Ten Commandments Replaced?

March 11, 2006

Now, then, back to this interesting discussion . . .

JASD, I do have a question for you. You have mentioned several times, in reference to the Sabbath in the New Testament. You said that all of the Ten Commandments were mentioned in the NT, except for the Sabbath commandment. Without getting into that specific question, there arises another, foundational question:

Why do you think it should be necessary for any of the commandments to be mentioned in the New Testament? What difference would that make, either way?

Dave

March 11, 2006

I seem to recall Ben posting something about the law of God being right in the genetics, or something to that effect--that mankind came programmed with it. Was I imagining things? What comes to mind is an excerpt from the Baptist Encyclopedia:

“The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall . . . delivered by God upon mount Sinai, and written in two tables of stone.” The Baptist Encyclopedia, p. 1355

Ben, is that the kind of thing you were thinking of?

Dave

March 11, 2006

How interestingly ironic it is that the ONE commandment that God prefaced with, "REMEMBER", is the very commandment some would argue to have been replaced, done away with, or whatever.

Today I just happen to pick up an August 2004 issue of Guidepost lying around the house and found a very convincing and compelling article argueing for a 4th commandment Sabbath rest. Of course, it was not written by a SDA. It was written by a Sunday Sabbath-keeper.

Would not a horse that has been pulling a carriage for 6 days, not welcome a Sabbath rest?

Would not water buffalo that has been plowing for 6 days, not welcome a Sabbath rest?

But behold man, frazzled by the hustle & bustle of living for 6 days refusing a Sabbath rest?

Gerry

March 11, 2006

You know, Gerry, that very question has puzzled me too. The Sabbath makes so much plain common sense. WHY the objection to it?? I understand that in terms of physiology, there is something called 'circaseptan body rhythms'??? We need the Sabbath. And, we need the special blessing that God put in the Sabbath when He sanctified it.

Dave

March 11, 2006

Quote:

How interestingly ironic it is that the ONE commandment that God prefaced with, "REMEMBER", is the very commandment some would argue to have been replaced, done away with, or whatever.

So is this basically the crux of the matter here -- this whole debate exists primarily to highlight that the Sabbath specifically is what is getting "ditched" in the "switch" here? So then it's really NOT about whether the TEN commandments have been "replaced" but whether such is claimed as a ruse for chucking numero quatro? Is that the gist?

March 11, 2006

Quote:

Nicodema said:

So is this basically the crux of the matter here -- this whole debate exists primarily to highlight that the Sabbath specifically is what is getting "ditched" in the "switch" here? So then it's really NOT about whether the TEN commandments have been "replaced" but whether such is claimed as a ruse for chucking numero quatro? Is that the gist?

Actually, no, the issue IS the Ten Commandments. The question is, whether or not the TC were abolished at Calvary. A subissue is the Sabbath. The several Bible passages excerpted from Ben's post on a different thread ("I m a Good man most of the time") in support of the belief that the TC--including the Sabbath--have been abolished, are being addressed as we go along. I would say that both the TC and the Sabbath are issues. There is some overlap, but not entirely.

Dave

March 11, 2006

Still it seems to me no one raises a fuss with regard to retaining the other 9 of the 10C. It's only the Sabbath that they want to set aside. No one among other Christians that I know of have ever pushed for abolishing the honoring of parents, or the avoidance of adultery.

Of course politically speaking I guess we could say some have clearly abolished the commandments not to kill and not to bear false witness, in practice if not in theology/theory ... ... and there's quite a cash cow industry in the modern equivalent of "graven images" in the Christian world ... OK, I guess it does pertain to all 10C then ...

March 11, 2006

Quote:

Nicodema said:

Quote:

How interestingly ironic it is that the ONE commandment that God prefaced with, "REMEMBER", is the very commandment some would argue to have been replaced, done away with, or whatever.

So is this basically the crux of the matter here -- this whole debate exists primarily to highlight that the Sabbath specifically is what is getting "ditched" in the "switch" here? So then it's really NOT about whether the TEN commandments have been "replaced" but whether such is claimed as a ruse for chucking numero quatro? Is that the gist?

[:"blue"]I believe it is. It is the one commandment that identifies who God is. While they argue that the 10c have been done away with at the Cross, they get around the Sabbath by saying that the other 9c have been re-stated in the NT but not the 4th c. They don't want to be thought of as countenancing idolatry, adultery, murder, etc. by claiming there is no longer any need for law in the face of rampant lawlessness in the land. [/]

Gerry

March 11, 2006

Okay, let's continue down the list of Ben's texts, which he would like to have exegeted. The list of references was cited by Ben in support of the following statement which he made: "What I am against is the teaching that the NT commands Sabbath observance upon the Christian."

Looking at that statement again, I guess Nico is correct. The Sabbath IS the issue. The reasons given as to WHY the NT does not command Sabbath observance, pertain to the Ten Commandments. As a Baptist minister said to me in North Carolina: "You Adventists are in bondage to the Law. But if we had to keep the Ten Commandments, then we would need to keep the Sabbath." I consider them two separate issues, with some overlap. As we go through the references, we'll have a chance to address both the TC and the Sabbath.

Here is the next one, from the list Ben posted:

"Romans 3:20---(no one is made righteous by observing the law no matter how well done it is)"

And here is the verse itself:

"For no man will be justified in God's sight by works of the Law; for through the Law comes the consciousness of sin." (NKJV)

Looking at this verse, the question comes to mind, how does this verse say that the Ten Commandments have either been abolished, or in some way do not apply to Christians? Any thoughts?

March 12, 2006

>>Let's look, once again, at the passage in Hosea:

"Ho 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, Her feast days, Her New Moons, Her Sabbaths-All her appointed feasts.<<

Besides causing the cessation of her Sabbaths, Gd caused also that her new moons and all her appointed feasts/times ceased. Without the reckoning by the new moon and/or all her appointed feasts/times, her calendar was implicitly lost. History bears out that it became so explicitly.

>>My question for you: Did God do away with fig-trees? How about vines? And what about mirth?<<

Hosea 2:12 "And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees,…”

Gd said it, one accepts that He accomplished it.

>>Of course, for the Northern Kingdom, there was desolation,<<

Indeed, she was dispossessed of all that she had, including her properties, ipso…, her fig-trees and vines. Those of her peoples not killed outright were subsequently taken to the lands of the Assyrians as slaves. Pretty conclusively –destroyed –unto desolation. That condition

lasted for an indeterminate number of years… until we find their disposition mentioned in Esdras (Apocrypha), that is, they took counsel among their elders and elected to traverse the Caucasus Mtns (range) – to new lands, rather than to return to the ‘land of their fathers’. That exodus took the tribes approximately two-three years at which time they emerged onto the Scythian plains – where shortly thereafter and through succeeding morphologies, they entered our histories as the Caucasians (entirety abbreviated). That said,

one assumes that as time passed… they found cause to laugh and sing again, but there is never mention thereafter, that her appointed feasts/times, her Sabbaths, her reckoning of new moons… nor the fig trees and vines of old Canaanland were restored to her.

>>There are still fig trees and vines, and there is still mirth.<<

Yes, but “hers”, of the Northern Kingdom, Israel… were destroyed. That said, yes, one assumes there is now mirth. Mirth, fig trees, and vines require but the occasion and the season – not necessarily, a calendar.

>>And, there is still the weekly Sabbath.<<

Definitely; in fact, there are several – one by construction and one by gainsaying the prophets of Gd.

>>It simply would not be accurate to attempt to make this passage focus on the weekly Sabbath,<<

Agreed. The passage encompasses much more than a weekly Sabbath.

>>…or make any kind of statement about the fate of the weekly Sabbath.<<

It is impossible to avoid except by agenda and bias.

>>The issue is not the Sabbath.<<

As I’ve noted in the above: It is much more, per your quote following…

>>The issue is desolation upon the Northern Kingdom, coupled with the promise of restoration.<<

>>I also point out that the prophet refers to the 'sabbaths.' The word, 'sabbaths' in the OT, was a general reference to holy days, which could fall on any day of the week. See, for example, Lev. 23:29.<<

And let us not omit Leviticus 23:2,3 – as Gd did not; rather, He included it both in prologue and summation.

>>As for the WEEKLY Sabbath, yes, it continued to be kept, right down into New Testament times,<<

Yes, there was a WEEKLY Sabbath kept by the post-captivity Jews – “down into New Testament times” ...and presently; however, it was a facsimile or Jeremiah has to be discarded as a Major Prophet of Gd.

“…the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, v9 … the law [is] no [more] ; …” --Jeremiah

>>…and thereafter for centuries, until the Church of Rome,…<<

…and ‘til this day there are Xtians who circumcise their male offspring.

>>Still, the Sabbath continued to be kept by the faithful for centuries, for example by the Waldenses,<<

Without anticipating the motive(s) of the Waldenses… one might add, “As did those Judaized.”

>>…until the papal persecution came to an end.<<

Miserable stain upon Xtianity.

>>Today, a number of faith groups keep the Bible Sabbath, including SDA's, 7th-day Baptists, Church of God 7th Day, and a growing number of Christians of various denominations.<<

If it is the will and the doing of their heart that Gd be so honored upon Saturdays… who are we to judge another man’s servant? And therein is the Sabbath issue.

>>Once again, the subject of this passage is not the Sabbath. Read the entire passage, from Lam. 2:

6 … The LORD has caused The appointed feasts and Sabbaths to be [:"red"]forgotten[/] in Zion. …

7 The Lord has spurned His altar, He has abandoned His sanctuary;

[…]

9 … The Law is no more,…<<

So, why did the Jews emerge from Babylon with its (Babylon’s) calendrical designations? and why do they – to this day, adhere to an incorrect calendrical/mathematical reckoning? Notwithstanding another explanation… it is that they haven’t access to the original; it cannot be reconstructed; "The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabaths to be forgotten ... ."

>>Jerusalem was rebuilt, as was the temple, the services instituted, the feasts observed, etc. This passage cannot be used in support of the idea that God intended to do away with the observance of the Sabbath.<<

So, Who, What, When, Where Why and How? [:"red"]‘unforgot’[/] the appointed feasts/times and Sabbaths in Zion? The record of such is absent Holy Writ.

>>In fact, the book of Nehemiah describes how careful the governor was that the Sabbath should be honored each week,<,

Yes, Nehemiah… the book that begs to be correctly compared to Ezra – for ‘times’ prophecies.

>>…and the book of Ezekiel prophesies how the temple would be rebuilt and, if I recall correctly, also speaks of special services on the Sabbath.<<

…with attendant priesthood, sacrifices, and a resurrected David, , etc… Very interesting. When would one suspect this to occur?

>>… IOW, everything was restored. This is referred to as the "restoration."<<

And the Ark of the Covenant? and the Shekinah? and the Law, written on stones? and the ashes of a red heifer? and… In actuality, it was ‘make-do’; for that, one expects an appreciative and understanding Gd, for Job teaches that to sanctify is to make holy in its consecrated sense.

>>Of course, when Jesus was here, He kept the Sabbath,<<

Jesus abode in a Jewish economy with all that suggests…

Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom;

Lu 4:16 …and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

What’s missing? the simple… “and, for by Law He entered into synagogue on the sabbath day, …”

>>…and said that "the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath."<<

The King giveth and the King taketh… The Lord of the Manor does, as He desireth.

>>…told His disciples to pray that their flight might not be on the Sabbath day.<<

Correct me should I err but… a portion of Matthew 24 tends basically to those dwelling in the ‘last days’. The “pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:” passage alludes to them. Moreover, it is preceded by

Matt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee[:"red"]*[/] into the mountains:

that, of itself, is noteworthy.

