Part 1: A Point by Point Response to an Adventist Critic: Galatians  

Lying is contrary to basic mutual respect. There is no need for a law being proclaimed about that. It is contrary to the conscience to lie. Sabbath keeping is not something that comes naturally to human conscience. It was proclaimed to the Israelites by Moses and was never a Law before that.

​@@thenowchurch6419 ​ wrote: // Lying is contrary to basic mutual respect. There is no need for a law being proclaimed about that. It is contrary to the conscience to lie. // First, the presupposition here is that all morality stems from conscience, which is false, and of which no bible text can be furnished in support of. Rather, "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked..." (Jer. 17:9), so, we cannot decipher sin based solely on conscience. There must be more. And there is. The Bible explains three ways or methods in which God, and subsequently His will, is revealed. By nature (Rom. 1:19-21, 28, 32, Acts 14:16-17, Psa. 19:1-4), by conscience (Rom. 2:15), and by revelation (or, being told, like the Ten Commandments, see Rom. 2:17-24). You pointed out only the second one, but perhaps was unaware of the other two. For example, out of these three methods, lying falls under the second one (conscience), but respecting God's name falls under the third method. Like the Sabbath, no one will know it is wrong to disrespect God's name by nature of conscience, unless God tells them. So, morality stems not merely by what our conscience can decipher (which is sometimes subjective and based on culture, environment, etc.) but from the plain "thus saith the Lord." Second, you wrote, “there is no need for a law being proclaimed about that.” If, as you admit, the conscience tells us it's wrong to lie (and in this case it is correct to say that, based on what has been revealed in the decalogue) then there is an eternal principle against it and that principle was present with Lucifer when he lied. A principle is a fundamental rule or law upon which other laws can be based on. So, there was a law against it (albeit not written on earthly stones), and that is why he got himself in trouble for doing it. If you want Bible, Romans 4:15 says that where there is no law, “there is no transgression” the implication being that where there is law, there is transgression. Therefore, when Lucifer transgressed, or sinned, there was a law there condemning his actions. It's really that simple. // Sabbath keeping is not something that comes naturally to human conscience. // This portion of your comment ignores the three ways in which God’s will is revealed, which I already answered above. Sabbath breaking, like dishonoring God’s name, is a sin based on revelation, not conscience. In fact, revelation is necessary in order to reveal to people that they are in sin. Romans 5:20 says that the law entered "that the offense may ABOUND." Thus the law reveals sin (Rom. 7:7) and makes it look especially hideous, driving people to Christ for the solution (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8-13). // It was proclaimed to the Israelites by Moses and was never a Law before that. // First, it was proclaimed to the Israelites by God THROUGH Moses, not BY Moses. Second, assuming it was “never a law before that,” so what? God is able to take something and make it a law, or make it moral. Third, the Sabbath was in existence prior to the proclamation of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, at least one month prior, in Exodus 16. So, it can exist before the Ten Commandments were proclaimed and written on earthly stone. And it is lumped together with other “commandments and laws” (Exo. 16:28). So, it was a law prior to the giving of the Decalogue. And third, the Sabbath existed before Moses. Exodus 20:11 uses the Hebrew noun “shabbat” and inserts it into the creation account in Genesis. Thus, God Himself says that He rested on the “Sabbath” in Genesis 2:2-3. Moreover, Mark 2:27 uses the noun for “Sabbath” also, though in the Greek, and it too points to the Genesis account where all things were “made.” There it was made “for man” and Adam represents all of mankind (Acts 17:26). Thus it was an established institution before the Decalogue was proclaimed from Mt. Sinai, before Moses, and before sin entered our world, and there, in Genesis, it was given to mankind. In my next comment I will detail seven reasons why my interpretation of Mark 2:27 is correct. But for now I want to ask you, did you watch the video entirely? Or did you at least read the written response in the link I put in the description? I am asking because I took time to respond to you most of which we already covered in the video. And I’d hate to have to repeat myself being that my schedule is very busy. I keep running into critics who just want to comment on my videos having not even watched the videos, and most of the times I already covered in the video the argument the critic is bringing up. Edwin

