GLORY APOLOGETICS

Seventh Day Adventist Refuted

One of the seventh day Adventist Tried refuting our Tamil Video which we made in 2016 exposing the false doctrine of SDA cult. To justify their falsehood, SDAs make an unbiblical distinction called as Ceremonial Vs Moral Law. They claim Not all the Law of Old testament is fulfilled but only the Ceremonial Law. They go on to make other outrageous claims too. In this comments response, Bro. Francis has clearly exposed their lies. Read, learn and share with others too.

Ben: This is a main person arguing for the false distinction

Rajkumar: A sudden intruder who tried spamming

Glory Apologetics: Response by brother Francis.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Ben Ezra:
See the difference between the moral and ceremonial laws 01. MORAL LAW: God spoke it (Deut 5:22)01. CEREMONIAL LAW: Moses spoke it (Exo. 21:1) 02. MORAL LAW: God wrote it (Exo 31:18)02. CEREMONIAL LAW: Moses wrote it (Deut 31:9) 03. MORAL LAW: Written on stone (Exo. 24:12)03. CEREMONIAL LAW: Written in book (Deut 31:24) 04. MORAL LAW: Placed in the ark (Deut 10:5)04. CEREMONIAL LAW: Placed on the side of the ark (Deut 31:26) 05. MORAL LAW: Perfect Law (Ps. 19:7)05. CEREMONIAL LAW: Imperfect Law (Heb:7:18-19) 06. MORAL LAW: Spiritual (Rom. 7:14)06. CEREMONIAL LAW: Carnal (Heb7:16; Heb. 9:10) 07. MORAL LAW: Good (Rom.7:12)07. CEREMONIAL LAW: Not Good (Eze. 20:25) 08. MORAL LAW: Ordained to life (Eze 20:11)08. CEREMONIAL LAW: Not ordained to life (Eze 20:25) 09. MORAL LAW: Law of liberty (James 2:12)09. CEREMONIAL LAW: A yoke of bondage (Acts 15:10,5; Gal 5:1-2) 10. MORAL LAW: Contains a weekly Sabbath (Exo 20:10)10. CEREMONIAL LAW: Contains yearly Sabbaths (Lev 23:5-8, 21, 24-27,34-37) 11. MORAL LAW: A summary of moral duties (Eccles. 12:13)11. CEREMONIAL LAW: Teaches how sin may be forgiven in type (Lev 4:5-6) 12. MORAL LAW: Atonement made over it (Lev 16:15)12. CEREMONIAL LAW: Taught how the atonement was to be made (Lev 16:34) 13. MORAL LAW: Eternal (Isa 51:8 compare with Ps 119:172)13. CEREMONIAL LAW: Temporary (Deut 4:5,15; Deut 5:31; Deut 6: 1) 14. MORAL LAW: Perpetual (Ps 111:7-8)14. CEREMONIAL LAW: Abolished (Eph 2:15)

Glory Apologetics(reply):
Ben Ezra Thank you for your comment! All the scriptures you have quoted to prove the unbiblical distinction of Moral and Ceremonial Law has been refuted in the video. Watch it again and you will notice how we have clearly demonstrated that some of the so called Moral Law is quoted as ceremonial law and vice a versa. Hope you understand Tamil if not, read the English subtitles to know how we have answered this distinction. also, could you please define "Morality" or what do you mean by "Moral" in this context?

Ben Ezra:
I don't think you have refuted it in the video, but rather a “weak” refutation. I have highlighted 14 valid differences, you don’t have to answer all, but just a few at least, Could you answer, why was the 10 commandments kept INSIDE the Ark of the covenant, and the laws of Moses kept OUTSIDE on the Ark of the covenant?? Why would the bible say one is perfect and the other is imperfect? why is one called the "law of liberty" and other called the "yoke of bondage"?? why is one said to be "temporary" and other is "permanent"??? "Moral law" is that declaration of God's will which directs and binds all men, in every age and place, to their whole duty to him. It was most solemnly proclaimed by God himself at Sinai. . . . It is denominated "perfect", Psa. 19:7; "perpetual", Matt. 5:17, 18; "holy", Rom. 7:12; "good", Rom. 7:12; "spiritual", Romans 7:14; "exceeding broad", Psal. 119:96. thanks for the time... blessings

Glory Apologetics(reply):
+ben Ezra You may call that as a weak refutation however we struck the very foundation of the distinction. You may quote hundred references but what you don't understand is that even one mismatch in the distinction destroys the system and the whole distinction falls. That's what we did in the video. The video is a Drama and not a theological speech that we will quote 100 references. I hope you know the format of drama. If you wish to debate us on this topic we are glad to have this. Tell us if you are based in Mumbai. We will setup a formal debate and examine both the sides! God bless You!

