THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE FOREVER!! II

Updated 10/15/00: Aesthetics; Updated 11/15/2003: made easy to print out; 03/05/2004: more text added below showing how every tittle of the law must be understood and acknowledged.

About Sealed Discussions:

WARNING! The rest of this page below contains information that is sealed off from the Truth of Adventism Defended Forum. This means that no discussion is to be brought against the points proven in most of the links below. Those with this designation will be clearly marked. Any subscriber who brings up the points which have been disproven in the following list of discussions will be likely regarded as an offender and can be unsubscribed. We had to do this for we discovered that we were dialoguing with unscrupulous members of the papal army. Even after conclusive points were presented to the point where they dared not answer them, they continued to present their redundant points and merely mocked our questions away or laughed at them. We therefore have to institute this principle so as not the waste the time of the people.

The only way discussion upon these points can be brought up again is if the argument(s) are wholly unique in character. All challenges must be issued by applying directly to the owner of the forum, Mr. Ted McMillan:

tmac1238@seventh-dayadventism.com.

After the new Christian Church was established, there appeared immediately to be a conflict between the new Gentile converts and the Jews. Among the controversies were the consecration of food to idols and circumcision.

Since so much controversy was generated because of these subjects, till it was indeed recorded in the Bible, can you please tell me why the Jewish objection to the new Christians keeping Sunday (formerly a pagan day) after the resurrection of Jesus cannot be found there?

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

It was obvious that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy. . . . ." because people were thinking that that was part of His mission: to destroy the law. And how so? In my estimation a law can be destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no longer to be observed. What did Jesus do to make them think that? What did Jesus do to make the Jews think that He was come to destroy the law?

Most every time Jesus did something the Jews were apt to charge Him as a sinner for had something to do with the Sabbath: For healing on the Sabbath especially. The scripture therefore tells us that "till heaven and earth pass" (have they passed sir?) "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."

Here however is an interesting question: how do you destroy a law? Is this question too hard? Jesus said that He is not come to destroy, but to fulfill. How do you therefore destroy a law?

Our commonsense tells us that to destroy a law, you have to declare that it doesn't have to be kept. How likely is it therefore that the scripture can be reworded to come out like the following:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law. I am not come to destroy, but to tell all that they don't have to keep the law."

This may make sense to many, but I contend that this does not make sense to God's people.

Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; -- Eph. 6:2

We can see that the very words are quoted from the Ten Commandments! Did we not think that the Law was finished? Why would any of the Apostles quote from the Ten Commandments, when they are supposed to be acting like so many today in preaching to all that it is dangerous to keep the law? Do people today not tell us that to fulfill a law means to destroy it? If you fulfilled the law of insuring your vehicle, can you then uninsure it since that law is now no longer in effect?

What therefore does the word "fulfill" mean? The scripture says that not a jot or tittle--not a dotting of an "I" or a stroking of a "T" shall be moved till all be fulfilled. Does the word "fulfilled" mean to destroy or to take out of the way? If that is true, why does Jesus then say, Whosoever THEREFORE . . . " (here meaning with reference to what was just said before)

"shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, the same 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."

It appears to me that the word "fulfilled" may have some meanings, but the idea that it means that the law is no longer to be obeyed is quite obviously ludicrous merely by the words that follow.

Jesus stated that the law is enforced till all be fulfilled. In order to be crafty, folk are coming in telling us that EVERYTHING had been fulfilled at the cross. They point to Christ's declaration, "It is Finished!" on the cross as proof. Isn't it strange that earlier Christ talked about a prophecy of Daniel in Matthew 24 that had not yet been fulfilled and was not even till His death? Christ was prophecying about the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem-something which took place 40 years after the cross!

Many are also trying to tell us that the all things being fulfilled that Christ talks about is referring to the very law itself. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all (all the law) be fulfilled. They are saying that the law was fulfilled at the death of Christ, and therefore His statement "till heaven and earth pass" means not a thing.

According to them, Christ made that statement, "Till heaven and earth pass" only to make sure that what Christ is then stating remains true for only about a year or two till His death! Were those cataclysmic words placed there just to guarantee that what Christ says remains true for only a year or so? They are now therefore saying that Christ didn't come to destroy the law, but only came that it might be declared that we no longer have to keep it.

