Why do SDA preach

[tall73]

Tall73: Isaiah 66 doesn't not talk about now. So it does not prove it. It proves it will be in the new earth. And that was not being disputed by either party

Well that is now true at all. As posted earlier the everlasting Sabbath covenant is linked directly to the here and now so do not pretend that it is not *Exodus 31:16

I point out what Isaiah says. You say that is not true and quote a different text.

Yeah, I don't think that is helpful.

. Where as Isaiah 66:22-23 proves that the everlasting Sabbath covenant is continued in the new earth.

Isaiah 66 says it is observed in the new earth. It doesn't address the time prior.

Your upset now because this undoes what your trying to argue with the distraction of new moons.

I am upset that I once again wasted time arguing with you in pointless circles.

Isaiah says the Sabbath will be kept in the new earth. That was not disputed by me, by Major 1, by you, or by anyone else I have see in this thread.

So it added nothing to the conversation.

This whole part of the discussion started when SabbathBlessings said the following:

If God is saying we are going to be doing something specifically on the New Earth- do you not think that is worthy of doing now?

I noted that the new moon is described as being done in the new earth and she doesn't observe it now, and that the text is not a helpful one as a Sabbath proof text.

Then you mentioned you think it is a helpful text in discussion if you talk about other texts.

If you have to go to a different text to talk about keeping it now, then Isaiah 66 didn't add anything to that, the other text did.

 

[tall73]

Look lets be honest here,

Were you not being honest before?

how does what you have posted above disagree with what has been shared with you from the scriptures in Exodus 31:16 and it's link into Isaiah 66:22-23 showing that Gods' 4th commandment Sabbath of the 10 commandments is not an everlasting covenant and not a requirement for the here and now to when the covenant was given? - It doesn't. (see post # 618 linked)

What I have posted during this whole conversation is that Isaiah 66 adds nothing as a Sabbath proof text regarding sabbath observance today.

Your resorting to Exodus 31 makes that point.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Were you not being honest before?



What I have posted during this whole conversation is that Isaiah 66 adds nothing as a Sabbath proof text regarding sabbath observance today.

Your resorting to Exodus 31 makes that point.

i have to interject here Tall, it does add a prophetic/predictive element to the sabbath and its need for observance. It points forward to a time not yet that we are waiting for.

 

[tall73]

i have to interject here Tall, it does add a prophetic/predictive element to the sabbath and its need for observance.

And does it do the same for the New Moon?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

And does it do the same for the New Moon?

if you can show me how it predictive it might.

 

[tall73]

if you can show me how it predictive it might.

Isaiah 66 says the same thing about both. So what it predicts about one--worship in the new earth--it says about the other.

 

[ozso]

No it is you I was correct the first time where did I post as you claimed earlier that there is no truth or true church? I did not say any such thing... context added from the linked post.

...............

"It is true that there are many false teachers on Christianity in the world today and as discussed earlier at one consensus over 40,000 different denominations of Christianity were recorded and growing in fulfillment of the very Words of Jesus (Matthew 24:24; 2 Peter 2:1 etc). Why do you feel that that is an argument that there is no true Church and that there is no correct and true understanding of the scriptures? How then Brian are you going to know if your not deceived in following the false teachings of the majority when the many come up to Jesus at the second coming and say Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (sin). According to Jesus only those who do the will the will of God will enter the kingdom of heaven. The many will not enter into God's Kingdom *Matthew 7:21-23. The only way therefore we can know God's will and the truth of God's Word is to seek Jesus through His Word asking God to be our guide and teacher. According to God's promises in the new covenant God promises to be our guide and teacher through His Spirit *Hebrews 8:11; John 14:26; John 16:13; John 7:17; John 8:31-36; 1 John 2:27. It is true however according to the words of Jesus that men love darkness rather then light because their deeds are evil and everyone that does evil hates the light (Gods Word in the lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path - Psalms 119:105) lest their deeds are reproved. But the good news is that he that comes to the light (Gods' Word) we can see that our deeds are wrought in God or not. He that believes and follows Gods' Word is not condemned according to the scriptures but he that believes not is condemned already because he has not believe in the name of the old begotten Son of God. *John 3:18-21

.................