Raj Kumar (INTRUDER)
+Glory Apologetics brother it is not a mismatch but a mis quote of you friends. honour your father and mother is the 5 th commandment but the ones who dishonor their parents should be stoned is not written in the 10 commandments instead it is written only in the law which God directed Moses to write. 10 commandments has words of life and there is no condemnation but it say God will take vengeance to show he is a God of judgment. please be careful when you teach about the sanctuary because Jesus our Saviour is serving us in the true sanctuary in heaven now Heb 9:2,5 so this is related to the worship that is taking place in heaven. 10 commandments is also called as a fiery law Deu 33:2,3 for all the saints and not just to the Jews, but Deu 33:4 talks about another law which was given to the Jews. The distinction is clear may the Lord open your eyes this is my humble prayer. The Lord is going to Judge the world soon Rev 11:18,19 so be careful when you teach this subject James 2:10,11 and James 4:11. The law is spiritual Rom 7:14 and we need to study the spiritual things said in the sanctuary. Your claim is totally Wrong about Paul keeping Sabbath because the Jews always gather on that 7th day so he simply went to synagogue to teach and not observe the Sabbath. what do you say for this in Act 16:13 ? here it was his custom to pray on Sabbath and preach with few not in synagogue. if we are going to keep Sabbath in new heaven and new earth 66:22,23 why would Paul say it is abolished. Paul never said in his teaching just keep 9 commandments as you guys say read 1 cor 7:10 you will understand better. God has exalted his word in the sanctuary read Ps 138:2 . mission of Jesus was not to abolish one out 10 as you guys preach but he magnified all 10 see Isa 41:21, Isa 51:4

Glory Apologetics(reply to Intruder):
Raj Kumar.Thank you brother for your comment!I do not know whether you know the "Law of Non Contradiction". "A" Cannot be "Non A" at the same time and with the same meaning. What we see in the distinction is "Moral Law & Ceremonial Law" according to you is "A". So it should not be "Non A" even once. However, when we read Luke 2:23-24 the sacrifices which is supposed to be called "Law of Moses(Ceremonial Law)" is called as "Law of the Lord (Moral Law).You see this is violating the law of non contradiction. We find ceremonials, the law of Moses, referred to as "The Law of Lord", which proves the distinction to be false.

Ben Ezra:
It is impossible for anyone destroy the foundation of the sabbath system. If one thinks he have, then he is deceiving himself. My aim is not “debate” but to share the gospel, shed “TRUE LIGHT”. By asking certain questions I am trying to make readers think. but some are deliberate not to “dig deep”. When studying a subject we need to look at it from genesis to revelation and then weigh the whole matter together, for this reason the wealth of scriptural refrences is important and I don’t see many christians adapt to this principle. “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:” Isa. 28:10. Due to space, I will highlight just one problem with interpretation in this video: Mark Chapter 7:10 (compare Mark 10:19) Although the Mark 7:10 says "Moses said", The first part of Christ’s quotation is a ”direct quote” from the fifth commandment of the moral Law (Exo 20:12), and the second part of Christ’s quotation is from the civil code of laws (see Ex. 21:17; Deut 20:9; 27:16). Firstly, we need to understand that, God commanded children to honour their parents, not only by the law of moses (see reference above). Because Christ spoke about honouring parents interchangeably, referencing from both “moral” and “ceremonial”, it does not mean that the moral and ceremonial laws are the same. this is why we need vast evidence of scriptural support to base our beliefs, else we have deluded ourselves (see previous comments for 14 differences). If you read it in context, Jesus links the first part (5th commandment) of his quotation to God's law in verse 9: “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition” (v. 9, RSV also compare Mark 10:19). The context here is, Christ reproves the Pharisees for laying aside the commandments of God. By their traditions they have brought the commandments of God to no effect. But in contrast, Jesus makes it clear that he is upholding the Laws of God while rejecting the “traditions of the elders”. They were entrusted to expound the Moral Law, but unfortunatly, they violated it. The parallel text to mark 7:10 is found in Matthew 15:4, it says, "For God commanded saying, Honour your father and Mother”, which now strongly sheds light to the Decalogue in Exodus chapter 20:17. It does not matter if its a drama or debate, whatever the medium, your refutation, for the above reasons will always be “weak” and baseless. Apologies for the long response. but I rest my case here. Blessings.