There are ways to see beyond this however, and we can start with the parallel scripture to this one in order to show whether the expression, "till all be fulfilled" is referring to the law itself or is referring to everything involved in human history, including the fulfillment of all prophecy.

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

From this we have the expression of heaven and earth passing again and we therefore have an eternal principle that shows the clear intention of the Lord upon this matter.

Let's therefore now again take the specific language of the bible so that we can understand what is happening here. The scripture tells us that till heaven and earth pass, the law will be in effect. Did heaven and earth pass at the cross? Did heaven and earth pass yet? The scriptures tell us plainly how heaven and earth will pass. It says:

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? - 2 Pet. 3:10-12

Did these things happen yet? This is showing how heaven and earth will pass away. Did this happen at the cross? Is Satan still alive today? Are there prophecies which state that he shall be destroyed? Are there prophecies relating to the Antichrist that have not been fulfilled yet? What then did Christ mean when he stated that the law will be in effect till all be fulfilled?

Even yet so, people are telling me that those who break any of the least of the commandments of God and teach men so would be in heaven, but that they would just be called the least. Well if that was true, according to the very wording it is saying thusly: Whosoever shall contradict what I just said, will be called "the least" in heaven. He will disobey and contradict me, but he will still be in heaven anyway. ISN'T THAT WONDERFUL!!

What is the likelihood that an issue such as circumcision (which can be termed making a mountain out of something very small--if I can be so facetious) can generate all the controversy, contention and bitterness as it did in the days of the Apostolic Church, and yet a much more cataclysmic issue such as a change in the day of worship, or a change where there is no longer any day of worship since the sacrifice of Christ, can generate all the silence as it obviously has and as we can see for ourselves? We can see that today, this issue generates much literature, bitterness, animosity, etc. What is the likelihood that the issue of a day of worship which, unlike circumcision, affects men, women, boys and girls, even strangers within ones gates, can generate all the silence that it has?

Tis true, you may always remark that Adventists have been stating that scriptural silence is not proof for anything. You must however remember that you who have opposed them have always stated that silence is much proof. Therefore, in the issues presented to you here now, you have all the proof you would ever need!

One particular person we met on the newsgroups after much grinding and delay finally ventured to pretend he had an answer. He said 6/5/2004:

>The NT believers and apostles met together on many different days. Since
>there is no prohibition in the law against people meeting together on
>days apart from the sabbath (indeed the law commands one to stay at
>home and rest on the sabbath) there is no contention.

He is here saying they met for worship on different days, but it was largely in secret or out of each others way. This, of course, is an absurd lie.

The issue of the Sabbath is a weekly issue. Circumcision is something that is done to a man ONLY ONCE IN HIS LIFETIME. Why then was such an operation on PRIVATE PARTS a cause of such contention, while the day of worship EVERY WEEK was not?

A major contention against the new Christian religion by the Jews WAS THAT THEY WERE CALLING PEOPLE AWAY. The Christians were proselytizing. When seeking to win members back or challenging the Christians, you had better believe the Jews did everything to show as much of their doctrine false as possible.

This particular poster, after viewing this and how we exposed his error, acted as if nothing was exposed.

When the Scribes and Pharisees brought Jesus before Annas the High Priest, why is it that they had a hard time finding an accusation against Him when any simpleton should have known that the Jewish leaders could put anyone to death on a truthful charge of sabbath-breaking? It is to my understanding that the Jewish leaders had power to put people to death on the charge of sabbath-breaking just so long as they received the sanction of the Roman government. That was precisely the reason why they brought Jesus to Pontius Pilate.

In Acts chapter 25:8-10, Paul makes an interesting statement to Festus. At that time it was stated that:

". . .the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove." -- Acts 25

Here again, is this a marvellous demonstration of the intelligence of the Jewish people? Why don't they save time and accuse him of being a Sabbath-breaker. Were they really stupid here? Or was it true that Christ did not offend by His disregard of the Sabbath. To do so would be sin, and Christ did no sin. Under Jewish law and allowed by Roman law, any Jew can be put to death under that charge! Lo and behold! Apparently it is likely that charge was leveled against Paul. Yet notice the very crucial statement Paul makes in the very next verse:

Acts 25:8 While he [Paul] answered for himself, NEITHER AGAINST THE LAW OF THE JEWS, NEITHER AGAINST THE TEMPLE, NOR YET AGAINST CAESAR, HAVE I OFFENDED ANY THING AT ALL.

