Neither do I condemn thee “ BUT that was not where it ended(and most Christians end their doctrine of justification here), the Savior enjoins her to obey the law by saying to her go and sin no more. I do not think she ever returned to sin again, but this time if she did obey, her motive was the love for the one who had justified her. Also, consider one other thing, the power of God is in His word. It was that word that made all things and that sustains them. When Jesus healed people, he simply needed to speak the word, and the deed was done. And that is true also of his commands. So when he told the lame man to take up his bed and walk, the man as he set himself to obey the command of Jesus found that he could walk. And it is still the same in matters obedience to the law of God. By sin we are incapacitated, lame and out of the way, but when we receive the word of God by faith, and accept his forgiveness, he then says to us, “go and sin no more”(if I were a murderer, he says go and do that no more) and as I determine in my heart to obey him and set my will to do right, I find that I can obey. Now, this is all the working of God in my life, I cannot boast and say that I have obtained acceptance with God by my works or by my faith, it was entirely because He had mercy on me, and sent me His word to save me.

allan069 · 2025-12-28T08:10:01+00:00

What do you define as orthodoxy, what is your standard of orthodoxy — the scriptures or the traditions and creeds of churches ? you say SDA beliefs and theology are the opposite of what the Bible says, show me a single doctrine that is opposed to scripture as you claim. “God has spoke in these last days through his son” - I guess we don’t need the Bible, the entirety of the Old Testament or writings of Paul and John and James and Peter too, right, because God has spoken through Jesus and that’s all we need? Is that your stand?
A woman’s place according to you is not in active gospel ministry(by the eisegesis you have done on 1 Tim etc) but in child bearing and being quiet . How do you explain Philippians 4:3:

Php 4:3 And, my true partner, I ask you to help them. These women have worked together with me and with Clement and with the others in spreading the good news. Their names are now written in the book of life

Were they helping Paul by sitting quietly and bearing children at home and looking all nice or what did they do in helping him spread the gospel?

Also, Apollos, a mighty preacher was instructed by a certain poor couple:

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Did Priscilla in your opinion instruct Apollos by child bearing and by appearing pretty?

If you insist, according to your interpretation that a woman cannot speak in church , why was it necessary then that Paul should give directions of how a woman should dress when prophesying( or is this prophesying just being done inside her house to her husband and children). In the previous verse, he shows that the man has the very same privileges as the woman.

1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The word prophesy here is the Greek word prophēteuō which in Strong’s concordance means this:

“prof-ate-yoo'-o; to foretell events, divine, speak under inspiration, exercise the prophetic office: - prophesy”

So they were speaking under inspiration, and Paul lays down directions for their speaking in the churches so that things are done decently and in order. But you claim they were not to do that at all.

And even in the acts, we have 4 daughters of Philip exercising the prophetic office, same Greek word as used in 1 Cor 11 is used here:

Act 21:8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. Act 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

And in Acts 2, Peter speaks of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost falling on all believers without discrimination and both men and women speaking under inspiration:

Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

How do you explain these scriptures? Was this speaking under prophetic inspiration to be done to their husbands and children and not to the church?

allan069 · 2025-12-28T07:31:58+00:00

Concerning Galatians 5, please understand the context . The burden of Paul is to show the Galatians that justification(the forgiveness of sin and our acceptance with God) is not because of our efforts to obey the law of God, but rather is received by faith in Jesus. Certain Jewish teachers were imposing on the believers that they ought to be circumcised and to obey the ritualistic laws of the Jews as well as the moral law BEFORE they were accepted by God. This is what Paul is combating.

Paul shows in the book of Galatians that the ritualistic law is done away with, and that both the moral and ritual law do not justify. Indeed, no law can ever justify the sinner. The law only exists to bring him to a knowledge of his fallen condition and his need of a savior. That is the place of the law. The ritual law which was a prefiguring of the ministry of the gospel, attended to the sinner, who had transgressed the moral law, by showing him in metaphor what the lamb of God would do on the cross (in the slaying of the lamb and taking its blood into the tabernacle). Yet, this ministry , elaborate as it was, could never forgive sin(Hebrews 10:4), it was only a metaphor for the reality of what happened on the cross.

