Do You Really Want to Know?


#224

Am coming back to add to this the point that I don’t believe you can receive the same message from topical vs expository sermons. The Word speaks the language of the soul that only the Creator can convey to the created and invoke the HS. Doesn’t happen with proof-text stories you commonly receive from Saturday-only pastors, especially when the seemingly obligatory Ellen quotes are added and by inference given equal status.


(Frankmer7) #225

I agree, Paul! There is a power in letting the text speak for itself in its own context, and then applying that, that is missing from superimposing theological truisms or stringing together texts out of context to make a point. That is the work of exegesis, and then expository teaching and preaching. I see the effect on many people when the bible is approached in this fashion. They often remark that they’ve been shown things they never heard before, and feel that they’ve been fed deeply and in a more fulfilling and challenging way.

I have to say though, not quite the same for those who want to hear the same doctrines reiterated over and over again to remind them that we alone have “the truth.”

Thanks…

Frank


#226

So true. IMO, these (mostly) vegetarians are also getting meat-less messages!


(dale) #227

I am not quoting out of context. You say that I am quoting out of context because what I am stating conflicts with your ideas.
When Christ lived on this earth he lived out every single one of the 10 commandments in his life including the sabbath. Jesus never ignored the law he came to demonstrate how it is to be lived out. Seeing a demonstration is far more effective to convey an idea. Christ death on the cross is evidence that the law cannot be changed. That in order to save man from its penalty that the spotless son of God had to lay down his life.

In addition there is no logical reason for the law to be done away with. The sacrificial law it makes sense that it was done away with because Christ came and there was no need for it because it was pointing forward to Christ coming to die for man and his work for us. If the law could have been changed then Christ could have changed the law and avoided dying.

The scripture says that in the new earth we will come together to worship God on the sabbath. Isaiah 66:22-23 KJV
[22] For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord , so shall your seed and your name remain. [23] And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. …

I would like a scriptural basis for why would we be observing the sabbath in the new earth but not here. Because if the law is done away with as you say then why would the sabbath be a thing after sin has been done away with? I see those verses supporting the perpetuity of the law. The sabbath was instituted at creation. God himself rested on the sabbath and set it as a memorial of creation. It makes no sense that he gets rid of it. The premise of the sabbath is for man to honour it because God created us and the world and everything in it. I don’t see how the cross or the new covenant changes the fact that God is our creator and the creator of everything. How is it even possible to do away with that. Creator is what God is he can’t change himself from being the creator unless he ceased to be God. As long as he is God we are to honour him in away that he tells us to as his creations not in the way that we think.


(Frankmer7) #228

This is a prime example of you quoting out of context and cherry picking ideas. The text of Isa. 65-66, was written to Israel in the context of exile. The vision of the new heavens and new earth mirrors their return to the land. If one reads the entire text in its context, it can be seen that it also mentions looking upon the dead bodies of their enemies when they return. Is this consistent with the NT vision of the new heavens and earth?

Some of the exiles who are brought back by believing Gentiles who would come to pay tribute at the city, will be selected to become priests and Levites, implying the continued priesthood and functioning temple. Is this consistent with the NT vision that says there is no more temple?

Old people who die at one hundred will be considered mere youth, that there will be extended lifespan as the norm. Is this consistent with the NT belief in resurrection to eternal life, the new earth where there will be no more death?

Finally, the prophetic message here states that all will come from one New Moon to another, and one Sabbath to another to worship. Does this mean that we will keep the monthly Rosh Chodesh in the new earth as well as the Sabbath? Why didn’t you mention this? And, how is that possible if, as Revelation describes the New Jerusalem, there is no night there? Also, if we’re to keep the monthly New Moon feast then, why do we not teach people to keep it now?

Your literalistic cherry picking of this text is fraught with problems and incredible inconsistencies. Isaiah was obviously written to Hebrews in exile, and depicting their restoration to the land as the hoped for fulfillment of God’s promised restoration for all time. It was cast in terms exclusively applying to their life as the people of God at that time. The Sabbath, like the New Moon, the temple, the priesthood, and the land, were all part of that picture of an anticipated restored life.