@@thenowchurch6419 here is the information I promised to substantiate my claim upon Mark 2:27. It is from a book response to another critic. Any constructive criticism will help strengthen my argument, so please, feel free: _________________________________________________________________ There are various linguistic indicators in Mark 2:27 that also point to the beginning. Notice the following seven points: 1. The Greek word ἐγένετο, here translated “made,” can also be used for creation (see John 1:3, 10, 1 Cor. 15:45, and Gen. 2:4, 5, 7 LXX). One interlinear for the NRSV titled, "The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament" (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1990) has the reading for εγένετο as "created” in Mark 2:27. Additionally, the Lamsa Bible, a translation of the Aramiac Peshitta, translates Mark 2:27 as follows, “The sabbath was created for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the sabbath.”(15) 2. Although the Greek word for "man" can refer either to mankind or to certain kinds of people, we have an allusion to creation week when it is here juxtaposed with the word "made," since that was the moment when man was made. To be sure, the second clause of verse 27 says “and not man for the sabbath,” which, of course, suggests that man was also "made." 3. “Man” in Mark 2:27 means mankind because it points to the beginning, in the same way “man” in Mark 10:7 means mankind, which also points to the beginning. Note the parallels of both texts. Both are surrounded by a Jewish audience, both use the same Greek term, and both are written by the same author. 4. The Greek of Mark 2:27 also has the definite article "the man." The only "man" who was "made" at creation was Adam. He, however, is representative of mankind (see Acts 17:26). 5. There is a neat parallel in verse 27 with the last two days of creation week. Jesus says that man was not made "for the Sabbath," which makes sense because in creation week man was made on day six, while the Sabbath was made on day seven. So of course Jesus would say that man was not made for the Sabbath because the Sabbath did not yet exist when “the man” was made! This parallel, which alludes to creation week, cannot be ignored. 6. In verse 28 Jesus alludes to his divinity as creator when he claims ownership and authority over the great institution of the Sabbath by saying “the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” 7. In Matthew’s account, we notice that at this moment Jesus also said He was greater than the Temple (Matt. 12:6). The bible says that not even the heavens can contain God, much less the Temple (cf. 2 Chron. 6:18). By claiming to be greater then the Temple Jesus was in essence claiming to be God, the creator. Additionally, it seems quite reasonable to believe that the man in the phrase, “the Sabbath was made for man” in verse 27 pertains to mankind, just as much as the same word man in the phrase “Son of Man” in verse 28 pertains to mankind. Afterall, “It is a rule of grammar,” wrote Dudley M. Canright, “that a noun unlimited by an adjective is to be taken in its broadest sense, as, ‘Man is mortal,’ meaning all men, the race. So in this case; Christ does not limit it to one class of men, but says that it was made for ‘man,’ that is, the race.”(16) Therefore, based on the foregoing evidence from Mark 2:27, even Elce would conclude that the Sabbath also has “universal import.” READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER: AN EXAMINATION AND REFUTATION OF 16 PROPOSITIONS AGAINST SABBATH KEEPING, PART 2 RESPONSE TO CHAPTER 2 OF “THE SABBATH: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW.” by Edwin M. Cotto LINK: adventistdefenseleague.com/2021/10/against-elce-part-2-response-to-chapter-2-of-the-sabbath-16-propositions-against-sabbath-keeping.html

@@AdventDefenseLeague Thank you for your detailed reply Edwin. You went over much that was not relevant to my comment. You agreed with me that lying is a moral law that can be discerned by conscience. You also agreed that the Sabbath law was proclaimed to Israel by God through Moses, which means it was not known as a Law before then. That was my point. The Sabbath is not proven to have been a law to mankind or even known as a law prior to Moses. That is why it can be disregarded as an obligation to Christians. Essential morality is that which the conscience can discern is contrary to love also called charity. I also have time constraints and do not need to listen to an entire over hour length video to comment on a point . I was not aware of the notes you have provided. I will make sure to review those now and in future videos. The Sabbath was a sign given to Israel showing their peculiar status vis a vis other nations. When Christ said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath, context tells us He was expressing that it must serve Israelites who are humans and not the other way around. His point was not that it applied to all mankind. I pray that you one day wake up out of the errors of Adventism. Peace.