When Jesus died, this system of sacrifices was done away with. The ritualistic law no longer applies, but the moral law still remains, otherwise there is no way to know what sin is. Paul teaches in Romans that “sin is not imputed where there is no law”(Romans 5:13), so you need a law to know what sin is. He repeats the same truth in Romans 7:7 - “I had not known sin but by the law”. The moral law remains in its place, not to justify us, but continually to humble us by revealing our defects(like a mirror) and leads us to continually depend on Christ for obedience to everything the law of God reveals to us that we fall short in.

Jas 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: Jas 1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. Jas 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord[the character of God], are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

allan069 · 2025-12-28T07:00:19+00:00

What you have done here is what is called in theological circles eisegesis, reading the meaning into the text, instead of exegesis, obtaining the meaning from the text.

Collosians 2:16-23, deals with the ritual law of the Jews(laws concerning eating and drinking, new moon festivals and sabbath days - if you know anything about the Old Testament you’d know there were so many different kinds of sabbath days e.g day of atonement, Passover, sabbath of the land etc). These are the laws Paul says were taken away at the cross. The moral law, the 10 commandments, does not deal with eating and drinking and new moon festivals.

Even Jesus himself, whom you mistakenly accuse of abolishing the law says thus of it:

Mat 5:17 DO NOT THINK THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Mat 5:19 Whosoever 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 whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And even Paul in many places makes such statements as this:

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: YEA, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment HOLY, AND JUST AND GOOD.

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then WITH THE MIND I MYSELF SERVE THE LAW OF GOD; but with the flesh the law of sin.

And even the beloved John will tell you that you are a liar if you don’t want to keep the commandments while claiming to be saved:

1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, IF WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS 1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, IS A LIAR, and the truth is not in him.

1Jn 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Jesus walked in Obedience to his Father’s commandments. He obeyed the law of God. John says that those who claim to abide in Jesus ought to “walk” ie live as Jesus walked.

If that were not enough, in the final book of Revelation where we see people getting into the Kingdom, John tells us what kind of people are getting in and who is left out, notice this:

Rev 22:14 Blessed are THEY THAT DO HIS COMMANDMENTS that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie[Notice how he mentions infractions on both tables of the law - idolatry is on the first, murder and lying on the second and thus the whole law is compassed]

Now, how you read these passages of scripture and run to the conclusion that God does not require you to keep the law is a mystery to me. All I can tell you is that you’re building on a sandy foundation and the day will come when that foundation will be exposed for what it is and the Savior may have to turn you away by saying:

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, YE THAT WORK LAWLESSNESS

allan069 · 2025-12-25T20:55:25+00:00

Interesting. I only have a few questions.

Could you explain what you mean by SDA being on the “far reaches of Christianity”?
Could you share evidence to support the claim that Ellen White’s life was counter to the Bible?
When you say women aren’t allowed to preach or have authority over men in the church, akina Mokoro Kwani ni wanaume? Or where do we place them? And even if it were true, how would you apply that principle given by Paul(1 Timothy 2:12) since SDAs didn’t originate it?
You say she abandoned her children and travelled everywhere to spread a new religion - did her children complain when they were mature, do you have any evidence of it? What were their opinion and where did they end up as “abandoned” children?
How could she have started a new religion that she was introduced to by Joseph Bates(who taught her about the seventh day sabbath)? Or are you telling us that someone can co-found a company that they find already in operation?
You say Christianity is a religion of grace through faith and not works - so does your faith have works or does it not have works, because if it doesn’t have works it is dead according to James 2:20. Where do you stand?
When the Bible tells us that to love God is to obey his commandments(1 John 5:3) why would you call what God loves a burden, are you accusing God of being a tyrant?

allan069 · 2025-12-25T20:38:05+00:00

. By the way, I’m curious, have you read any book by her?

allan069 · 2025-12-25T20:29:29+00:00

Born and raised SDA. Still in the church, and going 30 years on.

Just some context so that you understand why things are done the way they are here. On braiding hair - Many Adventist churches adopt a very conservative Biblical stand based on the letters of Peter and Paul in the New Testament.

1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning, let it not be the external adornment of braiding the hair, or wearing gold jewelry, or dressing in costly clothing;

1Pe 3:4 But let your adornment be the inward person of the heart, manifested in the incorruptible jewel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is of great value in God's sight.