While it is part of the basis of the NT vision, it is not a one to one correspondence. The NT gives differing details concerning eternal life, the temple, etc., that are not the same as the vision of Isa. 65-66. With all that said, do I believe that the text from Isaiah can be used to support the idea that we will all keep the Sabbath for all eternity in the new earth? No, not if we let the text speak in its context, and are being totally honest with it.

Frank


#229

Deut 5:
12 “ ‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

The Adventist pastor’s wife woke me up last Saturday baking dessert for a sabbath meal after church. Is she a law-breaker?


(Tim Teichman) #230

Well, he was a Jew. His work to fulfill the law, to replace it with a new sort of covenant, had not been completed. Paul is clear about this.

I think there is. There are multiple covenants in the bible, each replacing the last. Paul writes in earnest and at length that this is also what Jesus did, that he fulfilled the last covenant and replaced it with something new, continuing the pattern in the OT. And Christians are then directed to throw out the old in favor of the new.

Why do you think there will be a sabbath in heaven? The sabbath is a day to rest from work. Do you imagine needing to rest?

It’s not a thing now, according to Paul. The OT law as been replaced.


(Cfowler) #231

I’ve said this a dozen times, but Sabbath was almost like another work day for me, and most everyone else (especially women). It was only restful if I stayed home and rested, or we did a relaxing excursion away from the church stuff!


#232

Good point Carol. Always inexplicable these “rules”. The Adventist pastor’s son was not allowed to watch TV but could ride an ATV on sabbath. Wish they would hand out the rule book before we meet next time cuz I’m confused!


(dale) #233

I’m not cherry picking at all. Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. So you are saying that this happened after the Israelites returned from the Babylonian exile? You clearly don’t see how God speaks about the king of Babylon then switches to speaking about lucifer in Isaiah 14, in Ezekiel 28 God speaks to Ezekiel about the prince of Tyrus then switches to speaking about the devil. Unless you expect us to believe that the prince of tyrus was walking in Eden, and the he was the annointing cherub that covers.

The verse that I linked above doesn’t fit with your interpretation of events. There is no record of that being fulfilled. That is a direct reference to the world to come just like in Isaiah God used something temporal to bring across something literal. This was also observed in Ezekiel and Jesus himself used it in Matthew 24 using the destruction of Jerusalem and intertwined it with the signs of his second coming. What I am saying isn’t far fetched nor is it cherry picking, it something that appears elsewhere in the bible.

Revelation 22:2 In the midst a of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

The tree of life bears a new fruit every month. Explain to me how there is said that there is a new fruit yielded every month? Clearly there is a reckoning of time as we know it present in the new earth.

The sabbath was given in eden before the fall. It was given to man before sin existed. There is no reason to infer that the sabbath was abolished. The sabbath and marriage were instituted at creation. That is undeniable, the biblical record is plain. As much as you are criticizing things that I am saying, you haven’t given any clear biblical reasoning for the invalidity of the sabbath. Jesus called himself the lord or master of the sabbath. How is he the lord of it? Because it was him who created it the 1st chapter of John said that there wasn’t anything made that he didn’t make. If it belongs to him then from him any change must come. I don’t see any where in the scripture that warrants a change by him or anyone else.

You also completely avoided the point that I raised about the sabbath being kept because God created everything, and how that has changed to invalidate the sabbath command. Calvary doesn’t nullify the fact that he created us. So then where is the reason for saying don’t honour God as your creator. What it boils down to is by whose authority do you choose to yield to. I choose to honour the sabbath to exercise my faith in Christ as my creator. He says remember the sabbath day because I made you. So I observe the sabbath because I BELIEVE that God created me and everything else. There is no way shape or form can you say that it’s a rule to me. It’s a willing choice that I freely do, I doesn’t seem to be a yoke or a burden, in fact I look forward all week to the sabbath, that I have a complete day to spend with God and my family and connecting with others.