Francis:

Ben Ezra, Let me present a point by point response to your claims:

Ben: It is impossible for anyone destroy the foundation of the sabbath system. If one thinks he have, then he is deceiving himself.

Francis: You have mistaken our stand that we want to destroy the foundation of the Sabbath System. Our Goal is to showcase the biblical stand about Sabbath and we have clearly did it in our video. Moreover, we have indeed destroyed the foundation of your position which stands on the so called "Distinction". I do not know whether you know the "Law of Non Contradiction". "A" Cannot be "Non A" at the same time and with the same meaning. What we see in the distinction is "Moral Law & Ceremonial Law" according to you is "A". So it should not be "Non A" even once. However, when we read Luke 2:23-24 the sacrifices which is supposed to be called "Law of Moses(Ceremonial Law)" is called as "Law of the Lord (Moral Law).You see this is violating the law of non contradiction. We find ceremonials, the law of Moses, referred to as "The Law of Lord", which proves the distinction to be false.

Ben: My aim is not “debate” but to share the gospel, shed “TRUE LIGHT” Francis: My aim is to expose the unbiblical stand of SDA and clear the clouds so that people see the "LIGHT" Ben: By asking certain questions I am trying to make readers think. but some are deliberate not to “dig deep”.

Francis: It's good that you ask questions and i am for it. However, deliberate questions for not digging deep is called "Spamming". Request you not to do it.

Ben: When studying a subject we need to look at it from genesis to revelation and then weigh the whole matter together, for this reason the wealth of scriptural refrences is important and I don’t see many christians adapt to this principle.

Francis: I am glad that you have taken this position but sad to see you exploiting your own stand by ignoring the context and cherry picking verses that support your position.

Ben:“For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:” Isa. 28:10.

Francis: Not sure what you want to establish with this verse.

Ben: Due to space, I will highlight just one problem with interpretation in this video: Mark Chapter 7:10 (compare Mark 10:19) Although the Mark 7:10 says "Moses said", The first part of Christ’s quotation is a ”direct quote” from the fifth commandment of the moral Law (Exo 20:12), and the second part of Christ’s quotation is from the civil code of laws (see Ex. 21:17; Deut 20:9; 27:16). Francis: This is called "Eisogesis" and what we did is "Exegesis" of the scriptures. To cover up the false distinction one has to do such kind of gymnasium with the word of God. The scripture is crystal clear and it is people who want to make the verse say something that it is actually saying. Pure "eisogesis"

Ben: Firstly, we need to understand that, God commanded children to honour their parents, not only by the law of moses (see reference above).

Francis: Responded above

Ben: Because Christ spoke about honouring parents interchangeably, referencing from both “moral” and “ceremonial”, it does not mean that the moral and ceremonial laws are the same. this is why we need vast evidence of scriptural support to base our beliefs, else we have deluded ourselves (see previous comments for 14 differences).

Francis: I see you have deliberately ignored Luke 2: 23-24 and went after Mark as i anticipated. Therefore gave two references and even from Hebrews which i don't see your response. Still lemme highlight once again how this distinction falls" I do not know whether you know the "Law of Non Contradiction". "A" Cannot be "Non A" at the same time and with the same meaning. What we see in the distinction is "Moral Law & Ceremonial Law" according to you is "A". So it should not be "Non A" even once. However, when we read Luke 2:23-24 the sacrifices which is supposed to be called "Law of Moses(Ceremonial Law)" is called as "Law of the Lord (Moral Law).You see this is violating the law of non contradiction. We find ceremonials, the law of Moses, referred to as "The Law of Lord", which proves the distinction to be false. Thanks for resting your case! More coming in our next episode.