[:"red"]*[/] …which would be present-day State of Israel.

March 13, 2006

Quote:

So, why did the Jews emerge from Babylon with its (Babylon’s) calendrical designations? and why do they – to this day, adhere to an incorrect calendrical/mathematical reckoning? Notwithstanding another explanation… it is that they haven’t access to the original; it cannot be reconstructed; "The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabaths to be forgotten ... ."

In that case...how was Jesus able to keep the Sabbath?

In order for His sacrifice on behalf of sinful man to be acceptable, He could not have sinned - even with regard to the Sabbath. As He is written of as doing exactly what He saw the Father do and teach (Gospel of John, chapters 5 and 8), I must conclude the Sabbath He is seen customarily keeping is the same one He saw His Father rest on - back in Genesis 2. That the rest of the Jews gather in their synagogues on that same day...tells me they did not lose their weekly reckoning following their return from Babylon - regardless of whose calendar they were using.

I try to exercise a bit of caution when applying prophecy fulfillment to the Dispersion of the Northern Kingdom, particularly when God is referring to His appointed sanctuary economy.

Ted

March 13, 2006

Quote:

jasd said:

Inasmuch as ‘Xtians’ is New Testamental – conversely, is there a text in the NT that the Xtian must observe what is today in our calendars, Saturday…?

>>Actually, there is, unless you're looking for a "Thou Shalt..."...then again, none of the rest of the commandments are mentioned with a "Thou Shalt...", either,<<

Well, actually…

Matt 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, v19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

>>…so why would Christians want to single out one commandment to make such a hullabaloo about?<<

“hullabaloo”? Xtians? or Seventh-day Adventist Xtians?

>>Eeks! Must be that "Jewish legal works" thing again...if it appears Jewish, then it can't be Christian, right?<<

Conversely, Yikes! can it not be Xtian without there being Kosher stamped upon it? Does not the NT imply that the student matures beyond the necessity of a teacher?

>>The Christian is allowed to keep all 9 other commandments and call it "under grace", but the seventh-day Sabbath commandment can't be kept being "under grace", but instead is a "thing of Law".<<

But of course it is a thing of Law if it is made a thing of the Law (as fundamental doctrine)! It is then Law. It is no longer – state of grace.

Your brief would be with Hosea, Jeremiah, and Gd.

>>Hmmmm....tell that to every Sunday preacher using the exact same texts Adventists use to command keeping Sunday - the first day of the week - as a holy "Christian" Sabbath.<<

If a “Sunday preacher” uses any text to “command” a Sunday-keeping – he errs in same measure as do those who “command” another day. They are both unBiblical.

>>holy “Christian” Sabbath.<<

As to the Ten Commandments… See for yourself whether the first begins in Exodus 34:11 or 12 or 13. And whoooaaa… the “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” has been changed to “molten gods”. And the much “hullabalooed” ‘fourth commandment’ reads…

Ex 34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest. (especially in the earing and the harvest or only in the earing and the harvest? mebbe throughout the earing and the harvest?)

(it seems rather… that Gd relaxed His prior proscriptions given in Exodus 20, doesn’t it?)

Ex 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, [:"red"]the ten commandments[/].

“…he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, [:"red"]the ten commandments.”[/]

These are the TCs! These are they within the Ark of the Covenant! together with the manna and Aaron’s rod.

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

So, mebbe it is not for nuthin’ St Paul wrote the above…? or, having discarded Hosea and Jeremiah – we now discard St Paul, also?

Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. …

Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

>>Something about those points just don't ring honest to this pilgrim.<<

And, might I suggest… a whole lot more ought not make sense to the observant pilgrim?

>>My reference will be to the very often quoted, but also often misunderstood and parsed, text in Hebrews 4:1-11. … There is only one rest this could possibly be referring to: the seventh-day Sabbath.<<

It may prove beneficial to everyone if we might see an exposition upon this “rest”.

>>So we have a rest to enter into.

Chapter 4:2 - "2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them : but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

So, the Gospel isn't a NT thing after all!

When were the Jews ever given the Gospel? Can anyone make a suggestion?<<

As distinct as all Jews are from the other tribes of Jacob/Israel, as well as from the universal tribes, nations, kindred, tongues, and peoples – they received the proto-evangelium together with mankind.

My answer is what Israel received through Moses at Siniai wasn't a code of works, as so many Christians love to believe. They received the Gospel, in embryo, in the form of shadows and figures God directed in the Sanctuary service.<<

Which of the following imperatives, that is,

/ “Observe”,

/ “Take heed”,

/ “But ye shall destroy”,

/ “For thou shalt worship”

embodied in the Ten Commandments speak to a Gospel per se? Following…:

Ex 34:11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Exo 34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

Exo 34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

Exo 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose

>>And they were placed at the crossroads of the world to evangelize the world with the pre-cross Gospel.<<

How many in Jericho were deliberately left alive – to evangelize? …of other tribes and cities? My recollection is that all those dwelling in Canaanland were to have been exterminated. What kind of proselytizing is this?

>>Without seeing the grace that allowed such a faith Moses exercised, Israel turned the Gospel of God into an institution of works...much like what the Papacy has turned the face of Christianity into.<<

Or much like the redounding and favored ‘works’ implied in imprecations against observers of Sunday sacredness?

>>Unless one wishes to go on record to say that that the writer of Hebrews misquoted OT Scriptures to suit his argument...he is tying the Sabbath commandment directly to this rest that Chrisitian believers are to enter into.<< [ed.]

Without offense, I disagree… the above underlined bears the hallmark of individual exegesis seemingly individually arrived-at.

>>7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.<<

What’s this “another day”? Did the COI not keep the seventh-day “Sabbath commandment”?

>>9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.<<

Matt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? v23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The works of the Law as promulgated by dogmas and doctrines rather than works of condign merit springing forth from the Christ-inspired heart.

>>Are Christians to be referred to as the people of God? Or is this only a reference to Jews?<<

I hear broadcast upon the various ‘sky angels’ that the Jews are Gd’s people, the apple of His eye.

I read in the Bible Gd speaking, [of the Northern Kingdom] “…for in that place where it is said that you are not my people, you will be called the sons/daughters of the Living Gd.” /paraphrased]

Those same broadcasts upon the various ‘sky angels’ then go on to state that Xtians are the sons/daughters of Gd. Balaam’s asses?

>>Somehow, limiting this reference to mean "only Jews" would bring a huge rebuttal from both OT and NT sources, I would figure.<<

>>…what is the Sabbath rest supposed to symbolize?<<

It may not be so cut and dried. Exodus 20 states that the Sabbath rest is because Gd “rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Deuteronomy 5 states that Gd commanded it for ‘remembrance that the Lord brought them out of Egypt with a mighty hand and a stretched out arm’. However, ….

>>That one has CEASED their struggle to earn their way/work their way into heaven!<<

we may have found common ground!

>>And yet, the Sabbath is labelled the epitome of being under Jewish Law, a denial of grace!<<

Please, I refer you to Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15; and again, I refer you also to Hosea and Jeremiah.

>>Is it any real wonder why I now take the Israel/church separatists with a few tons of salt?<<

What is your understanding of the Israel/church separatists? please, expand.

>>Yet I can hardly think that keeping any day "holy" apart from what God has declared hallowed and blessed, is the example of "grace" that would draw us into that rest we are to enter into.<<

How much more a remembrance of Christ’s passion and resurrection is worth remembering than a six-day creation? Gd can create over and over again ad infinitum… (and the promise in ‘writings’ {'less I err} is that the saved will also create) but only once was there opportunity for Christ to save mankind – failing… who can imagine!

Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord:

Therefore, whatsoever a man doeth he doeth it unto the Lord, whether it be for good or for evil.

Man, given the prophecies of Hosea and Jeremiah – honors a day unto the Lord. He sets it aside making it holy, he consecrates it through sanctification: The example is in Job, whom Gd called – a perfect man.

Why was the Pentecost always to be on the first day of the week? Why was it to be symbolized by leavened bread? Why two loaves? Where did its symbology trend?

>>Allowing the context speak for itself pointed only in one direction: that God has 1 people, 1 rest to enter into, and 1 day which links God's resting from works to our resting from works.<<

And it cannot be cut on the bias. One must factor Hosea and Jeremiah. Otherwise, it is Law.

>>That day isn't Sunday. Nor is it Monday - Friday.<<

The Jews labored for centuries upon centuries with the calendar brought out from Babylon. It was not until Hillel II gave them their current calendar that they subscribe to a ‘corrected’ calendar. Yet, the ‘postponements’ testify that the Gd-given calendar was removed.

“…the Gd-given calendar was removed”, and remains removed.

March 13, 2006

Quote:

jasd said:

That condition lasted for an indeterminate number of years? until we find their disposition mentioned in Esdras (Apocrypha), that is, they took counsel among their elders and elected to traverse the Caucasus Mtns (range) ? to new lands, rather than to return to the ?land of their fathers?. That exodus took the tribes approximately two-three years at which time they emerged onto the Scythian plains ? where shortly thereafter and through succeeding morphologies, they entered our histories as the Caucasians (

entirety abbreviated

).

You mentioned something recorded in Esdras. Ahh, the Apocrypha. Has that event been historically documented?

Quote:

Yes, but ?hers?, of the Northern Kingdom, Israel? were destroyed. That said, yes, one assumes there is now mirth. Mirth, fig trees, and vines require but the occasion and the season ? not necessarily, a calendar.

On what basis do you make such a distinction?

Quote:

>>And, there is still the weekly Sabbath.<<

Definitely; in fact, there are several ? one by construction and one by gainsaying the prophets of Gd.

Please explain.

Quote:

It is impossible to avoid except by agenda and bias.

Ahh, jasd, you depart from your usual politeness. The stuffing without the cover. Do you not have an agenda?

Quote:

Yes, there was a WEEKLY Sabbath kept by the post-captivity Jews ? ?down into New Testament times? ...and presently; however, it was a facsimile or Jeremiah has to be discarded as a Major Prophet of Gd.

??the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, v9 ? the law [is] no [more] ; ??

--Jeremiah

But indeed, the weekly Sabbath was kept throughout the exile, the solemn feasts were restorred, and the law was read by Ezra to the returned exiles. Were you aware of that?

Quote:

?and ?til this day there are Xtians who circumcise their male offspring.

Please explain how the weekly Sabbath is in any way similar to circumcision.

Quote:

Without anticipating the motive(s) of the Waldenses? one might add, ?As did those Judaized.?

Why would you suggest that keeping the weekly Sabbath is Judaizing?

Quote:

If it is the will and the doing of their heart that Gd be so honored upon Saturdays? who are we to judge another man?s servant? And

therein

is

the

Sabbath issue

.

The passage you refer to (Rom. 14?) makes no mention of the weekly Sabbath. On what basis do you make it so apply?

Quote:

So, why did the Jews emerge from Babylon with its (Babylon?s) calendrical designations? and why do they ? to this day, adhere to an incorrect calendrical/mathematical reckoning? Notwithstanding another explanation? it is that they haven?t access to the original; it cannot be reconstructed;

"The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabaths to be forgotten ... ."

Please clarify what you mean, and give specific information and cites.

Quote:

So, Who, What, When, Where Why and How? [:"red"]

?unforgot?

[/] the appointed feasts/times and Sabbaths in Zion? The record of such is absent Holy Writ.

Well of course it is in Holy Writ. Take a look through the gospels, for example the gospel of John.

