The collected narratives of errors end as a blow against the STA

Deutsch

What initially appears to be a neutral collection of selected errors turns out to be a sharp, elbowing attack against the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA). A young author poses as a polymath with a complete understanding of the Gospel, seemingly oblivious to how wrong she actually is.

Served in honor of the Pope

Many a “expert,” consciously or unconsciously, is following in the footsteps of the previous Pope Francis. The former Pontifex Maximus seriously claimed that the various religions were merely “different languages ​​for the one and the same God.” Therefore, there are many paths to God. A Roman Catholic cleric straight out of a textbook. A Jesuit, no less!

A similarly caliber “specialist” recently weighed in. More precisely, a “specialist” (female). The author, Anaya Nolan, used the platform “Law Shun” (“Avoid the Law”) to publish her “statement.” Quite fitting, actually, given the topic of God’s law. Simply “avoid” it. She already questions in the title whether we are bound by the Sabbath law in modern times.

So, basically, this is a completely worn-out question that leads to a huge misconception right from the start! Unfortunately, the first Protestants in the 16th century were extremely inconsistent. Because they argued very similarly back then and adopted traditions of the Roman Catholic Church that are still practiced today. Sad enough.

Reformers were merely rebels

This went so far that the Protestants even used the same vocabulary as their parent organization. This included “Lord’s Day, Sunday,” the “Jewish Sabbath” on Saturday, and also the then newly introduced term “Christian Sabbath.” In 1530, the “half-hearted rebels” carved this “Christian Sabbath” in stone. The Augsburg Confession asserts that the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) is a ceremonial commandment and was annulled at the crucifixion of Jesus. Therefore, Sunday (the first day) is observed.

It is rare enough to find oneself agreeing with the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. Here, however, it is. At the Council of Trent, arguably the most important council in history as a counter to the Reformation, Cardinal von Regio spoke up and railed against the (surprise, surprise!) invited and present Protestants, accusing them of still clinging to a whole range of Roman Catholic traditions (e.g. observance of Sundays, Christmas, Easter, etc.) despite their proclamation of “Sola Scriptura.” Therefore, the Reformers are not schismatics, but (merely) rebels within the Roman Catholic Church!

The cardinal hit the nail on the head! Absolutely right!

Written law recognized, but then what?

The author is familiar with the various interpretations of the Sabbath commandment according to Exodus 20:8-11. “However, the interpretations differ widely,” she correctly observed. This is indeed the case, and one wonders why. The countless other passages in the Bible clearly indicate that the Sabbath was by no means merely a Mosaic law (ceremonial commandment). Simple example:

“And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:” (Mark 2:27)

Jesus Christ said “human being” and not “Jews” or “Israel,” but human being, meaning everyone! (Info). Where the Bible uses “Jew,” the original text uses “Yehuda.” This means nothing other than “inhabitant of Judah,” that is, a Judean. The word “Jew” is merely a derivative of this. Plenty of potential for misunderstandings or misleading people.

This leads to theories claiming that God gave His law (ceremonial laws and the Ten Commandments) only to the “Jews.” This would mean that only the tribe of Judah was bound by it, and not all of Israel, because the latter has nothing to do with Judah, but is one of the other eleven tribes! Judah as a separate entity only came into being after the division of the ancient Canaan into the twelve tribes.

The only exception was the tribe of Levi. They did not receive their own territory. Why? Because they had the exclusive task of providing the priests of the temple. They had to be present wherever this service was needed. Therefore, they had to be present in every tribe, not confined to their own territory.

Anaja Nolan starts rhyming

The author Anaya Nolan at least claims to be “getting to the bottom of the truth.” She immediately asserts that the Sabbath was part of the “Old Covenant” and that this was ultimately abolished with the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ. The “old” Sabbath, she claims, was only for Israel. She even quotes Jesus Christ himself. Again, because it’s so important, Mark 2:27:
“And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:“

But does the author read “human being” as a human being? No, not at all. She constructs this into: “In doing so, he emphasizes his role as a gift of tranquility and not as a rigid duty.” One has to wonder if she’s completely sound of mind. How does anyone come up with something like that?!

She simply ignores the distinction between “human” and artificially emphasizes a circumstance that, while certainly present in Jesus’ statement, doesn’t constitute its core message. But this is precisely the adversary’s method: first doubt God’s (Jesus’) statutes and laws, then question them, then impose her own version upon them. Just as Satan did behind the serpent to Eve. Deception, deception, deception (Info).

There’s more to come from this author

Anaya Nolan delves even deeper into her repertoire of fictions, creating yet another erroneous narrative that centers on “spiritual rest in Christ.” This further narrative refers to Colossians 2:16-17:
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.“

Wieder so ein Ding, welches durchaus in der Lage ist “geistliche Schmerzen” zu verursachen. Sie, und die vielen Anderen, nicht selbst prüfenden Leichtgläubigen, bräuchten lediglich über den einzelnen Vers hinaus den Anfang des Kapitels auch zu lesen, um zu begreifen, dass die “Sabbate” tatsächlich die Feiertage des Zeremoniegesetztes gemeint waren, ebenso wie die Feiertage der Neuzugänge in die noch junge Christen-Gemeinde.