Ben Ezra:

Hope you are well and doing good My friend by the grace of our Almighty. Let me too present a point by point response to your claims: 

Glory Apologetics(reply): “You have mistaken our stand that we want to destroy the foundation of the Sabbath System. Our Goal is to showcase the biblical stand about Sabbath and we have clearly did it in our video. Moreover, we have indeed destroyed the foundation of your position which stands on the so called "Distinction”.” 

Ben Ezra: Unfortunately, your claims to have “destroyed the foundation of my position” does not match to your responses in this forum, as you have failed to answer some of the basic questions I and others have asked in this forum. I will repeat it here: Could you answer, Why was the 10 commandments kept INSIDE the Ark of the covenant, and the laws of Moses kept OUTSIDE on the Ark of the covenant?? Why would the bible say one is perfect and the other is imperfect? Why is one called the "law of liberty" and other called the "yoke of bondage"?? Why is one said to be "temporary" and other is "permanent"??? why was one written in a tablet of stone and other in a book?? Have you deliberately ignored this, "as I anticipated"??

Glory Apologetics(reply): "Law of Non Contradiction" & Luke 2:23-24 BEN: "Law of Non Contradiction" a tool used by philosophers, sorry to see you are working hard to reach a destination travelling in the wrong direction, applying the wrong theory in a wrong place, let me give you an example: "Do we, then, make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Rom. 3:31. " Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Eph. 2:15. Both these above texts are in the New' Testament, and both were written by the same apostle; yet one asserts that the law has not been abolished by Christ, and the other declares as positively that the law has been abolished. How is this seeming contradiction to be reconciled? By the simple fact that Paul is speaking of two entirely different laws. The first text relates to the decalogue ; the second, to the typical law. If there were not two laws, then not only the ceremonial law, but the ten commandments and all the moral precepts of the Old Testament were done away by Christ. But is it reasonable that God should abolish such precepts as these: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart," " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," "Thou shalt not kill," etc.? The difference between the two laws is made clear in the following passage: "Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them." 2 Kings 21:8. There can be no question that two laws are spoken of in this verse. One, says God, is that which ”I have commanded them,” and the other is that which ”My servant Moses commanded them.” If this distinction were always kept in mind by the student of the Bible, the confusion which exists on the subject of the two laws could not prevail. What refuters here fail to understand is that, the “Moral and Ceremonial Law does have the ability to contradict itself clearly if *given additional information*. This is the reason you have to look at the whole perspective instead just to one or two scriptures. They end up misquoting scriptures. 

Glory Apologetics(reply):  Isa. 28:10 “Not sure what you want to establish with this verse.” 

Ben Ezra: This is a basic text any Bible student must first understand, I am glad to explain, Isa. 28:10. It is a rule for teaching doctrine and a principle of bible study, unlike the theory of the”Law of Non Contradiction”. To uncover the full divine teaching on a given subject, bible students should search in all the word of God, “here a little and there a little… line upon line…” (Isa. 28:10), on every subject. It will require " precept upon precept," or text upon text, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual. We will not find it all in one place? There will be a little here and a little there. The Psalmist maybe has introduced the question. The prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others, have added still more testimony; and the evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, may have joined in to confirm it. Now, what must I do?—I must collect from each of these their testimony on that question, put it together, compare it, make it the foundation upon which to reason, and from which to draw my conclusion. In other words, examine the texts/verses that relate to a particular subject to get a true picture. God's Word is its own interpreter. John 5:39: "SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me." It is not our intellectual greatness which helps us to understand the things of God. In fact many of the world's intellectuals scoff at the Bible. Spiritual things are understood only by those who are spiritually minded. Our understanding does not come from mental ability, but from revelation of the Spirit of God. As we are prepared to receive so it is given. 

Glory Apologetics(reply):  “I see you have deliberately ignored Luke 2: 23-24 and went after Mark as i anticipated.” 