Quote:

Yes, Nehemiah? the book that begs to be correctly compared to Ezra ? for ?times? prophecies.

Please clarify what you mean, and give specifics.

Quote:

?with attendant priesthood, sacrifices, and a resurrected David, , etc? Very interesting. When would one suspect this to occur?

Resurrected David? Please give a cite. As for the Restoration, the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, those were restored after the exiles returned to Judea.

Quote:

And the Ark of the Covenant? and the Shekinah? and the Law, written on stones? and the ashes of a red heifer? and? In actuality, it was ?make-do?; for that, one expects an appreciative and understanding Gd, for Job teaches that to sanctify is to make holy in its consecrated sense.

The Restoration, sans Ark, was commanded, directed and blessed by God. See, e.g., the book of Haggai.

Quote:

What?s missing? the simple? ?and, for by Law He entered into synagogue on the sabbath day, ??

The words you have added, are not in Scripture. For that reason, there is no basis to consider them.

Quote:

>>?and said that "the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath."<<

The King giveth and the King taketh? The Lord of the

Manor

does, as He desireth.

Please explain in what way this verse suggests that the King took away the Sabbath.

Quote:

Correct me should I err but? a portion of Matthew 24 tends basically to those dwelling in the ?last days?. The ?pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:? passage alludes to them. Moreover, it is preceded by

Matt 24:16 Then let them which be

in Judaea flee

[:"red"]*[/] into the mountains:

that, of itself, is noteworthy.

That portion of the prophecy pertained to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Christians fled at the appointed sign, to the city of Pella, and thus did not perish in the siege.

Regards, Dave

March 14, 2006

Hmmmm....

Quote:

Well, actually…

Matt 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, v19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Well, sorry to disagree here, but Jesus is merely answering a rich man's question as to what he should DO to inherit eternal life. He's not reciting the Decalogue as Coda Prima for Christians. In fact, the context has Jesus setting the man up to discover for himself he does not have a heart relationship with God - in spite of all his good works to his fellow man. He did not love God with all his heart, soul, and mind.

In fact, loving your neighbor as yourself is fulfilled as a direct consequence when the last 6 commandments of the Decalogue are obeyed. That's why in Matthew 22, when asked what the greatest Law was, the last 6 were summed up with those words.

According to the beliefs of the day - this rich young ruler had the blessings of God as well as all the works required by the religious institution of his day. To the naked eye, he was a shoo-in for heaven. But there is no Law that can MAKE a heart love God...because love cannot be commanded.

It is on that point that, in my perspective, any attempt to make the pre-cross salvation by faith into a legalistic code of works is ridiculous, whether in deed as the ancient Jews did, or in thought, as modern Christendom does today.

Quote:

“hullabaloo”? Xtians? or Seventh-day Adventist Xtians?

Go back and read some history there, my brother.

The Papal See was making a much ado about this long before Seventh-day Adventists came into being. In fact, several major Councils were held long before the Reformation came along...and the Sabbath/Sunday issue WAS a big deal.

Where did the idea Sabbath-keeping in and of itself was to be automatically considered "Judaizing"?

Not from the Bible, for sure, but from the Councils of Nicene and Trent. And with the Bible secured away from the masses, few could say otherwise.

Again, briefing with Jeremiah, Hosea, and God...means treading carefully...for God does not contradict Himself as does man.

Quote:

But of course it is a thing of Law if it is made a thing of the Law (as fundamental doctrine)! It is then Law. It is no longer – state of grace.

Ah, doctrinal Law versus God's Eternal Law?

And I thought it was a denial of grace to take ANY code of Law and use it as a means of working one's way to heaven - whether it be the TC's or ANY other codex of doctrinal beliefs, Christian or otherwise. Silly me! And all I really needed do is add "Sabbath-keeping" to any kind of belief.

Um, am I really to take that seriously? Just asking...

Quote:

>>Hmmmm....tell that to every Sunday preacher using the exact same texts Adventists use to command keeping Sunday - the first day of the week - as a holy "Christian" Sabbath.<<

If a “Sunday preacher” uses any text to “command” a Sunday-keeping – he errs in same measure as do those who “command” another day. They are both unBiblical.

Hmmmm....at least your consistent. However, preaching the Gospel without the accountabilty to be righteous in our deportment (Ack! Too much Law!) has brought about a situation in Western culture where morality has crumbled. To a one, each of the major Sunday-keeping demoninations is following the lead of the Roman See in adopting the stance that Christians must be accountable to live rightouesly (ie, obedient to the Law of God) - including the keeping of the holy day of rest...which, according to them, is Sunday, according to the resurrection of Chrsit.

What is being used to back that stand?

The Sabbath commandment, abridged and redacted to leave out just which day God refers to as His.

I belive you'd find that in the Vatican II documents, as written by Pope John Paul II. And that same reference was used by the ECT (Evangelicals - Catholics Together) as part of the Christendom-wide ecumenical movement's desire to put the "holy day" back into Sunday, as it was historically - but not Biblically - held.

Quote:

As to the Ten Commandments… See for yourself whether the first begins in Exodus 34:11 or 12 or 13. And whoooaaa… the “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” has been changed to “molten gods”.

Changed? I don't think so. I'd say that God is including the willful objections of the Jews in with His Law by that point.

Curious that you neglected to leave out the context of the Golden Calf that Aaron said "just jumped right out of the fire"!

Quote:

And the much “hullabalooed” ‘fourth commandment’ reads…

Ex 34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest. (especially in the earing and the harvest or only in the earing and the harvest? mebbe throughout the earing and the harvest?)

(it seems rather… that Gd relaxed His prior proscriptions given in Exodus 20, doesn’t it?)

Relaxed? If that's is the way you wish to read it, go ahead. However, I have noted in my studies that when the Word of God makes a repetition like that, God is making the case not to use those reasons as excuses to ignore the Words there.

With reference to the "earing and harvest"...as these are the most important times of the corn agricultural (particularly, the growing of corn from cultivar lines that are not male-sterile hybrids...without the aid of modern tractors and combines), God is simply telling a people already noted for trying to make exceptions to His Law, what His Law meant.

Quote:

As distinct as all Jews are from the other tribes of Jacob/Israel, as well as from the universal tribes, nations, kindred, tongues, and peoples – they received the proto-evangelium together with mankind.

Distinct? I chuckle...and please don't again feign ignorance about the prominent theology in much of Christendom that Israel and the Church are under two separate standards before God - the Israel/Church dichotomy.

Holding the tribes of Israel as being so distinct from all other tribes and nations descended from Isaac...is one of the hallmarks of that school of thought.

Actually, I don't think God thought of them as being so special and distinct...I can't find my reference at this time, but I do remember reading in the Prophets that Israel didn't have any natural good to commend itself to God as a special people of God's gracious choosing...It was what God did with them through His Word that made them unique among nations.

Which of the following imperatives, that is,

Quote:

/ “Observe”,

/ “Take heed”,

/ “But ye shall destroy”,

/ “For thou shalt worship”

For which you may also find these obligations in the NT for the Christian to observe...but that's to be labelled "grace"?

Well, so much for consistency...back to watching your dancing again

Quote:

How many in Jericho were deliberately left alive – to evangelize? …of other tribes and cities? My recollection is that all those dwelling in Canaanland were to have been exterminated. What kind of proselytizing is this?

Hmmm...I think in Genesis, God refers to that point to Abraham..then, still named as Abram: Genesis 15:16 clearly states that when God fulfills His promise to deliver the Promised Land to the promised descendants (at that time, still yet to be named), the iniquity of the Amorite would be full. Implication: there were still people within the Amorites who chose to obey God rather than fight against Him.

And what happens to a nation whose iniquity before God becomes full? When all in that nation would fight against God, and would only choose to fight God thereafter?

The Gospel is preached...then the end comes.

Again, I'll say the OT Gospel was put at the cross-roads of the world, so that all nations could gain knowledge of it from the nation of Israel, and so come to worship God and look forward to the coming Redeemer. All the greater nations had to pass through that land in order to conduct trade with one another...what better place to put a single sanctuary, with all the symbols and forms therein, for all to see?

Quote:

Without offense, I disagree… the above underlined bears the hallmark of individual exegesis seemingly individually arrived-at.

You can disagree...I'm not offended. But do support the conjectured "seemingly individually arrived-at" hypothesis.

Quote:

The works of the Law as promulgated by dogmas and doctrines rather than

works of condign merit springing forth from the Christ-inspired heart

.

My disagreement with your hypothesis is on the enboldened point above: that you believe obedience to the Sabbath commandment cannot spring forth from within the Christ-inspired heart.

Perhaps there's a refresher from the Prophets to read...Jeremiah 31:33 says, "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

The most cited text for the New Covenant, instituted by the Last Supper.

And what Law could Jeremiah be referring to here? What Law here could only be understood to be referred to in this prophecy when that time came to be fulfilled?

The same one containing the Sabbath commmandment.

Imagine that...remembering to keep God's Sabbath holy, because it's welling up from within the Christ-inspired heart. Keeping the same day He kept while here on earth, in the same manner as He kept it: by depending upon the Father to do this from within Him. (John, chapters 5 and 8)

I Peter 2:21,22: "21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,

22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH"

I don't agree with the commonly held belief that the Sabbath commandment cannot be kept as the fruit of Christ working within (ie., by grace). I reject the argument that it can only be regarded as work of legalism.

Quote:

>>And yet, the Sabbath is labelled the epitome of being under Jewish Law, a denial of grace!<<

Please, I refer you to Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15; and again, I refer you also to Hosea and Jeremiah.

And where may I find the texts where God's Law (emphasis and possession is of God, not Israel) is necessarily Jewish only?

Mebbe perhaps we are forgetting St. Paul again?

Romans 3:29-31 " 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law."

As God is God of both Jews and Gentiles, His Law is the same for both groups.

Romans 3:22, 23: "22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

Quote:

One must factor Hosea and Jeremiah. Otherwise, it is Law

Your making way too much of those Scriptures to prove your point.

Quote:

we may have found common ground!

I really don't think so tonight...it's quite evident to me our differing perspectives concerning the OT and what obedience under grace means precludes that.

Gotta go...it's way too late for me, and I've got to be up and functional in 4 hours.

Ted

March 15, 2006

>>In that case...how was Jesus able to keep the Sabbath?<<

Umm…

“The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten ... the law [is] no [more];” --Gd, via the written words of Jeremiah

“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” --Gd, via the written words of Hosea

What Sabbath? Note that the above are not Papal Bulls.

>>In order for His sacrifice on behalf of sinful man to be acceptable, He could not have sinned - even with regard to the Sabbath.<<

Agreed.

>>As He is written of as doing exactly what He saw the Father do and teach (Gospel of John, chapters 5 and 8), I must conclude the Sabbath He is seen customarily keeping is the same one He saw His Father rest on - back in Genesis 2.<<

…and according to Hebrews 4, His Father still reposes/rests; otherwise, how does one enter into that having already ceased. By being in the Father’s rest/repose, Christ kept the sabbatismos in that He, throughout His life -- lived the Sabbath. I seem to recall you, likewise, equating the two. Remember,

the letter killeth… Additionally, mentioning again, Biblical prescription

imposed upon anyone in the Jewish economy that s/he conform to custom (witness the persecutions Saul, and others afterwards, inflicted upon early Xtians).