I love my wife, I don’t beat her not because it’s a cumbersome rule even though the law says that I cannot beat my wife. I keep my hands off of her because I love and respect her and doing the things that she likes is a pleasure for me to do, not a burden. The same is true with God. I love the sabbath it is both my pleasure and honour to spend that time to honour and spend time with my maker. If you want to call that legalism that’s all on you, because it is nothing but love that propels me to keep the sabbath just like it’s love that propels me to do things for my wife.

So many people talk about the sabbath like it is some grievous burden, that disturbs me to no end. What was burdensome was the quagmire of sin I was drowning in before Jesus rescued me. To me the sabbath is a delight, a joy the highlight of my week.

The failure to keep the sabbath by the vast majority of Christianity is the precise reason why at the council of Trent the Catholics declared the reformation a failure. Why ? Because they said that they cannot be saying sola scriptura and keep Sunday the day that they ordained. The reformation wasn’t a failure but they did present a valid argument about the sola scriptura issue.


(James Peterson) #234

It does NOT mean that she wasn’t the inspiration for the tract. The way the proof is presented is enough indication of her influence when it is given for such a doctrine. ONLY SDA believe the doctrine and they cannot say anything against it because her “visions support it”.

///


(Frankmer7) #235

Sorry, you simply do not deal with all of Isa. 65-66 in its literary and historical context. I never said that Isaiah’s vision didn’t have anything to do with a fulfillment beyond the return from exile. What I did say is that all the particulars of his vision don’t match what the NT describes of life in the new earth. It simply doesn’t.

You ignore those differences. You don’t deal from the immediate text itself with any of the questions I raised from its context. You don’t deal with the keeping of the New Moon at all, now or then, leaving it aside to continue to pursue the perpetuity of the Sabbath isolated from that. You don’t deal with mortality or the priesthood or the temple still being present in Isaiah’s vision of the new earth.

Deal with those, and then we can discuss what the passage is saying. Until then, there’s nothing we can discuss. As of now, you’ve done exactly what you claim not to…you’ve cherry picked the Sabbath out of the text to support its keeping for eternity.

Have a happy and blessed new year!

Frank


(dale) #236

Did God need rest when he created the world and then rested on the sabbath? Or did Adam or Eve need the rest after they were created?

The only thing that was done away with was the sacrificial service. The only part of the law people have issue with is the sabbath, unless you enjoy people stealing from you or think that murder or covetousness is ok or worshipping another god is ok. Most people are like we shouldn’t do those things. Because if the law isn’t valid then those things must be permissible. Then they say the law of Christ, but Christ said that I am my father are one. So the law of the father and Christ are the same. He also said that he came to speak not his own will, just the will of his father.

When it came to the law no man was used to transmit the law it was give directly from God to man, there was no inspiration it was transcribed by God himself and handed to man. That is the only part of the bible that was directly written by God men just copied what God wrote. Think of that significance. God made man with his hands and it was significant. He called everything else into existence by his word.


(Cfowler) #237

24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”

How does verse 24 fit in with your interpretation. Adventists usually leave this out.


(Frankmer7) #238

Along with all of the other stuff I detailed from the passage, Carol. And then, when you present it, it all gets ignored, while claiming to be true to the text. I won’t continue with this.

Have a Happy New Year, Carol!

Frank


(Cfowler) #239

Wise words, Frank. I will follow suit! How many times can we bang our heads against the wall?

Hope you have a Happy New Year too! :fireworks: :grinning: :firecracker:


(Kade Wilkinson) #240

Yes, although that appears to be the NIV. Better English translations render it as follows:

NASB:

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you– not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

ESV:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

KJV:

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

NET:

And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you–not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

No, their spirits were in Hades, which is why Christ went there to preach to them. St. Peter also mentioned this in his Pentecost sermon recorded in Acts, when he stated that Christ’s " soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption." (See also 1 Peter 4:6) This is why Icons of the resurection always show Christ breaking through the gates of Hell and bringing the righteous with him (as testified in Matthew 27:52-53).

