Jose Hernandez wrote in message <70ii1h$362$1@supernews.com>... >Let me reply to you issue by issue >>## I was claiming the law was abolished. >>Jose said he looked up 'abolished' in the Bible and found it did not apply >>to the law. >By saying that we are not to keep God's Law that is exactly what you are >saying. Not at all, the law is fulfilled, not abolished. This is what the Bible teaches. >Rick as well as myself have tried to Point out the Scriptures that supports >what we believe. I believe we have been fair in our exposition, however the >only things you have countered with blind accusations of plagiarism and the >like. I myself would certainly welcome biblical responses to the Scripture >I have posted. "The only things you have countered with"? You haven't spotted any of my arguments from Scripture then? The reason I feel you are just quoting from books (e.g. Nicholl's _Answers to Objections_) is that you don't produce a proper exposition of the Bible, you just give a couple of quotes which *seem* as if they just came out of a "these are the texts to justify this belief" type of book. When I read a mail by you or Rick which gives evidence of a proper Bible study, I will stop thinking you are copying "proof texts" out of books. >I will just respond with this quote from Christ himself Matthew 5:19 >"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others >to do the same 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". I have tried to show you the different laws given in the bible and >you choose not to acknowledge them. That is your choice. Read the >preceding verse well however. > >Your contention that following the Commandments again rings hollow compared >to what Christ taught I am not aware of any "evidence" from the Bible you have provided which shows the Ten Commandments are to be treated differently to the rest of the law. The Bible does not use the term "the law" or "these commandments" to refer to the Ten Commandments. Your arguments so far have consisted of: 1) quoting the Ten Commandments. This is not evidence that "the law" refers to the Ten Commandments. 2) quoting parts of the Bible which says "the law" is good, has to be obeyed etc. This is not evidence that "the law" refers to the Ten Commandments. 3) Quoting texts which refer to "the law of Moses". Again, this does not show that "the law" refers to the Ten Commandments. 4) Pointing out that the Ten Commandments were written by God on stone. I have shown that the reason the Ten Commandments were written on stone - and why they were special - is because the are the "words of the covenant". Again, you have not shown that "the law" refers to the Ten Commandments. > >A Catholic view? A formula for Justification and Sanctification. I hardly >believe your representation of Adventism is accurate to say the least. Why not? I'd like to head your representation of Adventism. What do you think has happened over the past thirty years? So far two Adventists (as far as I am aware) have replied to the "Protestant/Catholic" questions (and you agreed with one of these I believe, so say three have replied) and each has given more Catholic than Protestant answers. As I said, this is exactly what happened in my church. Doesn't this suggest traditional Adventism has not got it right yet concerning the law? > Why does John say the Following in Revelations 14:12 "This calls for patient >endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain >faithful to Jesus" As I have answered above, "commandments" in the writings of John refers to Jesus' new commandments. Not to the TORAH. >That is the group I would like to be a part of John. Get that Bible out then. If God says "Jose, John showed you the truth, why didn't you listen?" you really need some sort of Scriptually based reply. John