>>That the rest of the Jews gather in their synagogues on that same day...tells me they did not lose their weekly reckoning following their return from Babylon - regardless of whose calendar they were using.<<

There it is. Jews gathering in their synagogues vs a Major Prophet and a Minor Prophet of Gd – two witnesses, if you will I remind,

“…God does not contradict Himself as does man.” --Ted_Oplinger

Losing one’s feasts, reckonings of the moon phases, sabbaths, etc… by act of Gd – constitutes a loss of the Exodus Calendar, all else notwithstanding. That is not to say that

rituals could not be served in form. The Captivity found the Jews using coins and other sundry to replace blood sacrifices. Where one wishes to honor Gd, allowance seems to have been Biblically countenanced.

>>I try to exercise a bit of caution when applying prophecy fulfillment to the Dispersion of the Northern Kingdom,<<

One surmises… that a peoples in whom Gd has invested the entirety of His unconditional promises (except for the lawgiver and THE sceptre {other kingships promised}) by which He swore or covenanted, not by simple declaration but in an instance or two – by blood covenant,

there is a cardinality inherent in those peoples.

>>…particularly when God is referring to His appointed sanctuary economy.<<

How are you defining and using ‘appointed’, ‘sanctuary’, and ‘economy’?

March 16, 2006

Quote:

jasd said:

“The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten ... the law [is] no [more];”

--

Gd

, via the written words of Jeremiah

“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.”

--

Gd

, via the written words of Hosea

As a point of accuracy, please note that in the original, the words 'sabbaths' does not have an initial cap.

I note that you have repeatedly cited those verses in support of your contention that God caused the Sabbath to cease generally. However, so far you have not shown that the word 'sabbaths' in these verses, refers specifically to the weekly day of rest, the seventh day, as opposed to special or holy days generally.

Secondly, you have still not shown that those verses pertain specifically to 'sabbaths', as opposed to judgments upon God's apostate people. You have not shown evidence to support a specific Divine intent to do away with either the various sabbaths or specifically the sevnth-day Sabbath.

Thirdly, you have not shown that the Sabbath was not kept during the Exile.

Fourthly, you have not addressed the fact that the Jews continued to keep the Sabbath in the Restoration. You have given no evidence in support of any DIFFERENT day of the week which was kept by the Jews after the Restoration. You have made a passing reference to a 'Babylonian' calendar, but you have not shown that such a calendar affected the weekly day of rest.

Fifthly, you have not addressed the fact that Jesus regularly kept the seventh-day Sabbath, worshiped on that day and declared Himself Lord of THE Sabbath.

What textual and/or historical documentation can you present in regard to the foregoing issues?

March 17, 2006

Quote:

Ted_Oplinger said:

Actually, there is, unless you're looking for a "Thou Shalt..."...then again, none of the rest of the commandments are mentioned with a "Thou Shalt...", either, so why would Christians want to single out one commandment to make such a hullabaloo about?

jasd said:

Well, actually…

Matt 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, v19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

>>Well, sorry to disagree here, but Jesus is merely answering a rich man's question…<<

Agree, point. I was directing my comment at the singularly isolated clause…

“...then again, none of the rest of the commandments are mentioned with a "Thou Shalt...” [ed.]

Though I think it was handled with a light touch, it probably should have been left in situ, if you will

>>But there is no Law that can MAKE a heart love God...because love cannot be commanded.<<

That would seem so. However, one asks about NT love, especially that of agapao: Is its definition to be subscribed from Writ… its prescription that love is obedience to the commandments of Gd, or… as the Modern Critic does, that is, extracts its definition from extant writings of Greek poets, philosophers, historians, etc?

You see,

there are many who cannot love in the emotive sense. That state is beyond their experience or comprehension. They live by codes of behaviour. They can only enter by the narrower gate of obedience.

>>It is on that point that, in my perspective, any attempt to make the pre-cross salvation by faith into a legalistic code of works is ridiculous, whether in deed as the ancient Jews did, or in thought, as modern Christendom does today.<<

Well, I suppose that would turn upon whether there was salvation other than by faith attainable to the OT COI and others…

So what then of Abraham’s keeping of Gd’s charges, commandments, statutes, etc…? or Moses’ narrow brush with death at the hand of Gd? or the many whatfors and wherefors that could get a fellow killed under the OT economy? I think

OT ‘faith’ has to be carefully scrutinized.

>>>“hullabaloo”? Xtians? or Seventh-day Adventist Xtians?<<<

>>Go back and read some history there, my brother.<<

Quote:

Ted_Oplinger said:

…so why would Christians want to single out one commandment to make such a hullabaloo about?

I read a present tense in the structure of the sentence. Do I err?

>>The Papal See was making a much ado about this long before Seventh-day Adventists came into being. In fact, several major Councils were held long before the Reformation came along...and the Sabbath/Sunday issue WAS a big deal.<<

There had occurred by that time in the oceans of homo sapience a sea change. It WAS, as you say, a big deal. However, I addressed a query proffered in present tense.

>>Where did the idea Sabbath-keeping in and of itself was to be automatically considered "Judaizing"?<<

There seems to be here a seeming reference to an exchange between archierieus and me that is resolved with the observation that one, Judaizing, would be thought to do so upon points of creedal beliefs held most dear to the Judaizer, three of them being… the Sabbath, the Law, and circumcision.

>>Not from the Bible, for sure, but from the Councils of Nicene and Trent. And with the Bible secured away from the masses, few could say otherwise.<<

What needs be said after the prophets Hosea and Jeremiah inked the Gd-breathed words? What text after, does one set forth to confirm the immateriality of those words?

>>Again, briefing with Jeremiah, Hosea, and God...means treading carefully...for God does not contradict Himself as does man.<<

Exactly, my point. So, either they are dealt-with in a truthful manner – or all following constructives are no more than unsustainable dogma… cheap religio-leggos with which to construct.

Quote:

jasd said:

But of course it is a thing of Law if it is made a thing of the Law (as fundamental doctrine)! It is then Law. It is no longer – state of grace.

>>Ah, doctrinal Law versus God's Eternal Law?<<

Perhaps not versus but vis-à-vis? That which is Gd’s is His to do with as He pleases – even to removing that which He blesses and hallowed only to have it incessantly blasphemed and profaned. As I’ve said,

Gd does that occasionally.

Law is meritorious, whereas, Grace is unmerited favor.

>>And I thought it was a denial of grace to take ANY code of Law and use it as a means of working one's way to heaven - whether it be the TC's or ANY other codex of doctrinal beliefs, Christian or otherwise.<<

As a means of working one’s way to heaven? yes, it would be denial of grace.

>>Silly me! And all I really needed do is add "Sabbath-keeping" to any kind of belief.<<

The thrust or direction of the above eludes me. Sorry.

>>Um, am I really to take that seriously? Just asking...<<

Take what seriously? That you’re behaving sillily … or what?

>>>If a “Sunday preacher” uses any text to “command” a Sunday-keeping – he errs in same measure as do those who “command” another day. They are both unBiblical.<<<

>>Hmmmm....at least your consistent.<<

At least.

>>However, preaching the Gospel without the accountabilty to be righteous in our deportment (Ack! Too much Law!) has brought about a situation in Western culture where morality has crumbled.<<

The ‘tendency’ in the second law of thermodynamics – to disorder and dissipation? I would, however, lay that tendency among the religiously inclined to ‘those flat or uncertain notes’ from .Orgs – passed-off as truths. Anyway,

it is not the preaching of the Gospel but its reception that matters. Once received, the nurture and instilling of correct precepts are Gd’s to increase.

>>To a one, each of the major Sunday-keeping demoninations is following the lead of the Roman See in adopting the stance that Christians must be accountable to live rightouesly (ie, obedient to the Law of God) - including the keeping of the holy day of rest...which, according to them, is Sunday, according to the resurrection of Chrsit.<<

A fairly fair summation.

>>What is being used to back that stand?<<

Agenda and biases, as everyone who purports that their ‘day’ is the Biblically correct ‘day’.

>>The Sabbath commandment, abridged and redacted to leave out just which day God refers to as His.

I belive you'd find that in the Vatican II documents, as written by Pope John Paul II. And that same reference was used by the ECT (Evangelicals - Catholics Together) as part of the Christendom-wide ecumenical movement's desire to put the "holy day" back into Sunday, as it was historically - but not Biblically - held.<<

That may be as you say; however, not having access to those documents… I forbear comment.

>>>As to the Ten Commandments… See for yourself whether the first begins in Exodus 34:11 or 12 or 13. And whoooaaa… the “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” has been changed to “molten gods”.<<<

>>Changed? I don't think so…<<

No mention of graven images in these TCs that are preserved in the Ark of the Covenant. Hmmm

>>>Ex 34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest. (especially in the earing and the harvest or only in the earing and the harvest? mebbe throughout the earing and the harvest?)

(it seems rather… that Gd relaxed His prior proscriptions given in Exodus 20, doesn’t it?)<<<

>>Relaxed?<<

Obviously, when compared to the proscriptions of the tablets cast down and broken.

>>If that's is the way you wish to read it,<<

To read into it what isn’t expressed --is to construct. However, to construct the latter clause in Exodus 34:21 as emphasizing the first – may bear some substance; but tell me…

in that corn, as we know corn, was unknown to the COI (discovered as a food staple of American Indians) and that ‘corn’ as mentioned in Writ merely referred to grain crops – what significance would the ‘earing’ of grain crops have to do with resting or no on the Sabbath?

>>>As distinct as all Jews are from the other tribes of Jacob/Israel, as well as from the universal tribes, nations, kindred, tongues, and peoples – they received the proto-evangelium together with mankind.<<<

>>Distinct? I chuckle...and please don't again feign ignorance about the prominent theology in much of Christendom that Israel and the Church are under two separate standards before God - the Israel/Church dichotomy.<<

I cannot comment to the above, as I really don’t know how you are defining or using the Israel/Church dichotomy. I understand Israel to be

the bride of Christ; whereas, the church, per se, largely constitutes the body of Christ.

>>Holding the tribes of Israel as being so distinct from all other tribes and nations…<<

erratum: “As distinct as all Jews are from the other tribes of Jacob/Israel, as well as from the…” –jasd

You will notice that I employed “distinct” to the first part and not to the second.

I can’t rightly respond, as you seem to be somewhat cryptic here; however, my understanding and the way I use the terms is… the tribes of the commonwealth of Judah/Southern Kingdom is/was distinct from the commonwealth of Israel-Epharim/Northern kingdom. Within that ‘distinctness’ there are disparities. The Jew may be of Israel but the Israelite of the Northern Kingdom was never Jewish. Together, prophecy foretold of

their eventual combining (the two sticks Judah and Joseph/Ephraim – made one)

>>…descended from Isaac...is one of the hallmarks of that school of thought.<<

“…school of thought”? Whazzat? please, expand.

>>Actually, I don't think God thought of them as being so special and distinct...

“peculiar treasure”; “shall not be reckoned among nations”; “He knew them as two sisters whilst they were yet in Egypt – taking them to wife”; etc…

Quote:

Ted_Oplinger said:

My answer is what Israel received through Moses at Siniai

wasn't

a

code

of

works

, as so many Christians love to believe.

They received

the

Gospel

, in embryo, in the form of shadows and figures God directed in the Sanctuary service. [ed.]

jasd said:

Which of the following imperatives, that is,

/ “Observe”,

/ “Take heed”,

/ “But ye shall destroy”,

/ “For thou shalt worship”

embodied in the Ten Commandments speak to a Gospel per se? Following…: Ex 34:11,12,13,14 [ed.]

>>For which you may also find these obligations in the NT for the Christian to observe...but that's to be labelled "grace"?<<

As you’ll notice in the above… “Observe”, “Take heed”, etc… are works; more so, in that the Mosaic economy was under Law.