Ben Ezra: In your above statement, I sense that you seem not so confident in your use of Mark 7:10 in your refutation and want me to defend using Luke. Not a problem, let me give you a better view: Moses went up into the mount alone, where, being instructed by an angel, he wrote it out with his own hand. (See Ex. 24:15-18; Deut. 31:9, 24.) And so Paul says, ‘It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.’ Gal. 3:19. Hence also it is called ‘the handwriting of ordinances.’ Col. 2:14. For the same reason it is often called ‘the law of Moses’ (Acts 15:5), not because Moses was the author of the law, but because the Lord gave it through Moses (many fail to understands this). The Lord was the real author of the law, but Moses was the medium through whom it was made known to the people. Hence it is sometimes called ‘the law of the Lord,’ and sometimes ‘the law of Moses.’ (See *Luke 2:22, 23, where both terms are used, which is misquoted by the actors in the video.) But mark this fact: The ten commandments are never in a single instance called the law of Moses . And this distinction is everywhere kept up, both in the Old and in the New Testament (see 2 Kings 21:8 quoted above) The same fact is distinctly mentioned in Nehemiah 9:13, 14: "Thou camest down also upon Mt. Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and madest known unto them Thy holy Sabbath." We know that this refers to the ten commandments, for the Lord did come down upon Sinai and speak them from heaven, while no other law was thus given. Notice the character ascribed to this law. It is called ‘right,’ ‘true,’ and ‘good.’ After describing this holy law which God gave, the prophet adds, ‘And commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses, Thy servant.’ Here we have, first, one set of ‘judgments,’ ‘laws,’ ‘statutes,’ and ‘commandments’ spoken to them by the voice of God. Then, secondly, another set of ‘precepts,’ ‘statutes,’ and ‘laws’ by the hand of Moses. This makes it certain that there were two laws given to the people…. “In the New Testament we find the same distinction recognised. ‘But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses.’ Acts 15:5. Circumcision is the question, and the law regulating it is called ‘the law of Moses.’ But Paul says, ‘I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shall not covet.’ Rom. 7:7. This law he immediately calls ‘the law of God.’ Verse 22. Why so plain a distinction in the two laws everywhere recognised by all inspired writers? Sorry to say, your teaching is completely erroneous and contradictory to the Scripture account. Bring in as many “videos misquoting scriptures”, but this will not matter to any honest, faithful, bible student, who depends on the revelation from God… I have more coming too… Blessings and prayers for you my brother.

Glory Apologetics(reply): 

Praise the Lord! The grace of our lord almighty is sufficient for my well being.

1:Ben Ezra::Unfortunately, your claims to have “destroyed the foundation of my position” does not match to your responses in this forum, as you have failed to answer some of the basic questions I and others have asked in this forum. 

1: Glory Apologetics(reply):  Sadly, the responses were either overlooked or misunderstood therefore did not seem to match what you wanted to hear not the conclusion out of the proposed premises. This is called “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

    Secondly, the accusation of me failing to answer some of the basic questions is a pure assumption without asking for clarification. There are 2 possible reasons why I did not respond to those “So called Basic Questions”

1 – They are “Strawmen” type questions (can’t scroll the thread and find a relevant example now)

2 – Wrong Question(For example, someone here asked me to answer in Yes or No. I would not answer this type of question. What if I ask you to respond in Yes or No for this Question “You are not a Man”? (The question itself is wrong)

2: Ben Ezra:: I will repeat it here: Could you answer, Why was the 10 commandments kept INSIDE the Ark of the covenant, and the laws of Moses kept OUTSIDE on the Ark of the covenant?? Why would the bible say one is perfect and the other is imperfect? Why is one called the "law of liberty" and other called the "yoke of bondage"?? Why is one said to be "temporary" and other is "permanent"??? why was one written in a tablet of stone and other in a book?? Have you deliberately ignored this, "as I anticipated"??

2: Glory Apologetics(reply): I am in no mood to ignore any of your responses which would be bad on my part as an apologist. I will be glad to answer this question but little lengthy though. Let’s get started:

This argument of yours fail miserably because any thoughtful person could see that the book of Law contained “moral” precepts as enduring as the Ten Commandments. Let me put it another way.