Well, sure, but the means he chooses to save us through is baptism, just as the means he used to save snakebitten Hebrews in the desert was a serpent on a pole.


(Kade Wilkinson) #241

Well, you seem to have neglected the fact that Christ commanded his followers to consume alcohol in remembrance of him.


(Kade Wilkinson) #242

St. Ignatius of Antioch (which is in Syria), who was a disciple of St John the Revelator, wrote the following about the Sabbath while St. John was still alive:

CHAPTER 8
8:1 Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by
antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even
unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we
avow that we have not received grace:
8:2 for the divine prophets lived after Christ
Jesus. For this cause also they were persecuted, being
inspired by His grace to the end that they which are
disobedient might be fully persuaded that there is one
God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His
Son, who is His Word that proceeded from silence, who
in all things was well-pleasing unto Him that sent
Him.

CHAPTER 9
9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient
practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer
observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after
the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through
Him and through His death which some men deny – a
mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this
cause we endure patiently, that we may be found
disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher –
9:2 if this be so, how shall we be able to live
apart from Him? seeing that even the prophets, being
His disciples, were expecting Him as their teacher
through the Spirit. And for this cause He whom they
rightly awaited, when He came, raised them from the
dead.

CHAPTER 10
10:1 Therefore let us not be insensible to His
goodness. For if He should imitate us according to our
deeds, we are lost. For this cause, seeing that we are
become His disciples, let us learn to live as
beseemeth Christianity. For whoso is called by another
name besides this, is not of God.
10:2 Therefore put away the vile leaven which hath
waxed stale and sour, and betake yourselves to the new
leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him,
that none among you grow putrid, seeing that by your
savour ye shall be proved.
10:3 It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to
practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in
Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, wherein every
tongue
believed and was gathered together unto
God.


(Tim Teichman) #243

Probably not. He’s God. And he didn’t rest on the sabbath. There was no sabbath. It’s not even mentioned until Exodus. Not one patriarch in Genesis ever kept a sabbath. Not Adam, not Noah, not Abraham.

I wouldn’t think so. Unless being created is tiresome in some way.

Common mistake and not found anywhere in the bible.

Which covenant do you refer to? Each of them which replaced the one before?

Well that’s not what the bible says. God - or angels - spoke the law, which was then carried orally and only written down later, or it was spoken and then Moses chiseled it into stone.

In any case, we have no original texts of the bible. Not one. We have a collection of ancient manuscripts, many for each book within the bible, and no two are the same.

There are alterations to all of them. For example the reminder in Exodus 20 that the fourth commandment was in memory of creation was added to the original text at a later date in order to reflect the details of Genesis creation story (which was written after Exodus).


The fourth commandment was given as a memory of slavery, a time when there was no rest as other versions of the commandments indicate.

Of all of the versions of the commandments, the Deuteronomy version one makes the most sense and also makes it clear that 1) the old covenants were just that, and 2) who were the recipients of this new covenant:


2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain. 5 (At that time I stood between the Lord and you to declare to you the word of the Lord, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And he said:

6 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

12 “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

So, God made a new covenant with the slaves he delivered from Egypt. And because they had been slaves, presumably constantly working with no break, and because God liberated them, they were given the sabbath to rest. Note that keeping the sabbath is always defined in the bible as rest.


Paul writes in Galatians 3 & 4:

Gentiles are to rely on faith, not the law:
So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

You cannot be justified by the law:
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

Why was the law given?
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred [Jesus] had come. The law was given through angels [not by God directly] and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

Why did the law fail?
21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. [to gentiles referred to above]

So what now?
23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Seems pretty clear to me…

So how should we think about this?
4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? [sounds like “good grief, people”]

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the [heavenly] Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. [we are not under the Law.]