@@thenowchurch6419 can you return and actually respond point by point to my responses above? If you're going to comment and if I'm going to take the time to reply, I expect critics to at least tackle my arguments carefully. At least respond to the rest of it. You mentioned Mark 2:27, but I made seven points to make my case, and "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established." Can you refute those seven points? You brushed off much of it as irrelevant when it is, in fact, not, since I quoted each section of your comment and responded directly to them. I find that this is a very convenient thing for critics to say, unfortunately. Thanks for the prayer. I understand your current system of beliefs assumes your prayer is good. Under mine, I pray you wake up to the errors of Sabbath breaking before you stand in judgment facing a law that includes it in it's fourth section. Truly, I prefer being found keeping it than breaking it. Edwin

Hello. Videos will appear on RU-vid approximately a week after, sometimes less, after editing is done. But if you want to join the LIVE session on Wednesdays at 7:30 PM EST, use the following link: us06web.zoom.us/j/8157887727?pwd=ZExDV1FXWFhDaFNuaXRHMVhsVHhzUT09

@@AdventDefenseLeague Good to know. Thank you.

@@NoSundayLawComing not sure if you ever got to see it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_0jSLcFEPBQ.html

Attention critic, why is it that you can't just stay on the topic of the videos and respond to the videos themselves? Why do you also keep spamming every video with random off topic comments like some sort of sick obsession with Adventists? Why don't you just deal with the contents of the video you are commenting on? Answer me these questions, and I will answer yours.

@@AdventDefenseLeague You ask *Why is it that you can't just stay on the topic of the videos and respond to the videos themselves? Why don't you just deal with the contents of the video you are commenting on? Answer me these questions, and I will answer yours* First of all, thank you for your rebuke. Regarding staying on topic, at minute 1:07 of *this video* you say "the first question is when was the law established?" Perhaps you didn't read what I posted above, but the Deuteronomy 5:1-3 addresses this question of when the law was established.

@@NoSundayLawComing read my comment carefully. I asked about VIDEOS... plural. You may be on topic on this one, but you keep spamming all our other videos with comments most of which don't pertain to the specific topic of the videos, and some of them are book-length comments. At some point I'm going to stop you and question you for that behavior, which is what I did here. So, let us read an answer from you to these three questions I asked, and then I will answer your question regarding the text in Deut. Let me add one more question, do you already know the answer to your own question?

@@AdventDefenseLeague *Let me add one more question, do you already know the answer to your own question?* My Answer: I have looked into this subject before. The Ten Commandments did not exist before the covenant at Siani. I am willing to hear how the Seventh-day Adventist comes to some other conclusion, but I am not likely to change my mind given that the Bible trumps the presuppositions proposed by revelations EGW in this area. Look, if you have the truth, it shall prevail, but that is for you to impress upon your listeners. You are an apologist so you should expect pushback, but your sensitivity tells me that you are looking for an audience that simply glad-hands you in agreement. If you can't handle opposing views maybe you should restrict the comment section to *Adventists Only*

@@NoSundayLawComing you did not answer my previous questions, and only answered the new one I added. How come?

I was at the gym 😅

@@thatnicekid04 lol. For real? That’s funny. I wasn’t sure but I thought I heard Miley Cyrus too but not sure. It was really loud in the video.

@justamessenger4577 Jason is secretly a big fan of Cyrus (the singer, not the King of Persia) lol

@@AdventDefenseLeague And obviously a swiftie as well

😹😹😹😹😹