Yet this is not the most striking part of the quotation, for, in today's movements fulfilling that great falling away which will give rise to the new "Christ-centered" world leader we know as Antichrist, most are telling us that they are actually keeping the law because it is written in their hearts through Christ. So, according to what they are telling us, they are like Paul. They are actually keeping the law. It's just that no one can see it outwardly. Under that premise it is to be understood that they can kill, murder, rape, etc. The law is still written in their hearts, and though no one can see it outwardly, it is a private fact inwardly between each individual and the Lord. In this scheme of things, the inevitable result is always the same: we actually find such people keeping every inch of the letter of the law outwardly EXCEPT the Sabbath command. Such beating around the bush is necessary instead of Paul plainly and outrightly coming out and telling us that all of the Ten Commandments are still in force except the Sabbath command.

Yet with this whole private in-the-heart tactic most used against the truth, comes these very shattering words from Paul himself; for, after he declared that he made no offense against the law of the Jews, the record continues:

"But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?

Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: TO THE JEWS HAVE I DONE NO WRONG, AS THOU VERY WELL KNOWEST." -- Acts 25:9, 10

The problem here is that Paul stated to the heathen dignitary that he was keeping the law, "AS THOU VERY WELL KNOWEST" meaning that the dignitary could see for himself with his own eyes that Paul was observing the law of the Jews.

The conclusion therefore is the following: The righteousness which Christ gives is genuine: finding its way to the outward actions, and indeed the entire being. This is confirmed by the Apostle John, who states a message of warning to his people to prevent them from being deceived in the way the people of today are being deceived by stating:

"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." -- 1 John 3:7

It will therefore clearly not be a private matter between the believer and Jesus, but all will see the good works and glorify the Father which is in heaven. - Matt. 5:16.

But how can you say Christ ordered us to observe everything written in the law, and yet you don't keep the ritual law?

We are trying to show you that the term law, really means the entire Old Testament. In it is contained the Ten Commandments, the ritual law, the health principles given to the Jews, and even their civil structure and procedures for war. The descriptions of events given in the Old Testament modifies and shows situations where some of these principles cannot be upheld.

Example? What about the principles "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?" Must we follow that today or if not we sin? Why did Jesus contradict that principle here:

Matt. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

How can Jesus tell us that every tittle of the Law, or Old Testament, stands, and yet He contradicts a major practice of old times in the law? Sounds like Christ is contradicting Himself here as Jesuits take advantage of every opportunity they have to fight with us telling us Ellen White contradicts herself.

The issue of an eye for an eye: why don't we carry that out today? Well back in those days in the nation of Israel, there was no police department. What is supposed to happen when someone does you wrong? The Israelites were a theocracy where they were like a combination of church and state. Such a combination cannot be attempted today because the mystery of iniquity is now here with us. Just as soon as that is attempted, the worst form of persecution and tyranny would follow under a Christian agenda. But you yourselves can understand why that principle of the eye for the eye and the tooth for the tooth cannot be followed today and how it was not followed at times when Israel was in captivity also.

When Israel went into captivity, they were subject to the nations that conquered them. At times they could not conduct their principles. They couldn't perform their rituals. Were they therefore sinning? Remember Moses with Pharaoh who asked that his people be let go so that they can sacrifice unto God. At that time and other times, did the Lord count it a sin against them? Clearly the answer is no.

That's what we're talking about. Even the circumstances in the law, or Old Testament, would show whether or not certain practices would remain and others would not. At the time when the Children of Israel were in bondage or captivity, could they keep their rituals? If not, did they sin?