>>Well, so much for consistency...back to watching your dancing again<<

Thanks, being that I am such a lousy dancer

>>>How many in Jericho were deliberately left alive – to evangelize? …of other tribes and cities? My recollection is that all those dwelling in Canaanland were to have been exterminated. What kind of proselytizing is this?<<<

>>Hmmm...I think in Genesis, …<<

Whatever the nations of Canaanland did or did not do, it remains that the COI were not emplaced to “evangelize” but to destroy – utterly, genocidally… to the last creature having breath in some instances.

>>The Gospel is preached...then the end comes.<<

That may be so, but how would the COI have evangelized those they’d already killed?

>>Again, I'll say the OT Gospel was put at the cross-roads of the world, so that all nations could gain knowledge of it from the nation of Israel, and so come to worship God and look forward to the coming Redeemer.<<

That may be, but just how gullible were the goyim expected to be after having seen the former inhabitants of the land eradicated? That sort of thing has, traditionally, encouraged rabid generational animosity rather than malleable hearts – receptive to what? an OT Gospel, is it?

>>All the greater nations had to pass through that land in order to conduct trade with one another...<<

You forget the seas. Nevertheless, you’re right, they were geographically situated to trade.

>>…what better place to put a single sanctuary, with all the symbols and forms therein, for all to see?<<

So, tell me, how could the goy have seen past the barrier in the outer court that s/he might see the symbols and forms that supposedly were to be used in sharing the gospel? and wouldn’t s/he have also been aware that s/he was considered too unclean to sit at the same table with the proselytizer –to eat? If the COI were to evangelize

they certainly knew how to make a hodge-podge of it.

Quote:

Ted_Oplinger said:

…

he is tying the Sabbath commandment directly to this rest

that

Chrisitian believers

are to enter into.<< [ed.]

jasd said:

Without offense, I disagree… the above underlined bears the hallmark of individual exegesis seemingly individually arrived-at.

>>You can disagree...I'm not offended. But do support the conjectured "seemingly individually arrived-at" hypothesis.<<

We disagree upon “directly”. Because of the removed Sabbath – I prefer ‘indirectly’. Nothing of that great an import.

>>>The works of the Law as promulgated by dogmas and doctrines rather than works of condign merit springing forth from the Christ-inspired heart.<<<

>>My disagreement with your hypothesis is on the enboldened point above: that you believe obedience to the Sabbath commandment cannot spring forth from within the Christ-inspired heart.<<

I neither said nor implied such a thing; of course, it can and should “spring forth” …but only “from within the Christ-inspired heart” – not from formulated catechism.

>>Perhaps there's a refresher from the Prophets to read...Jeremiah 31:33 says, "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

[…]

And what Law could Jeremiah be referring to here? What Law here could only be understood to be referred to in this prophecy when that time came to be fulfilled?

The same one containing the Sabbath commmandment.<<

1Pet 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you:

1Pet 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

1Pet 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

It’s probable that Jeremiah wrote this (Jer 31) before writing Lamentations. It is questionable whether Gd had yet revealed to him that which he would later write in Lamentations 2:6,9. That said,

no, it is not the Law containing the Sabbath commandment – that commandment has been removed according to Hosea and Jeremiah. There remains, however, that which Jesus spoke following these words…. 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.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Those two commandments embraces much, much more than the tables of stone which Moses secreted in the Ark of the Covenant. The immediately foregoing sentence does not address the five books as Law, nor those statutes, ordinances, and judgements of OT COI.

>>Imagine that...remembering to keep God's Sabbath holy,…<<

Your living, your life, is Gd’s holy Sabbath.

>>Keeping the same day He kept while here on earth,…<<

And Writ relates pertaining to that, “…as was … custom”, the custom of the community wherein He abode.

>>I Peter 2:21,22: "21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps<<

Exactly. The Xtian lives Gd’s Sabbath, his life is Sabbatismos.

>>22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH"<<

Exactly. Were it so with those who insist on gainsaying the prophets to nullity and abrogation that all might be well with dogma.

>>I don't agree with the commonly held belief that the Sabbath commandment cannot be kept as the fruit of Christ working within (ie., by grace). I reject the argument that it can only be regarded as work of legalism.<<

It is an either/or. If it springs from Law, it is Law. He who liveth by the Law will die by the Law. Otherwise, if it springs from the heart, it is because it was first written there.

Quote:

jasd:

One must factor Hosea and Jeremiah. Otherwise, it is Law

>>Your making way too much of those Scriptures to prove your point.<<

And you make too little. You must decide if it is Writ, or not. Otherwise, you pick and choose. I’ve said it before on these threads and I repeat, “I am the most Biblically conservative of this list.” /paraphrased

Quote:

Ted_Oplinger said:

>>That one has CEASED their struggle to earn their way/work their way into heaven!<<

jasd said:

we may have found common ground!

>>I really don't think so tonight...it's quite evident to me our differing perspectives concerning the OT and what obedience under grace means precludes that.<<

Petulance? but of course we share common ground on this point!

:proofed

March 17, 2006

>>As a point of accuracy, please note that in the original, the words 'sabbaths' does not have an initial cap.<<

Sorry, I don’t read original. I depend upon the expertise of those who did – namely, those who were elected to translate the KJV. However, I did err in corrupting the text by assimilating the translation of the NIV, which, I believe …is the translation of choice in the .Org. To wit:

Lam 2:6 … The LORD has made Zion forget her appointed feasts and her Sabbaths;

>>I note that you have repeatedly cited those verses…<<

And will continue expectantly – hoping for a satisfactory exposition.

>>…in support of your contention…<<

No contention, simply a repeat of Gd’s own Gd-breathed words to His prophets, y’know…

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

>>…that God caused the Sabbath to cease generally.<<

I don’t know how you mean “generally” to be taken, but yes, I would say that He caused the Sabbath to cease and to be forgotten by both the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom. But “cease” in its most acute sense, no, --He instead, removed it from the economy of both the above kingdoms mentioned.

>>However, so far you have not shown that the word 'sabbaths' in these verses, refers specifically to the weekly day of rest, the seventh day, as opposed to special or holy days generally.<<

How much more specifically inclusive in text must Gd have been in stating the following?

“The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten ... the law [is] no [more];” –Gd, via the written words of Jeremiah

“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” –Gd, [i via the written words of Hosea

It seems only predisposition would take issue with Gd’s words as so clearly set forth.

>>Secondly, you have still not shown that those verses pertain specifically to 'sabbaths', as opposed to judgments upon God's apostate people.<<

Did you not in the second paragraph of your post mildly chide me for repetition? and yet, here we are… you being repetitive. Of course,

it was judgement, part and parcel, kit and kaboodle, --judgement.

>>You have not shown evidence to support a specific Divine intent to do away with either the various sabbaths or specifically the sevnth-day Sabbath.<<

I desired not to show evidence that Gd intended to “do away”… but to simply evince a removal.

>>Thirdly, you have not shown that the Sabbath was not kept during the Exile.<<

“The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten ... the law [is] no [more];” –Gd, via the written words of Jeremiah

“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” –Gd, via the written words of Hosea

Ceased? hath caused … to be Forgotten? the law [is] no [more]? c’mon, what kind of linguist does Xtiandom worship as Gd?

>>Fourthly, you have not addressed the fact that the Jews continued to keep the Sabbath in the Restoration.<<

It was an incomplete Restoration, so why does one expect this or that other in exactitude? The completed restoration of the Temple and the city occurred under Nehemiah with grant from the king of Persia who had had to sign an ignominious treaty with the Greeks preventing him from having established ports in the developing Greek hegemony – and further limiting his influence to the distance Jerusalem stood from the Mediterranean. It would be incorrect to incorporate a times prophecy as beginning with Ezra…

jasd 12:12 Behold, hath the Lord spoken? and shall He not perform His word to keep?

>>You have given no evidence in support of any DIFFERENT day of the week which was kept by the Jews after the Restoration. You have made a passing reference to a 'Babylonian' calendar, but you have not shown that such a calendar affected the weekly day of rest.<<

“The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten ... the law [is] no [more];” –Gd, via the written words of Jeremiah

“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” –Gd, [i via the written words of Hosea

Why would that be a burden on my part?

It would be the burden of one withstanding or gainsaying the prophets – to establish a desired or otherwise sought-for continuance of the old order. Besides,

it was only a few Jews that emerged from the major population centers of Babylon and Persia – testifying that they had embraced whatever they found so compelling as to forgo returning to their homeland. They few who returned did so with the major aspects of the Babylonian calendar, the names of Pagan dieties attached to the now Jewish calendar, they also emerged with the concept synagogue (consensus bears it out), the beginnings of the Talmud…

They were not inured to change.

>>Fifthly, you have not addressed the fact that Jesus regularly kept the seventh-day Sabbath, worshiped on that day…<<

Sorry, but you are mistaken. I’ve already addressed that.

>>…and declared Himself Lord of THE Sabbath.<<

And why wouldn’t He? would He, being Lord of the Sabbath, have been constrained except in that He wished…? Writ testifies otherwise.

>>What textual and/or historical documentation can you present in regard to the foregoing issues?<<

Sheesh, Gd said it. Said it with exactness, without diffusion. Does it bear credibility should only I provide more exactness?

Following…: The word of Gd.

Jer 1:9 Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

And, those words…?

“The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten ... the law [is] no [more];” –Gd, via the written words of Jeremiah

…as also, one assumes, did Gd likewise with Hosea.

“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” –Gd, via the written words of Hosea

March 18, 2006

…’pears your transcription software emulates my overuse of question marks, wha’sup?

>>You mentioned something recorded in Esdras. Ahh, the Apocrypha. Has that event been historically documented?<<

“… I saw that the Apocrypha was

the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should

understand it. ...” --Manuscript 4, 1850

How well is EGW documented? Historical? to satisfaction…

>>>Mirth, fig trees, and vines require but the occasion and the season ? not necessarily, a calendar.<<<

>>On what basis do you make such a distinction?<<

Observation and astuteness. One sees growing seasons change, come, and go without benefit of calendar.

Quote:

archierieus said:

>>And, there is still the weekly Sabbath.<<

jasd said:

Definitely; in fact, there are several ? one by construction and one by gainsaying the prophets of Gd.

>>Please explain.<<

The weekly Sunday sabbath/rest is textually constructed; the weekly Saturday Sabbath/rest is kept by tradition and by ignoring the Word as Gd-breathed through His prophets Hosea and Jeremiah.

Quote:

archierieus said:

It simply would not be accurate to attempt to make this passage focus on the weekly Sabbath, or make any kind of statement about the fate of the weekly Sabbath.

jasd said:It is impossible to avoid except by agenda and bias.

>>Ahh, jasd, you depart from your usual politeness.<<

Umm, yah shur? There was no impoliteness unsheathed and agenda and bias is parcel to all. Seems tah me there was only a generic statement of fact addressing the attempt to casually dismiss the very Gd-breathed words at issue.

>>The stuffing without the cover.<<

No cover. Complete transparency. But stuffing! Bite your tongue… I admit to a bit adiposity; however, I like to think it as complimentary

>>Do you not have an agenda?<<

But of course! That is the problem: We are all comprised of agendas that oft’times encumber a clinical reading of Writ, ipso…, the ‘pick and choose’ exegeses comprising the foundations of many .Orgs.