1. The “book of the law” that was placed in the side of the ark of the covenant

(Deuteronomy 31:24-26) and this is what you pointed out as being

the so-called ceremonial law.

a. However, this “book of the law” (Kept aside/outside/beside the ark embraced the whole five books of Moses.

b. It contains the entire Decalogue word for word twice repeated, once in Exodus 20

and once in Deuteronomy 5.

c. This “book of the law” contained both moral and ceremonial principles.

2. That the “book of the law” contains both moral and ceremonial principles is

demonstrated from Galatians 3:10.

a. Galatians 3:10, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse:

for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are

written in the book of the law to do them.”

b. Deuteronomy 27:26, “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to

do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.”

c. In that same chapter we find the following:

(1) A curse against images, v. 15 (cf. Exodus 20:4, the second commandment)

(2) Condemnation of disobedience to parents v. 16 (cf. Exodus 20:12, the fifth)

(3) A curse against murder, v. 24 (cf. Exodus 20:13, the sixth commandment)

 d. The obvious conclusion: If the Decalogue contained moral law, then the “book of

the law” did too.

3. However, there are moral principles found in the so-called ceremonial law that are not

found in the Ten Commandments.

a. What Jesus calls the greatest commandment is not one of the Ten (Matthew

22:36-40).

(1) Matthew 22:37,38, “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. This is the first

and great commandment.“

(2) Deuteronomy 6:5, “And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine

heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”

(3) Mark 12:31, “And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy

neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”

The Ten Commandments do not prohibit homosexuality, bestiality or incest, but

the ceremonial law does.

(1) Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it

is abomination.”

(2) Leviticus 18:23, “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself

therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down

thereto: it is confusion.”

(3) Leviticus 18:6, “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to

him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.”

c. There are other moral principles not found in the Decalogue contained in the

“ceremonial” book of the law.

(1) Leviticus 19:14,31,33, “Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a

stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God ... Regard not them

that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them ... if

a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.”

(2) Deuteronomy 22:4, “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fall down

by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift them

up again.

(3) Deuteronomy 24:6, “No man shall take the nether or the upper

millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life to pledge.”

d. Question: Were these moral precepts only ceremonial precepts?

Conclusion:

A. You Are Wrong in your Assertion That There Were Two Laws Because:

1. “The Law” embraces the whole Mosaic system.

2. God made only one covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai which included both the moral

and the ceremonial.

3. All distinctions between moral law and ceremonial law are artificial and man made.

3: Ben Ezra: "Law of Non Contradiction" a tool used by philosophers, sorry to see you are working hard to reach a destination travelling in the wrong direction, applying the wrong theory in a wrong place,

3: Glory Apologetics(reply): It is sad to read that you do not understand what is Law and what is Theory. I am not working hard to reach any destination but helping you see how your claim is making no sense in the light of logic. Do you mean to say that this Law is not applicable in our discussion or you want to convince me that there is no Logic involved in this conversation? Or else trying to prove that bible is based on illogical stuff that defies logic to all extent? "Law of Non Contradiction" is not a patent tool that it should only be used by the philosophers but a common norm for any conversation or discussion. If your argument fails to pass this "Law of Non Contradiction" test then it must be rejected with no second thought. And we have time and again proved it that your Distinction contradicts your position. “Red-Herring” on your part.

4: Ben Ezra: let me give you an example: "Do we, then, make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Rom. 3:31. " Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Eph. 2:15. Both these above texts are in the New' Testament, and both were written by the same apostle; yet one asserts that the law has not been abolished by Christ, and the other declares as positively that the law has been abolished. How is this seeming contradiction to be reconciled?

4: Glory Apologetics(reply): This called Cherry Picking. You seem to have ignored the context completely or did not understand the passage and just took it because it sounds like supporting your position. Both passages speak the same thing. Only a legalistic mind can put words in the mouth of Paul which he did not intend to say. For the sake of sparing space here, I would like to direct you to this link to get your confusions cleared – http://theshovel.net/qa/law/romans-3-31-faith-establishes-law . There is no contradiction at all. It is just a misunderstanding.