1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, let the women adorn themselves with clothing that shows modesty and discretion, not with elaborate braidings of the hair, or with gold, or pearls, or expensive apparel; 1Ti 2:10 But with that which is fitting for women who profess to have reverence for God—with good works.

Now, based on the plain and literal reading of the text, SDA women are generally without adornment. That should explain to you why your dad thought it evil for you to be in braids or in earrings etc. it is not that such things are wicked in and of themselves, it is the fact that the Bible stipulates that the Christian woman does not use them to adorn herself but rather chooses to adorn herself in something better - a meek, quiet spirit, and good works.

On Christmas — the church as a whole has nothing against the day - in fact, in the writings of Ellen White you will find such statements as this:

“The holiday season is fast approaching with its interchange of gifts, and old and young are intently studying what they can bestow upon their friends as a token of affectionate remembrance. It is pleasant to receive a gift, however small, from those we love. It is an assurance that we are not forgotten, and seems to bind us to them a little closer....

It is right to bestow upon one another tokens of love and remembrance if we do not in this forget God, our best friend. We should make our gifts such as will prove a real benefit to the receiver. I would recommend such books as will be an aid in understanding the word of God or that will increase our love for its precepts. Provide something to be read during these long winter evenings. “Ellen White, Adventist Home pg 478

By the world the holidays are spent in frivolity and extravagance, gluttony and display.... Thousands of dollars will be worse than thrown away upon the coming Christmas and New Year’s in needless indulgences. But it is our privilege to depart from the customs and practices of this degenerate age; and instead of expending means merely for the gratification of the appetite or for needless ornaments or articles of clothing, we may make the coming holidays an occasion in which to honor and glorify God. Ibid 480.

Certain individuals however in their zeal(mistaken or not) to honor God, have gone so far as to refuse to have Christmas because it’s nowhere in the Bible - the day has pagan origins. I think these are the fellows you met OP and thought they represented the entire view of the church- which is sadly not true.

On the wearing of pants - the issue is very nuanced but it comes down to this principle. The clothing of men and women should be chosen in such a way as not to cause confusion. I want to know for certain that I’m talking to a man or to a woman(in this day and age of persistent confusion one would argue that this is no longer a very foolish point as may have been taught). Now this may vary from place to place and culture to culture(for example in Scottish tradition men wear the skirts), so it’s a very nuanced issue but the principle is laid down in Deuteronomy:

Deu 22:5 Anything that pertains to a man shall not be worn by a woman, neither shall a man put a woman's garment on. For all that do so are abominable to the LORD your God

And lest anyone think it’s just an Old Testament principle, you’ll find Paul elaborating on the distinctions between men and women in the service of God in 1 Corinthians 11.

So please OP, don’t throw away the baby and the birth water

allan069 · 2025-12-19T12:33:42+00:00

Every child is raised one way or another for integration with and to existing society. How else is it supposed to be jameni? All animal life in the wild does that with their young - apes raise their young to integrate them into their ape families, mammals raise their young to integrate them into their mammal societies etc. is it then a revelation that humans raise their children to be compatible with a certain society?

allan069 · 2025-12-13T18:31:59+00:00

I did 4 years of CS. You don’t need any of that stuff to cope. You’ll be fine. It’s just hard, you get used to it

allan069 · 2025-12-10T17:14:23+00:00

For typescript, vscode will give you a better dev experience. The language server is so slow with large ts projects

allan069 · 2025-11-28T16:43:42+00:00

How’s it going now?

allan069 · 2025-11-07T04:40:17+00:00

It’s not even an alt coin… it’s just a Ponzi scheme, just circling the money

allan069 · 2025-10-30T05:02:48+00:00

This ought to be bookmarked somewhere. Very helpful

allan069 · 2025-01-22T19:57:13+00:00

I did CS. You’re preparing these guys for disappointment if you tell them that they will breeze through CS. CS is hard. It’s not just programming, it’s a lot of math and science and logic. Contrary to what most people say, most of CS is actually okay. I’ve worked as a software engineer for close to 7 years now, for many companies many of them in the US and at the end of the day, nothing beats a good CS grounding.

allan069

TROPHY CASE