They almost without exception stemmed from some kind of pagan superstition and had their own customs for observing their holidays (“Sabbaths”). Paul merely expressed that they should not be categorically forbidden from doing so (as long as they did not violate God’s commandment). But there are also those candidates who simply refuse to understand this!

Immer noch nicht genug!

Furthermore, the author claims that the New Covenant defines “inner reality instead of outer ritual.” What is that supposed to mean? Something excessively “spiritual”? A touch of Hindu yoga New Age philosophy shines through. As if that weren’t enough, the author goes even further by misusing Paul according to Romans 6:14:
“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.“

So langsam kommt der Verdacht auf, Anaya Nolan hat die zahlreichen Interpretationen zum Sabbat Gottes gesammelt, ausgewertet und “das Beste” für ihre Zwecke ausgewählt. “Nicht mehr unter dem Gesetz, sondern unter der Gnade” derart zu verdrehen, stellt eine Umkehrung, das Aufsatteln des Pferds vom Hinterteil dar.

For this statement by Paul reaffirms the existing law, since what no longer exists could never be subject to it, and it overlooks the fact that it is the grace of Jesus that makes it possible to commit no more sins, that is, to live according to the Spirit and no longer according to the desires of one’s own corrupt flesh. Galatians 5:16-22, also by Paul, explains much more about this, with vivid examples!

Her closing statement? Nope!

As expected, the author concludes that “modern Christians” are not legally obligated to observe the Sabbath. This is yet another completely wishy-washy statement. For what exactly are “modern Christians”? At what point do “modern Christians” begin, and were “pre-modern Christians” still obligated to observe? If so, then it becomes all the more important to understand when the era of “modern Christians” began.

After all, the first Christians appeared as early as the 1st century AD, and roughly 2000 years have passed since then. So when did the epochal shift occur? It’s clear that such seemingly intellectual pronouncements are, in reality, nothing more than (stupid) platitudes!

A sharp elbow kick is still to come!

Anaya Nolan even mentions Seventh-day Adventists (SDA), albeit in a rather neutral way. She emphasizes that the SDA still adhere to the seventh-day Sabbath, while other denominations observe Sunday in relation to the day of Jesus’ resurrection. This includes, with the exception of the Seventh-day Baptists, “all other” Christian denominations. Of course, this includes the mother church, headquartered in Rome, which had already visibly and monstrously fallen away in the fourth century. This is how Paul might have experienced it in Athens. While Paul was a polymath, an extremely well-educated and highly intelligent man, yet far from a gifted orator like the somewhat impulsive Peter, he accepted the challenge of countering the “intellectual drivel” of the so-called learned Hellenistic thinkers and poets with the Word of God. Respect! The Holy Spirit has thus done a great job!

This Hellenistic way of thinking is precisely the kind that has become so commonplace in our time, from elementary school right through to university, that it goes completely unnoticed. It is from this that we must first and foremost break free, because it inevitably clashes with the Gospel, and thus with God’s fundamental principles of thought, and especially with His will!

But the author isn’t about to let the “notorious Sabbath-keepers” Seventh-day Adventists get away with it without a little elbowing. It’s quite subtle, but some mud always sticks. She simply posits that the difference lies between “legalism” and “freedom in the New Covenant.” Therefore, those who observe the Sabbath are practicing legalism, while others enjoy the “freedoms given by Jesus Christ”! But that’s still not enough! There’s more. Anaya Nolan adds that the current application of the Sabbath commandment is like imposing burdens, while Sunday-keepers offer rest and deepen their connection to God.

So, “backhanded, covert, and with a bucketful of mud.”

“STA, the legalists and oppressors, using imposed burdens through the abuse of long-abolished laws!“

More than just a hint of Jesuit principles

This text could just as easily have originated from the (criminal, misanthropic) Loyola Brotherhood (Info). The author’s description on the online platform describes the still-young Anaya Nolan as a recognized expert on “alternative Streitbeilegung, insbesondere Mediation. […] Nolans Erfolge bei der Beilegung von Streitigkeiten haben ihr den Ruf einer Meistermediatorin eingebracht, die dafür bekannt ist, selbst die strittigsten Situationen in Chancen für positive Veränderungen zu verwandeln.“

A true jack-of-all-trades

Anaya Nolan has been a regular contributor to the “Law Shun” platform since September 12, 2024. Her other articles include “Why Removing Mattress Tags Is Illegal,” “Feeding Wild Horses,” “Why HR Departments Often Lack Full Legal Knowledge,” “Distance and Current in Faraday’s Law,” “Overcoming Self-Consciousness,” “Exploring Jude Law’s Sexuality,” “Houston’s Unique Zoning Laws,” and “Understanding Colorado’s Incest Laws.”

She is clearly knowledgeable in legal matters. But she also knows how to have something to say on a wide range of topics. This naturally suggests competence in all facets, including the spiritual understanding of the Gospel.

Job already had a question about this:

Bible verses from King James Version

¹ https://lawshun.com/article/are-we-under-the-sabbath-law

Deutsch

English