Inherent agenda and biases are, for the most part, assumed. One need only attend a ‘Revelation’ seminar and hearing of the Great Whore, etc…, knows agenda and bias, of necessity, inheres that extracted and presented from Writ. Or,

per the above foregoing example discussed: One might opine instead, “invested prejudices…”

>>But indeed, the weekly Sabbath was kept throughout the exile,<<

“a weekly Sabbath” was assumed to have been kept.

>>…the solemn feasts were restorred,<<

Feasts were kept and additionally later added, the which, even Christ participated. Does that negate the Word of Gd as breathed through His prophet Jeremiah?

>>…and the law was read by Ezra to the returned exiles.<<

Better stated, “A found law was read.” Which would have been…?

>>Were you aware of that?<<

Were I aware… would that expunge the written words of Jeremiah?

>>>...and 'til this day there are Xtians who circumcise their male offspring.<<< [ed.]

>>Please explain how the weekly Sabbath is in any way similar to circumcision.<<

Points in ritual and/or practice are sometimes kept throughout whatever might come or go – though often improperly understood …and/or no longer obtaining.

Quote:

archierieus said:

Still, the Sabbath continued to be kept by the faithful for centuries, for example by the Waldenses,

jasd said:

Without anticipating the motive(s) of the Waldenses… one might add, “As did those Judaized.”

>>Why would you suggest that keeping the weekly Sabbath is Judaizing?<<

Why do you gainsay the prophets?

I am suggesting that one cannot hang one’s hat upon what the Waldenses may or may not have done. Judaizing enforced certain practices, a thing condemned in NT Writ. What, exactly, those ‘practices’ encompassed

we may only surmise. However, we may presume upon the importance of the Sabbath, the Law, and the circumcision, etc, as they pertained to the tenets of Judaizer’s.

>>>If it is the will and the doing of their hearts that Gd be so honored upon Saturdays? who are we to judge another man’s servant? And therein is the Sabbath issue.<<< [ed.]

>>The passage you refer to (Rom. 14?) makes no mention of the weekly Sabbath.<<

My referenced statement in the above is predicated upon a condition or supposition... “If”. If that ‘condition’ or ‘supposition’ were so, the principle of judging another mans’ servant applies –

as all ‘judgement’ is given to the Son -- not to me, and not to another. Reiterating…,

“And therein is the Sabbath issue.” …

>>On what basis do you make it so apply?<<

On the basis that the principle in the above has broad application… and where it does, it is expected that it may or should be applied.

>>>So, why did the Jews emerge from Babylon with its (Babylon’s) calendrical designations? and why do they -- to this day, adhere to an incorrect calendrical/mathematical reckoning? Notwithstanding another explanation… it is that they haven’t access to the original; it cannot be reconstructed; "The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabaths to be forgotten ... ."<<< [ed.]

>>Please clarify what you mean, and give specific information and cites.<<

Per designations: --partially, Writ. The names of pagan dieties were incorporated into the former Exodus Calendar -- Tammuz, for one.

“to this day, adhere to an incorrect calendrical/mathematical reckoning?”: --Encyclopedia Judaica

Without dissertation and focusing only upon “to this day”, the postponements mentioned in an above post substantiates the following quotes...

“it cannot be reconstructed; "The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabaths to be forgotten ... ."

Per the above “it cannot be…”: --self explanatory

As so stated in Writ by, again, both Hosea and Jeremiah.

Cites? You have more and better resources than I. Google will provide immeasurably more information and citations than either your immediate resources or mine.

>>>So, Who, What, When, Where Why and How? [:"red"]?unforgot?[/] the appointed feasts/times and Sabbaths in Zion? The record of such is absent Holy Writ.<<<

>>Well of course it is in Holy Writ. Take a look through the gospels, for example the gospel of John.<<

When the Jews were in The Captivity and no longer able to sacrifice with blood – they used coins instead. Shadows typed shadows until the year of Christ’s Passion – in the correct calendrical revolution and ‘fullness of time’. Even the

broken clock is right twice a day; or else, what must one do with the two witnesses?

>>>Yes, Nehemiah? the book that begs to be correctly compared to Ezra – for ‘times’ prophecies.<<<

>>Please clarify what you mean, and give specifics.<<

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

As you know, Ezra’s ‘decree’ was for the rebuilding of the Temple structure only. It was not until Nehemiah that commission was granted to rebuild the city, including its streets and walls. The upshot is…

one cannot begin the Daniel 9 prophetic ‘times’ chronology with a terminus beginning with Ezra. It has to begin, at the least, with Nehemiah.

>>>…with attendant priesthood, sacrifices, and a resurrected David, etc… Very interesting. When would one suspect this to occur?<<<

>>Resurrected David? Please give a cite.<<

Eze 34:23-25; 37:24,25

>>As for the Restoration, the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, those were restored after the exiles returned to Judea.<<

Eze 40:39 …thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.

Eze 40:41 …whereupon they slew [their sacrifices].

Eze 40:42 And the four tables [were] of hewn stone for the burnt offering, of a cubit and an half long, and a cubit and an half broad, and one cubit high: whereupon also they laid the instruments wherewith they slew the burnt offering and the sacrifice.

Eze 40:43 And within [were] hooks, an hand broad, fastened round about: and upon the tables [was] the flesh of the offering.

Eze 40:45 [is] for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the house.

Eze 40:46 And the chamber whose prospect [is] toward the north [is] for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the altar: these [are] the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to the LORD to minister unto him.

Eze 40:47 So he measured the court, an hundred cubits long, and an hundred cubits broad, foursquare; and the altar [that was] before the house.

>>>And the Ark of the Covenant? and the Shekinah? and the Law written on stones? and the ashes of a red heifer? and… In actuality, it was ‘make-do’; for that, one expects an appreciative and understanding Gd, for Job teaches that to sanctify is to make holy in its consecrated sense.<<< [ed.]

>>The Restoration, sans Ark, was commanded, directed and blessed by God. See, e.g., the book of Haggai.<<

Are you saying that one finds in the book of Haggai that Gd commanded a restoration or keeping of the Exodus Sabbath?

>>>Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom;

Lu 4:16 …and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

What’s missing? the simple… “and, for by Law He entered into synagogue on the sabbath day, …”<<<

>>The words you have added, are not in Scripture. For that reason, there is no basis to consider them.<<

No, they are not in scripture and yes, they are missing; they must be logically inferred – to dismiss that texts reads –by custom... There remains only that Jesus attended synagogue by custom.

Quote:

archierieus said:

…and said that "the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath."

jasd said:

The King giveth and the King taketh… The Lord of the Manor does, as He desireth.

>>Please explain in what way this verse suggests that the King took away the Sabbath.<<

It doesn’t. It simply states that the Lord of the Sabbath may do as He wishes – regards the Sabbath, including its removal.

March 18, 2006

Quote:

jasd said:

The King giveth and the King taketh… The Lord of the

Manor

does, as He desireth.

>>Please explain in what way this verse suggests that the King took away the Sabbath.<<

It doesn’t. It simply states that the Lord of the Sabbath may do as He wishes – regards the Sabbath, including its removal.

[:"red"] "And he humbled thee,...that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." [/] Deuteronomy 8:3 KJV

[:"red"] "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." [/] Matthew 4:4 KJV

[:"red"] "Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is [always] the same, yesterday, today, [yes] and forever (to the ages).

" [/] Hebrews 13:8 AMP parenthesis theirs LHC

[:"red"] "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." [/] 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV

[:"red"] "Your justice is eternal, and your law is perfectly true." [/] Psalm 119:142 NLT

[:"red"] "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." [/] Matthew 5:18 NASB

March 18, 2006

Quote:

jasd said:

Petulance? but of course we share common ground on this point!

:proofed

Perhaps not so much petulance as weariness in reading chapter after chapter of arguement as to why God's Word is not true, when their is already a plethora of books of the same intention. All God asks of us, in simple terms, is to believe His counsel as He makes it understood, and to let the unbelievers receive the reward of their own unbelief.

[:"red"] " Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?" [/]

2 Corinthians 6:14 NASB

March 18, 2006

>>[:"red"]"And he humbled thee,...that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."[/] Deuteronomy 8:3 KJV<<

Exactly. Including those of the two witnesses Hosea and Jeremiah?

>>[:"red"]"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."[/] Matthew 4:4 KJV<<

Exactly. Including those of the two witnesses Hosea and Jeremiah?

>>[:"red"]"Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is [always] the same, yesterday, today, [yes] and forever (to the ages)."[/] Hebrews 13:8 AMP parenthesis theirs LHC<<

??? He didn’t weep one day and laugh the other? We’re not trying to construct a Robogod here, are we?

>>[:"red"]"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."[/] 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV<<

Exactly. I exhort thee.

>>[:"red"]"Your justice is eternal, and your law is perfectly true."[/] Psalm 119:142 NLT<<

Exactly. As it is found in Exodus 20: in Exodus 34: and in Deut 5: and as its disposition thereafter -- by the writings of Hosea, Jeremiah, and the NT authors… as well as the spoken words of the epiphanous Christ.

>>[:"red"]"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."[/] Matthew 5:18 NASB<<

Exactly. My sentiments… “until all is taught”, as on the road to Emmaus. That said,

would Gd be permitted (by any of us ) to remove a portion or the entirety of the Law – for reverence-sake, if for no other? mind you, with all its jots and tittles intact…? y’know, sorta like He did with Eden and with the Ark of the Covenant? …supposedly, still jotted and tittled.

Quote:

jasd said:

Petulance? but of course we share common ground on this point!

>>Perhaps not so much petulance as weariness in reading chapter after chapter…<<

Weariness? In the matter of Gd’s word? Shame on top you! That said,

I see no sign of weariness where the matter is “J’accuse!” and the accused are the Sunday worshippers, the RCs, and others… For that endeavour

there seems no lack of diligence in culling from Writ those certain texts for utilization in calumniating… we might as well toss the simple presentation of Hosea and Jeremiah into that mix, eh? and throw in Isaiah’s admonition,

“Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, …” —Isaiah

Isaiah is a two-edged sword.

Where is then thine own humility, o child of the earth, thou who adviseth humbleness?

>>…of arguement as to why God's Word is not true,<<

Puhleeezzz…, it is I, who stands upon the word of Gd as breathed through the writings of Hosea and Jeremiah.

>>…when their is already a plethora of books of the same intention.<<

Not amiss to the direction of your posts…, please avail to me titles of these “plethora of books” that exposit the particular and several texts dwelt upon by Hosea and Jeremiah. And while you’re at it,

you might want to share some of what you’ve read in them…

>>All God asks of us, in simple terms, is to believe His counsel as He makes it understood, and to let the unbelievers receive the reward of their own unbelief.

[:"red"]" Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?"[/]

2 Corinthians 6:14 NASB<<

That is what the mischief of culling texts is about… That is unprincipled for one who appears desirous of emulating the red letter format of the Gospels. /vay!

Please, instead of investing in a benighted interest regards my standing before Gd – you deconstruct the two texts I’ve introduced into the discussion.

...patience, oh little one, let patience bloom, as mushrooms in night seasons /prompt:mine own se'f]

:proofed

March 19, 2006

Hmmm....you've been busy the last couple of days, jasd. That's good - keep the pot stirred.

Let's see...

Quote:

>>But there is no Law that can MAKE a heart love God...because love cannot be commanded.<<

That would seem so. However, one asks about NT love, especially that of agapao: Is its definition to be subscribed from Writ… its prescription that love is obedience to the commandments of Gd, or… as the Modern Critic does, that is, extracts its definition from extant writings of Greek poets, philosophers, historians, etc?

Agape? Phileo? Eros? Actually, none of these can be commanded.

True agape can only come forward from the presence of God within.