5: Ben Ezra: By the simple fact that Paul is speaking of two entirely different laws. The first text relates to the decalogue ; the second, to the typical law. If there were not two laws, then not only the ceremonial law, but the ten commandments and all the moral precepts of the Old Testament were done away by Christ. But is it reasonable that God should abolish such precepts as these: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart," " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," "Thou shalt not kill," etc.? The difference between the two laws is made clear in the following passage: "Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them." 2 Kings 21:8. There can be no question that two laws are spoken of in this verse. One, says God, is that which ”I have commanded them,” and the other is that which ”My servant Moses commanded them.” If this distinction were always kept in mind by the student of the Bible, the confusion which exists on the subject of the two laws could not prevail.

5: Glory Apologetics(reply): Refuted this assertion in detail in point : 2

6: Ben Ezra: What refuters here fail to understand is that, the “Moral and Ceremonial Law does have the ability to contradict itself clearly if *given additional information*. This is the reason you have to look at the whole perspective instead just to one or two scriptures. They end up misquoting scriptures.

6: Glory Apologetics(reply): What you have failed to understand is the contradiction is not based on any “Ifs” but really contradicts when the whole of the scripture is taken into consideration. The same is clearly pointed out in point 2. The assumption of scriptures being misquoted is a fallacy called “Begging the Question”.

7: Ben Ezra: This is a basic text any Bible student must first understand, I am glad to explain, Isa. 28:10. It is a rule for teaching doctrine and a principle of bible study, unlike the theory of the”Law of Non Contradiction”. To uncover the full divine.....(Kept is short for the space)

7: Glory Apologetics(reply): I agree with most of what you said about Isa 28:10 except the ”Law of Non Contradiction” which you need to understand what exactly it is and have responded in point 3.

8: Ben Ezra:In your above statement, I sense that you seem not so confident in your use of Mark 7:10 in your refutation and want me to defend using Luke.

8: Glory Apologetics(reply): Assumptions upon Assumption is what makes me feel sad in any conversation. I am certainly confident about Mark 7:10. I allowed you to use it for a reason. If you want me to take that as well then here are the problems you have to face:

      A)  You said: Although the Mark 7:10 says "Moses said", The first part of Christ’s quotation is a ”direct quote” from the fifth commandment of the moral Law (Exo 20:12), and the second part of Christ’s quotation is from the civil code of laws (see Ex. 21:17; Deut 20:9; 27:16). ------ FRANCIS: Going by your distinction method should we reject the first part of Mark 7:10 because it was done away as ceremonial?

      B)  You have also helped me strengthen my position by this claim that ceremonials are not merely sacrifices but do contain moral precepts which you are saying is only a part of Decalogue. A Lot of contradictory claims my friend. (Refer point 2 sub points 1,2,3)

      C)  When things are used interchangeably do they show distinction? Show me one proof from the bible if it is true. (please do not quote the same Moral – Ceremonial stuff. Back up your position with an alternate example from the bible that words used interchangeably can mean different things with entirely different concept and meaning).

9: Ben Ezra: Not a problem, let me give you a better view: Moses went up into the mount alone, where, being instructed by an angel, he wrote it out with his own hand. (See Ex. 24:15-18; Deut. 31:9, 24.)

9: Glory Apologetics(reply): the Ten commandments were written down by

God's own hand, what then of the rest of the law that was dictated to Moses by God, from His

own mouth? Is what God spoke somehow of less importance than what He wrote? Failed argument and a strawman attempt.

10: Ben Ezra: And so Paul says, ‘It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.’ Gal. 3:19. Hence also it is called ‘the handwriting of ordinances.’

10: Glory Apologetics(reply): I would like to point out a GRAVE error in your cherry picking from Gala 3:19. If you continue reading, the chapter 3 is cleary saying that Law was a custodian and I have pointed out many times which you will still ignore that “Whenever Bible or Paul says “Law” it refers to the whole 613 laws like pointed out in point 2. I am sad that you are drawing a conclusion out of the blue that it is called “the handwriting of ordinances”. What is this ordinances?  You may read 2 Corinthians 3:6-13. This whole passage should be studied carefully. Verse 7 speaks of that which was “written and engraven in stones,”,  and it refers to moses , so that only could be the 10 commandments. Then verse 11 and 13 says the same thing was done away. There you have it clearly what is the hand written ordinances are. Verse 7 specifies the incident of Moses’s face shining and 9^th verse itself drives the point home. (Watch our 3^rd Episode to Understand how we proved that 10 commandments are done away by using 2 Corinthians 3:6-13 and Romans 7:1-7)

11: Ben Ezra: Col. 2:14. For the same reason it is often called ‘the law of Moses’ (Acts 15:5), not because Moses was the author of the law, but because the Lord gave it through Moses (many fail to understands this). The Lord was the real author of the law, but Moses was the medium through whom it was made known to the people. Hence it is sometimes called ‘the law of the Lord,’ and sometimes ‘the law of Moses.’