At the time of Christ, the Lord worked to acquire the repentance of the Jewish people. Understanding that ultimately He will be rejected by them, Christ spoke to Christians, giving them principles that will match their circumstances. He will not gather them to war as when He favored Israel as a nation anymore. He will scatter them to all nations where they will be subject to the civil systems they will encounter. Those systems will have law enforcement. Christ therefore told them not to carry out the eye for the eye principle that was reserved for the self-governing Israelites that went conquering all nations. This is not saying that Christ is actually challenging the practice as evil. The practice itself was according to circumstances. A similar thing happened to the rituals. The rituals pointed to Christ. Christ died and was The Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World! The rituals required appearing at the temple or sanctuary. Is there one today? You couldn't make your own sanctuary. The Children of Israel traveled together and were commanded to appear at one sanctuary. Since those days, that sanctuary was destroyed. But that sanctuary was also a moveable tabernacle in earlier times. The people had to appear at that sanctuary! At the death of Christ, the veil of the temple then built to an edifice was mysteriously torn from top to bottom. You can see that those principles cannot be followed today!

Would "thou shalt not commit adultery remain always?" Obviously! What about the prohibitions against lying, cheating and stealing? Do they remain? Obvously! THOSE ARE MORAL COMMANDMENTS! That's what is meant by every tittle of the Law, or Old Testament, does indeed stand even though certain commandments given by God to the Israelites are not to be followed today.

Here now we engage with a Jesuit struggling to prove that the law of Ten Commandments were done away with. Again, have you ever witnessed a Catholic Catechism having this agenda?

>Susan Williams wrote:
>> Let those who have attacked me for exposing people telling us all
>> non-Catholics should be exterminated, now expound upon the following
>> article using proof instead of Jesuit psychiatry:
>>
>>
>> Dear Sir:
>>
>> After the new Christian Church was established, there appeared
>> immediately to be a conflict between the new Gentile converts and the
>> Jews. Among the controversies were the consecration of food to idols
>> and circumcision.
>
>And keeping the law - Acts 15v5. The Jerusalem Council ruled that
>at the very least, Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or keep
>the law.

They were dealing with requirements in contention with the new Jewish
Christians and not all the duties of a Christian. When Christ told
the Disciples to go into all the world teaching them whatsoever He had
revealed to them, the issues in Acts 15 were not discussed.

Plus, neither did Christ nor the Acts 15 council believe that all
non-Christians must die, nor in the End Justifies the Means as you
Jesuits do.

>> Since so much controversy was generated because of these subjects,
>> till it was indeed recorded in the Bible, can you please tell me why
>> the Jewish objection to the new Christians keeping Sunday (formerly a
>> pagan day) after the resurrection of Jesus cannot be found there?
>
>The NT believers and apostles met together on many different days. Since
>there is no prohibition in the law against people meeting together on
>days apart from the sabbath (indeed the law commands one to stay at
>home and rest on the sabbath) there is no contention.

This is a lie. If it was found even in the doctrine of the new
Christians that they were teaching there was no more Seventh-day
Sabbath, that would have caused contention. The new Christians were
calling the Jews out of the Jewish faith. Having different days of
worship equates with circumcision done in private? On private parts?

This Jesuit has lied again, but he is proud because he thinks that is
a sign of greater rewards in heaven.

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

>Jesus would fulfill the law by his death. He's saying until that time,
>the law will remain fully in effect.

In the Jesuit's book that is so. Christ did not make that cataclysmic
statement to expire a year in the future especially with the Jesuit
intentionally leaving out the proof since it doesn't exist anyway.

>It obviously *cannot* mean that the mean that the 'moral law' will
>remain forever and the other laws will pass away sometime after
>his death.

We didn't say that EVERY law now doesn't stand except those that are
moral, but on the website still we show what we mean. There is just a
statement above this reply without any accompanying proof. I've
talked with these Jesiuts about this psychiatrist habit of theirs, but
it is hopeless to reason with centuries killers.

>> It was obvious that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy.
>> . . . ." because people were thinking that that was part of His
>> mission: to destroy the law.
>
>Yes. Actually it was the purpose of his death rather than his coming.

Actually that's not true just as it is not true all non-Catholics must
die and it is only proper to attack someone who sees others making
this claim as you do.

>> And how so? In my estimation a law can be
>> destroyed when an authoritative person informs others that it is no
>> longer to be observed.

Yes, and the Apostles must not later claim that the everlasting
covernant is in the form of a will that no one can change after the
Testator dies.