John 5:19, 20: "19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

20 "For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel."

John 14:9, 10: "9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?

10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works."

Agape is truly God within selflessly responding to the God above. It is not being commanded to act upon a codex.

It is this love that Christ is using in Matthew 22, when responding to the question, "What is the greatest Law?"

Matt 22:36-40: "36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"

37 And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'

38 "This is the great and foremost commandment.

39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'

40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

The word used there is "agapao". Interesting to me is the point that Christ Jesus is quoting two separate texts out of what we term "Books of the Law", using a verb which in no way can be legalistic - it is either there, or it isn't.

As in His conversation with Nicodemus, Christ is not bringing out a new teaching, but rather re-iterating something that should have been known as foundational to being a servant of God.

Quote:

You see,

there are many who cannot love in the emotive sense. That state is beyond their experience or comprehension. They live by codes of behaviour. They can only enter by the narrower gate of obedience.

I will have to counter with the point that love has many facets, not just emotive. No matter how emotionally detached an individual may be due to life and its circumstance, God can create agape love where none has existed before - and it can manifest itself in ways that aren't emotive at all.

Entering through the narrow gate of obedience? That is a foriegn concept to me.

Again, Jesus isn't announcing a new form of service to God - rather, He is simply repeating the concept as it was already given to Moses...in the Books of the Law.

Again, I will restate my conclusion that what the tribes of Israel were given at Siniai was anything BUT a codex of legal works - it was the pre-Cross justification by faith. Turning it into such was just as much an act of idolatry as was their perpetual chasing after the Baals before the Baylonian invasion. That modern Christendom continues to place that idolatrous picture upon the OT faith is, to me, an inexcusable error that serves only to prop up various apostasized theologies rampant within dispensationalism.

Quote:

Well, I suppose that would turn upon whether there was salvation other than by faith attainable to the OT COI and others…

And what was Christ's response to the first temptation?

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"

Living by dependence upon what God speaks - is faith, no matter how you slice it.

I refer to Matthew 8:5-10: "5 And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him,

6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented."

7 Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him."

8 But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.

9 "For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."

10 Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.

11 "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;

12 but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

13 And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very moment."

What was it that the centurion was depending upon to do the work of healing his servant?

The Word of Christ.

What did Jesus call this? "Great faith, as He had not seen in all Israel". Note: this includes His own disciples!

What did the work of healing - the faith in the Word - hinge on? It was done for him "even as he believed"

A new teaching? I, for one, don't think so...

Habbakkuk 2:4: "4 "Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith."

That's an excerpt taken from the Lord's own words to the prophet. I note that the righteous lives by his faith, not by his obedience to a codex - even God's own.

It is in depending upon the Word of God that man is to live. This is what God calls "faith", and it matters not where in time one wants to point to. To my understanding, there has only been one "faith" that saves, and the works and obedience that occurs within the life of the righteous, appear as the direct consequence of faith in the word of God

Quote:

So what then of Abraham’s keeping of Gd’s charges, commandments, statutes, etc…? or Moses’ narrow brush with death at the hand of Gd? or the many whatfors and wherefors that could get a fellow killed under the OT economy? I think

OT ‘faith’ has to be carefully scrutinized.

As for Abraham...Genesis is quite clear: it says the Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. As in, Abraham believed the word of God concerning him and his place before God. Abraham believed his life sprung from God. Because of that belief, Abraham's life followed the same pattern as seen in Jesus: What God was doing within Abraham was only responding to God above.

The same is true for every person deemed righteous by God: Hebrews 11 has a whole list of OT faithful. The works they performed were not to be justified, but as a response to being justified and accepted by God. They all believed the word of God.

As to the whatfor's and whatall's...that again is getting wrapped up in misconceptions of intent. Don't get me wrong: I don't ignore them, nor do I pass over them. I do, however, view them from a completely different perspective than most Christians do.

Quote:

I read a present tense in the structure of the sentence. Do I err?

>>The Papal See was making a much ado about this long before Seventh-day Adventists came into being. In fact, several major Councils were held long before the Reformation came along...and the Sabbath/Sunday issue WAS a big deal.<<

There had occurred by that time in the oceans of homo sapience a sea change. It WAS, as you say, a big deal. However, I addressed a query proffered in present tense.

To understand the present tense, one must understand where present tense came from. It came from a studied attempt to root out the Word of God as the basis of serving our Lord - to return religion to being just another collection of formal doctrines and codex, absent any real faith as defined by Jesus. What is termed "Christian faith" today bears little resemblance at all to what Christ Jesus taught as faith, and that teaching He specifically referenced the OT Word of God as the foundation for righteousness by faith.

Today, anything that remotely sounds "Jewish" is automatically discarded as a motive based only on efforts of the flesh to achieve salvation, which Paul effectively taught in His letter to the Romans. BTW, what Scriptures was Paul using to promulgate the teaching that "by works of the Law shall no flesh be justified"? What books was he quoting from?

My point is that everything Jesus taught and lived is available in the OT. Christ's life was the example of how the Jew was supposed to have lived from Siniai until the Cross: humanity believing the Word of God to be true for them, believing God in His Word would work every form of good work and obedience commanded by the Word of God...and the righteous would rest in that faith, that dependence.

That is what is referred to in Ezekiel 20:12, where God states explicitly the Sabbath was given to designate this very thing: God sanctifying them, not by works of the flesh, but by His Creative Power working within.

Incidently, that concept is but a repeat of a concept stated 8 times in Exodus/Leviticus: it is God who sanctifies His people, and not the people themselves through works.

Quote:

There seems to be here a seeming reference to an exchange between archierieus and me that is resolved with the observation that one, Judaizing, would be thought to do so upon points of creedal beliefs held most dear to the Judaizer, three of them being… the Sabbath, the Law, and circumcision.

I think you need to change that to "creedal beliefs held most dear to the Judaizer, three of them being...a twisted usage of the Sabbath, the Law, and circumcision"

That would be much more correct and precise defining of the term.

I understand Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees and scribes weren't over the point of abolishing the Sabbath with His Messianic work - it was over spirit of true Sabbath-keeping, and the true intent of the Sabbath.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that Christ would pour that much energy into a subject, then render it null and void as "Judaizing" after the cross. That is but another reason I render such "Judaizing" to the trash heap that is dispensationalism, as a "teaching of man" rather than a commandment of God.

Quote:

What needs be said after the prophets Hosea and Jeremiah inked the Gd-breathed words? What text after, does one set forth to confirm the immateriality of those words?

And what of the God-breathed words of Ezekiel, Jeremiah's contemporary?

Perhaps the words of Hosea and Jeremiah you refer to need also be put in the light of the Scriptures of Matthew 21:33-45, where Christ rejects the singularity of Israel's "special" status with God:

"33 "Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A WALL AROUND IT AND DUG A WINE PRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey.

34 "When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce.

35 "The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third.

36 "Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them.

37 "But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.'

38 "But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.'

39 "They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40 "Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?"

41 They said to Him, "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons."

42 Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES '?

43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.

44 "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust."

45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them."

Note verse 43: Because Israel, as a national institution, failed to produce the fruit of the kingdom of God (as noted in Hebrews 4: not by works, but by faith), God would take away the purpose for their existence and give it to a people who would bear the fruits of repentance and the kingdom of God.

I do agree, jasd - God will do with what is His, as He sees fit.

Also look into Romans 2:28, 29: "28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.

29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."

And again from Galatians 3:5-8: "6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."

Who are the descendants of Abraham that are numbered as "Jews"? Those genealogically derived from Abraham's loins? or those who exercise the same kind of faith in the word of God as did Abraham?

And, again, Paul alludes to the Gospel - pre-Cross.

Quote:

Law is meritorious, whereas, Grace is unmerited favor.

That does not mesh with either OT or NT teaching of the role of the Law. The Law was never given as a means to earn merit with God. That is a misconception placed upon the Law by certain schools of thought within Christendom, used by them to promote their own ideas and agendas, rather than obey the Gospel.

Quote:

The ‘tendency’ in the second law of thermodynamics – to disorder and dissipation? I would, however, lay that tendency among the religiously inclined to ‘those flat or uncertain notes’ from .Orgs – passed-off as truths. Anyway,

it is not the preaching of the Gospel but its reception that matters. Once received, the nurture and instilling of correct precepts are Gd’s to increase.

Funny you should mention the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...Why is it called "Law"?

And of the Laws of electromagnetism, and gravity?

What is it to obey the law of gravity?

And would not the indwelling Word of God obey the Law of God as a matter natural function, rather man relegating this to being simply an intellectual assent and proscribed deeds?

I agree - we can only preach the Gospel...but we are accountable to preach the whole Gospel, not just the parts we like or agree with. Perhaps I should have reworded my statement to read the incomplete preaching of the Gospel...

Quote:

Agenda and biases, as everyone who purports that their ‘day’ is the Biblically correct ‘day’.

There is but one day of the week that is the Biblically correct Sabbath...and that is to be defined by God, by His weeekly cycle He created in the very beginning.

It was made by God, for man, and not to be defined by man. As the seventh day came out of Eden bearing God's hallowing and blessing, and was signified by God's own word to Him resting on that seventh day, it pertains to all peoples, not just a human conception of "Israel". God gave the seventh day rest to mankind in the very beginning - not to the Jew at Siniai.

It is God's Word that matters for life. It is God's Word that defines when the Sabbath comes in the weekly cycle, and it is God's Word that tells to whom God gives His Sabbath to, and what it signifies.

Anything else is the unfruitful wrangling of the Holy Writ.

Quote:

I cannot comment to the above, as I really don’t know how you are defining or using the Israel/Church dichotomy. I understand Israel to be the bride of Christ; whereas, the church, per se, largely constitutes the body of Christ.

Hmmmm...Israel is the bride of Christ?

Is that the picture seen in Revelation 22? The New Jerusalem?

Tell, when was Israel's foundations ever been upon the teaching of the 12 apostles?

And tell, when was the church ever to enter into the heavenly gates bearing the names of the tribes of Israel?

Jasd, you have in your theology an artificial separation of Israel and church. A separation of Law and Grace. You apply Law to Israel, and Grace to the church. The two entities have differing standards by which they come to justification as being righteous before God. This double standard is called "the Israel/church dichotomy", and it could never stand up to any kind of legal scrutiny for justice.

To extend Matthew 21, the church was given what was originally given to the 12 tribes of Israel - the same commission, the same Gospel, and the same obligation to bear fruits to. That the Pharisees recognized this parable as Christ referrring to THEM should give cause for serious thought as to what God has given to the church.

That Paul said that the Jews - natural tree branches - respond to being grafted in far more than wild "Gentile" branches - should give pause to consider who and what God defines as Israel (both OT and NT), particularly when Paul refers to the Jews as being "broken off branches" of the same tree the church "branches" were grafted into...

The bride of Christ is but one thing: the redeemed of mankind, from all ages. Again, let God define who is His Israel, whom He betrothed to Himself when He stepped in as Adam's Redeemer in the very beginning...that's where the Gospel promise was first recorded (Genesis 3:15), and every generation of mankind since Adam has been the object of that first promise made. It was the root promise by which God was able to declare to a man named Abraham that the Redeemer would be numbered among his descendants, thereby blessing all nations.

As it was written in the NT - there is but one Lord and one faith. God has not changed - and neither has God's defining of saving faith.

It's man that monkeys around with the Holy Word, creating artificial distinctions and definitions to suit their own tastes and thoughts.

Law and Grace. Israel and Church. Man creates walls between these to suit his own agendas. Where allowed, God will break these distinctions away.