11: Glory Apologetics(reply): Answered in point 8c and Point 10. (Hope you understand)

12: Ben Ezra: (See *Luke 2:22, 23, where both terms are used, which is misquoted by the actors in the video.)

12: Glory Apologetics(reply): You have misunderstood it. The actors quoted really well and is not contradictory and have explained clearly in the video. Does the 10 commandment say that “First Born child should be set apart for the lord as the 23^rd verse says? Does the Ten commandments say to offer doves and pigeons as the 24^th Verse says? Please read it before trying to respond brother. The distinction is a big time blunder.

13: Ben Ezra: But mark this fact: The ten commandments are never in a single instance called the law of Moses .

13: Glory Apologetics(reply):: (Study hebrews 10:28 in a larger context) This is again a strawmen attempt asking for a Word to word or an exact statement than understanding the concept or context. What if I apply your technique and say “Jesus never called himself “GOD” in any instance” therefore Jesus is not God?. Do you see the problem with your logical fallacies which you are committing? I hope you get it.

14: Ben Ezra: And this distinction is everywhere kept up, both in the Old and in the New Testament (see 2 Kings 21:8 quoted above) The same fact is distinctly mentioned in Nehemiah 9:13, 14: "Thou camest down also upon Mt. Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and madest known unto them Thy holy Sabbath." We know that this refers to the ten commandments, for the Lord did come down upon Sinai and speak them from heaven, while no other law was thus given. Notice the character ascribed to this law. It is called ‘right,’ ‘true,’ and ‘good.’ After describing this holy law which God gave, the prophet adds, ‘And commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses, Thy servant.’ Here we have, first, one set of ‘judgments,’ ‘laws,’ ‘statutes,’ and ‘commandments’ spoken to them by the voice of God. Then, secondly, another set of ‘precepts,’ ‘statutes,’ and ‘laws’ by the hand of Moses. This makes it certain that there were two laws given to the people…. “In the New Testament we find the same distinction recognised. ‘But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses.’ Acts 15:5. Circumcision is the question, and the law regulating it is called ‘the law of Moses.’ But Paul says, ‘I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shall not covet.’ Rom. 7:7. This law he immediately calls ‘the law of God.’ Verse 22. Why so plain a distinction in the two laws everywhere recognised by all inspired writers?

14: Glory Apologetics(reply): All this big stuff has been refuted in point 2 when I proved the distinction to be false. Therefore I said you spend a lot of time in "Eisegesis" and what we did is "Exegesis" of the scriptures.

What’s interesting is that you keep on Cherry picking verses from the chapter that actually proves you wrong. I can’t believe you quoted Romans 7. Do you know that the Chapter you quoted refutes SDA system completely? No! Lemme show it you (In our 3^rd episode we did it).: Read Romans 7:1-7, Verse 4 and 7 says you have been delivered by the Law. You may ask which law? And the answer is clearly given in verse 7. Please for God’s sake try reading in context.

  

15: Ben Ezra: Sorry to say, your teaching is completely erroneous and contradictory to the Scripture account. Bring in as many “videos misquoting scriptures”, but this will not matter to any honest, faithful, bible student, who depends on the revelation from God

15: Glory Apologetics(reply): Even the Muslims watching my islamic videos say so J. That does not mean they are right like you. They claim to be right as you do. This is a ad-hom without enough research and study.

16: Ben Ezra:… I have more coming too… Blessings and prayers for you my brother.

16: Glory Apologetics(reply): I will be glad to respond. I invested around 2.5 hours in formulating this response and days and weeks for the Drama. All for the TRUE LIGHT. God Bless you!

-Francis Siluvai