>> What did Jesus do to make them think that?
>
>He taught the Apostles, and guided them to their decisions. Also
>he points out that the law eventually will pass away in Matt 5,
>and points out the dietary laws will pass away in Mark.

But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
for that, we must attack the one who is upset.

>> What
>> did Jesus do to make the Jews think that He was come to destroy the
>> law?
>
>He kept disobeying, and going out of his way to disobey the 'oral law'.
>The pharisees taught that this was given to moses at the same time as
>the written law and was of equal or greater authority.

But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
for that, we must attack the one who is upset.

Christ did not sin. He became a sacrifice for sin for us by going out
of His way to break the moral law?

>> Most every time Jesus did something the Jews were apt to charge Him as
>> a sinner for had something to do with the Sabbath: For healing on the
>> Sabbath especially. The scripture therefore tells us that "till heaven
>> and earth pass" (have they passed sir?) "one jot or one tittle shall
>> in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
>>
>> Here however is an interesting question: how do you destroy a law?
>
>There is no way that I can do it. God did it, or at least rendered
>it inoperative.

But that didn't happen. It is not true. The Jesuit, as you can see,
is not too proud of his lie.

>> Is
>> this question too hard?
>
>No. Fairly basic Christianity 101 stuff really.

Alright then, if someone tells us all non-Catholics must die and
another gets upset at him for that, is it good common sense to attack
the one who is upset as you do?

>> Jesus said that He is not come to destroy, but
>> to fulfill. How do you therefore destroy a law?
>
>Isn't that the same question you just asked?

Like why do you people see your friends saying all non-Catholics must
die but you only attack those who are upset about it? I see you
notice when questions are asked and WERE asked!

>> Our commonsense tells us that to destroy a law, you have to declare
>> that it doesn't have to be kept.
>
>Like the apostles did at the Jerusalem Council, under the guidance
>of the Holy Spirit and the Apostle Paul did over and over and over
>again.

But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
for that, we must attack the one who is upset.

>> How likely is it therefore that the
>> scripture can be reworded to come out like the following:
>>
>> "Think not that I am come to destroy the law. I am not come to
>> destroy, but to tell all that they don't have to keep the law."

Would others who believe all non-Catholics must die as you do come to
the same conclusion?

>> This may make sense to many, but I contend that this does not make
>> sense to God's people.
>
>How would you know? Have you ever met any of God's people?

Well I believe all non-Catholics should live. Would you know I have
not met any of God's people since you don't believe this?

>> Ephesians even says:
>>
>> Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with
>> promise; -- Eph. 6:2

>> We can see that the very words are quoted from the Ten
>> Commandments! Did we not think that the Law was finished? Why would
>> any of the Apostles quote from the Ten Commandments, when they are
>> supposed to be acting like so many today in preaching to all that it
>> is dangerous to keep the law? Do people today not tell us that to
>> fulfill a law means to destroy it? If you fulfilled the law of
>> insuring your vehicle, can you then uninsure it since that law is now
>> no longer in effect?
>
>Can you not quote from something that is no longer in effect? Can
>one not also say that that command is still to be obeyed?

In the statement above, as the Jesuit knows, Paul is exhorting the
people to obey. If it is not to be obeyed, Paul should join these
Jesuits and make sure right after to tell them what he just quoted
should not be obeyed.

>> What therefore does the word "fulfill" mean? The scripture says that
>> not a jot or tittle--not a dotting of an "I" or a stroking of a "T"
>> shall be moved till all be fulfilled. Does the word "fulfilled" mean
>> to destroy or to take out of the way? If that is true, why does Jesus
>> then say, Whosoever THEREFORE . . . " (here meaning with reference to
>> what was just said before)
>>
>
>ok. I'm getting bored of this.

Since when do Jesuits get bored when their enemies provide evidence
they can't overthrow?

OH GOOD! Since we have not received answer from you yet whether or
not if people tell us all non-Catholics must die, and others are upset
about it, we must attack the others. You still keep trailing my posts
though!

>It is *until* it is fulfilled. Thats a sequence of events. It does not
>require fulfilled to mean done away with. Do you have a memory problem?

But that's just as true as your claim and practice that if someone
tells us all non-Catholics must die and another gets upset with them
for that, we must attack the one who is upset.