Quote:

To read into it what isn’t expressed --is to construct. However, to construct the latter clause in Exodus 34:21 as emphasizing the first – may bear some substance; but tell me…

in that corn, as we know corn, was unknown to the COI (discovered as a food staple of American Indians) and that ‘corn’ as mentioned in Writ merely referred to grain crops – what significance would the ‘earing’ of grain crops have to do with resting or no on the Sabbath?

In the agricultural economy, there are certain times where the fields require diligent attention - either because of characteristics of the plant, or because of associated needs to the growing cycle.

These points are: planting, the formation of the crop ("earing" of grain crops falls into this category), maturing, and harvest.

Why was "earing" important? Well, for some grains, that is the time when the crop is vulnerable to disease and ravaging by pests. Some (like corn) do require special attention when at this critical point in the season, in order for the crop to produce right.

Regardless, there are points in the crop cycle when many people were required to be in the field tending to the crops. What the Lord is pointing to in His Word there is that those professing to serve Him are not to use these critical points in the crop cycle as an excuse to justify rebellion against His Word.

As "ear" in America refers nearly universally to corn, it is easy to make the mistake that it refers only to corn in the Scriptures.

My faux pas. I live south of the Red River in Texas, where the major grain crops are...corn and wheat.

The Scriptures do refer to other grains as "earing"...like barley and wheat. But...I will not restrict the Writ's usage of corn to refer only to grains. Though corn as a food staple was not known to Northern European cultures before those cultures "discovered" the New World, I am of the understanding that some of the ancient cultures of the Middle East and Mesopotamia did know about corn. So, perahps, I am not so much in error as at first thought.

Quote:

As you’ll notice in the above… “Observe”, “Take heed”, etc… are works; more so, in that the Mosaic economy was under Law.

And, again, who said the Mosaic economy was "under Law"? That would be man, wrangling Paul's words in the NT to this effect. That the current church age is even more so under Law of its own construction, is also food for discussion.

Quote:

>>>The works of the Law as promulgated by dogmas and doctrines rather than works of condign merit springing forth from the Christ-inspired heart.<<<

>>My disagreement with your hypothesis is on the enboldened point above: that you believe obedience to the Sabbath commandment cannot spring forth from within the Christ-inspired heart.<<

I neither said nor implied such a thing; of course, it can and should “spring forth” …but only “from within the Christ-inspired heart” – not from formulated catechism.

Yet you have implied that very point with every "judaizer" reference you have made, jasd. I haven't seen a reference in your posts where the Sabbath-keeping Christian is doing so as a matter of the Grace of God welling up within the believer. Your references to the Sabbath in the previous posts relegate Sabbath-keeping universally to be "under Law".

Yet, keeping the commandments against adultery, perjury, and stealing because of a formulated catechism is just as much "under Law" as trying to keep a holy day. Yet modern Christendom has no problem doing that and calling it "grace" working upon the heart of the believer. Therein lay the inconsistency I cannot accept from modern Christendom: deciding which of the TC's are "under grace" and which are "under Law". It inevitably boils down to nine being "under grace" and one "under Law".

Your consistent line of posting follows that same pattern.

Quote:

It’s probable that Jeremiah wrote this (Jer 31) before writing Lamentations. It is questionable whether Gd had yet revealed to him that which he would later write in Lamentations 2:6,9. That said,

no, it is not the Law containing the Sabbath commandment – that commandment has been removed according to Hosea and Jeremiah. There remains, however, that which Jesus spoke following these words…. 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.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Those two commandments embraces much, much more than the tables of stone which Moses secreted in the Ark of the Covenant. The immediately foregoing sentence does not address the five books as Law, nor those statutes, ordinances, and judgements of OT COI.

No, jasd, those words of Christ address the whole tenor of the OT accountability of the believer to God, whether outlined by God in the Law, or spoken by God through His prophets.

But I do find your point about Jeremiah a bit curious...why would God speak through a prophet words that apply to the righteous, and are nearly univerally applied to the church, yet at the same time nullify one commandment for everyone in sections of prophecy where God is not addressing those who have entered His rest, but rather the wickedness of those professing to be God's by covenant, but have no revealing heart obedience implicit in that profession?

Not all Israel was Israel of God. A quick rundown of all the references to "Israel" in the prophets finds that God's issue with the covenanted nation were issues of character - no heart love for neither God nor man. They would not accept His Word, as He gave it. They would not serve Him, as He asked. They would not treat their fellow brothers as He asked. Instead, they ran after the world's defining of religion, and treated people on a daily basis with oppression, guile, injustice, and cruelty.

There was nothing about their day-to-day lives that reflected what Christ would later quote directly from the OT: they did not agapao God, neither did they agapao their fellow man. There was nothing of God within their hearts responding to God above in selfless, Godly love. And yet, that was the very foundation of being in a covenant relationship with God, whether as an individual or as a nation.

Quote:

Your living, your life, is Gd’s holy Sabbath.

Hmmm....any Scriptures to back that up? Sounds suspiciously like the ol' "Every day is the Sabbath" cop-out some professed Christians use to avoid looking hard at whether what they are believing is grounded in the Word of God.

Quote:

And you make too little. You must decide if it is Writ, or not. Otherwise, you pick and choose. I’ve said it before on these threads and I repeat, “I am the most Biblically conservative of this list.” /paraphrased

I don't pick and choose what is Writ and what is not. I leave that kind of intellectual dishonesty to the keepers of "higher criticism".

No, jasd, I don't make too little of Hosea and Jeremiah. I do, however, make clear distinctions as to when God is addressing the true faithful of Israel, versus those of Israel who claimed the covenant status, but would have nothing of the covenant relationship or the Gospel that came with it.

I would not deny the Scriptures when they declare to those who wanted to have status but not acountability that He would cause them to forget His Sabbaths, His Feasts, and New Moons - they didn't want them in the first place! God is simply giving to them what they have asked for - but it also meant losing their place in Israel as well.

As for the remnant of Israel - spoken of repeatedly in the prophets, God declares they would rest, that the Sabbath would be a sign between Himself and the believer who wished to be sanctified by God. Furthermore, God predicts in Isaiah that both the Sabbath and the New Moon Feast will be kept in the New Earth.

Forgotten by those who didn't want it? I can see that. But to extend that line of reasoning to the faithful remnant of Israel? That overextends the proof, particularly in the light that Jesus knew just which day to go to call the Sabbath.

Hence, my statement about making too much of those prophetic messages.

As for being the most Biblically conservative here...let's let God decide that one.

Too often, that term ends up meaning, "My interpretation is the most Biblically sound....blah, blah, blah..."

As I said before, we differ on certain perspectives of the OT. That won't make me any less conservative than anyone else here, nor does it make me Biblically "liberal". It just says I have a different perspective on the matter.

Quote:

Petulance? but of course we share common ground on this point!

Petulance?

Nope. Tired and winding up a long post during the hours of the night? Yep.

A bit frustrated from some of the dancing (and, on that point, I agree - don't quit your day job!) and missed meanings that come with using faceless electronic media? Yep.

Petulant? Nope. Cantankerous? Maybe....

Gotta go. My better half knows I've been typing this response for the last 3 hours. She thinks I'm trying to publish a novel..."Are you STILL typing that response???"

She might have a point....

All regards,

Ted

March 21, 2006

Quote:

jasd said:

I don’t know how you mean “generally” to be taken, but yes, I would say that He caused the Sabbath to cease and to be forgotten by both the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom. But “cease” in its most acute sense, no, --He instead, removed it from the economy of both the above kingdoms mentioned.

Forgotten? Not in the intellectual sense, but in the sense of keeping the feasts. They were unable to do so, for the reason stated in the first part of the verse which you quoted from. As for 'removed it from the economy . . .', those words do not appear in the passage either. A more simple explanation is that the people were taken captive, and the Temple destroyed, hence the feasts could not be observed until the Temple was rebuilt. This is stated in the first part of v. 6: "And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly:" Once the Temple was rebuilt, the feasts ('sabbaths') were again observed, on schedule. BTW during Holy Week, Jesus was crucified on the Passover, according to the calendar which God gave the Jews in Exodus 12. They got it right.

Quote:

“The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten ... the law [is] no [more];” –

Gd

,

via the written words of Jeremiah

“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” –

Gd

, [i via the written words of Hosea

It seems only predisposition would take issue with Gd’s words as so clearly set forth.

Not in the slightest. Different Hebrew words were used for the word translated as 'sabbaths.' The weekly, seventh-day Sabbath was 'shabat.' The ceremonial sabbaths were 'shabbatati.'

Quote:

I desired not to show evidence that Gd intended to “do away”… but to simply evince a removal.

Same difference, bottom-line. Yet, the passage does not say that God removed the sabbaths. Rereading the passage, there is no reference to that. There IS a reference to not keeping the feasts, for the stated reason that the Temple weas destroyed, and that was where the ceremonies were performed.

Quote:

>>Thirdly, you have not shown that the Sabbath was not kept during the Exile.<<

“The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten ... the law [is] no [more];” –

Gd

,

via the written words of Jeremiah

Your response here, does not address the fact that the feasts were reinstituted, once the Temple was rebuilt. The verse you quote, does not address that, although Jeremiah the prophet does speak of a return and restoration. He nowhere says that this is the end for Judah, or for the feasts, or for the weekly Sabbath. You are quoting part of the story told by the prophet, but not all the story.

Quote:

>>Fourthly, you have not addressed the fact that the Jews continued to keep the Sabbath in the Restoration.<<

It was an incomplete Restoration, so why does one expect this or that other in exactitude?

The completed restoration of the Temple and the city occurred under Nehemiah with grant from the king of Persia who had had to sign an ignominious treaty with the Greeks preventing him from having established ports in the developing Greek hegemony – and further limiting his influence to the distance Jerusalem stood from the Mediterranean. It would be incorrect to incorporate a

times prophecy

as beginning with Ezra…

Please explain how this addresses the fact that the returned exiles reinstituted the feast with God's blessing, and that the seventh-day Sabbath was kept throughout.

Quote:

Why would that be a burden on my part?

Several reasons: firstly, the prophecy pertains to the destruction of the Temple and the inability to keep the annual feasts; secondly, by Divine direction, the Temple was rebuilt (Haggai 1) and the feasts reinstituted; thirdly, the weekly Sabbath was kept and honored by Jesus; fourthly, Jeremiah, the same prophet who foretold the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the feasts, also foretold the restoration of the Temple and those same feasts. IOW the prophet's prediction of doom and destruction was accompanied by a prophecy of restoration.

Quote:

it was only a few Jews that emerged from the major population centers of Babylon and Persia – testifying that they had embraced whatever they found so compelling as to forgo returning to their homeland. They few who returned did so with the major aspects of the Babylonian calendar, the names of Pagan dieties attached to the now Jewish calendar, they also emerged with the concept synagogue (consensus bears it out), the beginnings of the Talmud…

That is neither here nor there, as to the Scriptural record of the Restoration, the rebuiding of the Temple, the reinstitution of the feasts, and the continued keeping of the weekly Sabbath.

David Koot

March 23, 2006

QR frame:

Oy Vay! the magnitude...

ah well, as able.

Sign In

Ten Commandments Replaced?

Recommended Posts

archierieus

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

archierieus

Gerr

archierieus

Nicodema

archierieus

Nicodema

Gerr

archierieus

jasd

Ted Oplinger

jasd

archierieus

Ted Oplinger

jasd

David Koot

jasd

jasd

jasd

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

jasd

Ted Oplinger

David Koot

jasd

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity