Elle,
This time it is I that am slightly confused as to where you are going.
Sorry for the confusion. I see now that we have very different understanding ... I went back to read the beginning of this thread by which I do not agree with the opening statement.
Maybe it would help you understand where I'm coming from and going if I tweeked the OP. This is what I would need to fix so it would reflect my current understanding :
Christ neveralways observed the Ceremonial Law.
The Bible never records anysome instance where Jesus participated in the ceremonial law/sacrificial system. He couldn'tcan, because ceremonial law/sacrificial systemthe law which is the plan of salvation was instituted at the time of sin (Genesis 4:4)of the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8 "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world") to show how God was going to remove man's sins. If Jesus didn't participated in the ceremoniallaw system He would have been admitting that He was a sinner, in which He was not. "Christ passed through all the experiences of His childhood, youth, and manhood withoutby the observance of some ceremonial temple worship." (The Bible Echo, October 31, 1898)
And that quote came from "Bible Echo"? I'm not aware of that book. Does the Church say that this quote come from EGW's pen? If so... I would question that and I don't want to get into this question here. (see discussion
here. BTW it is the same link provided below.)
There's way too much correction to address in that quote. That's probably why I didn't bother entering this discussion.
Again, so sorry for entering and all the confusion I created.
Why do you see a difference between the revelation given through God's servants the prophets,
Do you mean the "revelation" thru the writings of EGW? If so... I have made my stand clear many times already in this forum....check
here for my latest expression of it.
Again the meaning of "revelation" needs to be define as we do not have the same definition of this word and we use it differently.
and any other revelation from God? Do you not see the Bible as fully inspired and trustworthy?
?? I trust in the inspiration of the Bible; however I repeat, these passages in scriptures won't become "revelations" to me until the Holy Spirit has taught these to me personally (1Jn 2:27). 'till then, all I can do is chew my cud and wait for the Holy Spirit's teachings & timing.
I also don't understand your questions about the Old Covenant vs the New Covenant. The New Covenant is simply God's laws written in our hearts whereas the Old Covenant was the Israelites promising to keep God's laws on their stick/dime/power.
I do believe we have some similar definition of the Old Covenant versus the New Covenant after reading some of your posts....and that's why I got confuse. However, I now see what you actually mean with it, versus what I mean with it...we differ greatly.
Maybe the below is how and why we differ in understanding.
Do you believe that the Law-Torah is prophetic? All that was given to the Israelites in the OT is prophetic? I do. But it was not fulfilled in the OT literal language way... what was said in the OT were TYPES & shadow (symbolic language) that pointed to greater things yet to come. How does Ex 13:12,13 Type & Shadow means to you in the new Covenant understanding of greater things to come? That's where the rubber meets the road and things becomes tangible.
To me Mat 5:18 says Christ will fulfilled all the words given in the Law(=Torah=Pentateuch) including the redeeming of the asses with the lamb said in Ex 13:12,13.
Or maybe you believe that part of the law is abolish because it is "ceremonial" and nailed to the cross like most denominations (including SDAs) has done?
Let's go back ...do you believe Jesus fulfilled Ex 13:12,13? if so how? if not ... you believe this part is nailed to the cross?
They had no power to keep the covenant they made. We only have the power to obey the law after God writes them on the fleshly tablets of our hearts and we abide in Him.
I fully agree with that statement...but to obey which law???
Our understanding(&definition) of the law or God's.
Most SDAs when they say "Law" they mean only the 10Cs. I differ it goes way further. At the minimum we may be able to agree that the COI after hearing the 10Cs refused to hear the rest of the law (see Ex 20:19 "
And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.") which included all the judgments, ... I think it goes up to chapt 34?... I don't remember but up to wherever chapter where they closed the Old Covenant [marriage]. Paul describes this covenant in Galatian 4 as a Hagar-bond woman (slave) type of marriage and also as a child-slave in the Beg of Gal 4. Nothing wrong with that step, but we need to move on to the Sarah-Free woman type of marriage.
Most of the cases what we think we understand of the law often it is a case of coming from a Hagar or Child's perspective... this perspective often does not match the Holy Spirit's interpretation of it; thus in reality... that part of the law is yet not written in our heart tablet ...for the Holy Spirit has not taught(reveal) it to us yet. Can you agree with that?