I was asking you a question to your argument there not being a true church or truth.

I never said that, so that's not my argument. I said that fringe denominations claim to be the only true church that knows the truth. And that there are individuals who claim to be one of only a few who knows the truth. Your claim seems to be that only you and those who see things the way you do, know the truth and everyone else is deceived.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Isaiah 66 doesn't not talk about now. So it does not prove it. It proves it will be in the new earth. And that was not being disputed by either party

Please do not try and make argument no one is making to you. I posted earlier that the fact that Exodus 31:16 shows that God's 4th commandment is an everlasting covenant here and now is supportive of Isaiah 66:22-23 that shows that God's everlasting Sabbath covenant will continue in the new earth, correct? If the covenant is given here and now in our earth and continued to be kept in the new earth then what your posted is simply a distraction as Isaiah 66:22-23 is supportive of what was written in Exodus 31:16.

I point out what Isaiah says. You say that is not true and quote a different text. Yeah, I don't think that is helpful.

No. I pointed out from the start that the new moon argument is simply a distraction if you understand that Gods' 4th commandment is an everlasting covenant *Exodus 31:16 as Isaiah 66:22-23 only proves that the Sabbath will be continued in the new earth as an everlasting covenant. You seem to be missing the point here. That point is in light of the above, none of your arguments matter if you understand that the Sabbath is a perpetual covenant *Exodus 31:16 as proven Isaiah 66:22-23. This is because the covenant is given in the here and now not in the new earth. The new earth Sabbath is only demonstrating that the Sabbath is an everlasting covenant given in the here and now which means that God's 4th commandment is a requirement in the here and now.

Isaiah 66 says it is observed in the new earth. It doesn't address the time prior.

Once again is the Sabbath an everlasting covenant *Exodus 31:16? As posted earlier your trying to make arguments no one is making. All Isaiah 66:22-23 demonstrated is that the Sabbath is an everlasting covenant and therefore is a requirement here and now as that is when the covenant was given and is one of God's 10 commandments.

I am upset that I once again wasted time arguing with you in pointless circles.

Perhaps you should carefully read what you are responding to before replying so there is no misunderstanding as to what was shared with you.

Isaiah says the Sabbath will be kept in the new earth. That was not disputed by me, by Major 1, by you, or by anyone else I have see in this thread. So it added nothing to the conversation.

Once again that is not my argument. I never said anyone was in disagreement that the Sabbath was to be kept in the new earth. My argument as posted from the beginning is that if Isaiah 66:22-23 is used with the understanding that God's 4th commandments Sabbath is an everlasting covenant *Exodus 31:16 that is given in our earth in the here and now then this proves that the Sabbath of God's 10 commandments is a requirement here and now so this makes Isaiah 66:22-23 linked with Exodus 31:16 a very strong argument that the Sabbath is a requirement now not latter. Your arguments of new moon in light of the above scriptures is simply a distraction to something that was not an everlasting covenant or one of God's 10 commandments (new moons).

Then you mentioned you think it is a helpful text in discussion if you talk about other texts. If you have to go to a different text to talk about keeping it now, then Isaiah 66 didn't add anything to that, the other text did.

Well this is where we disagree Tall as shown above. It adds a lot to the discussion. Your not going to try and argue now that the Sabbath is not an everlasting covenant now are you in light of Exodus 31:16 and Isaiah 66:22-23? In fact linking Isaiah 66:22-23 to Exodus 31:16 proves that the whole new moon argument is simply a distraction.

Take Care.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Isaiah 66 says the same thing about both. So what it predicts about one--worship in the new earth--it says about the other.

that may be, but the new moon was never the sign of the covenant and never in the commandments. So God did not feel the need to stick it there or uses it in that way.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I never said that, so that's not my argument. I said that fringe denominations claim to be the only true church that knows the truth. And there are individuals who claim to be the only one who knows the truth. Your claim seems to be that only you and those who see things the way you do, know the truth and everyone else is deceived.

No I said no such thing so once again please do not pretend I am saying or believing things I have never said to you. It is not honest Brian. If you want clarification please feel free to just ask.

 

[tall73]

that may be, but the new moon was never the sign of the covenant and never in the commandments. So God did not feel the need to stick it there or uses it in that way.

I have not said the new moon is a sign of the covenant, or in the commandments. But none of that information comes from Isaiah 66.

I said Isaiah 66 says the same about both, because it does.

And Isaiah 66 contains elements Adventists don't want to explain, and which Bob acknowledged was a possible future that didn't happen. That is not a convincing Sabbath argument. Which is why my whole point was Isaiah 66 is not a good Sabbath proof text.

That is why when Sabbath Blessings quoted it to Major1 it did nothing for him. It speaks of the new earth. He didn't dispute it would be kept in the new eart.

And when she noted that if something is done in the new earth it is a good idea to do it now, well, that doesn't apply to the new moon.

 

[tall73]

that may be, but the new moon was never the sign of the covenant and never in the commandments. So God did not feel the need to stick it there or uses it in that way.

Now, to advance the discussion a bit, what do you think the new moon is? And why do you think it appears in Col. 2? And what do you think it means that it is a shadow in Col. 2?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@All thanks for the discussion maybe I will come back more latter when I have some more time. Seems the discussion for some want to return to new moons and not the Sabbath as a perpetual covenant being given here and now that is continued in the new earth. As posted earlier new moons are simply a distraction

 

[tall73]

@All thanks for the discussion maybe I will come back more latter. Seems the discussion for some want to return to new moons

Of course. New moons appear in Col. 2 for instance. You can't avoid them.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I have not said the new moon is a sign of the covenant, or in the commandments. But none of that information comes from Isaiah 66.

I said Isaiah 66 says the same about both, because it does.

And Isaiah 66 contains elements Adventists don't want to explain, and which Bob acknowledged was a possible future that didn't happen. That is not a convincing Sabbath argument. Which is why my whole point was Isaiah 66 is not a good Sabbath proof text.

That is why when Sabbath Blessings quoted it to Major1 it did nothing for him. It speaks of the newi earth. He didn't dispute it would be kept in the new eart.

And when she noted that if something is done in the new earth it is a good idea to do it now, well, that doesn't apply to the new moon.

i understand you objection to proof texting, but it associated with the future, weather you can explain everything or not. As such it can be used as a prophecy. you don't need everything explained to accept that. Now your objection to how SDA proof text has validity, but it 's still there even if they are wrong about how they use it.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Of course. New moons appear in Col. 2 for instance. You can't avoid them.

Indeed they are connected with the Feast days as are the annual shadow sabbaths which are not a requirement for new covenant believers today.

 

[tall73]

i understand you objection to proof texting, but it associated with the future, weather you can explain everything or not. As such it can be used as a prophecy. you don't everything explained to accept that. Now your objection to how SDA proof text has validity, but it 's still there even if they are wrong about how they use it.

Oh I agree it is still there. And it means something. It is not however a good proof text. That was the point.

And I enjoy discussing it. And I also enjoy discussing the new moon which is part of it.

 

[tall73]

Indeed they are connected with the Feast days as are the annual shadow sabbaths which are not a requirement for new covenant believers today.

So tell me, how was the new moon fulfilled? And how is it a shadow?

 

[ozso]

No I said no such thing so once again please do not pretend I am saying or believing things I have never said to you. It is not honest Brian. If you want clarification please feel free to just ask.

Well you're going to have to clarify, because that's what it sounds like what you're saying in the quote below and in other posts:

It is true that there are many false teachers on Christianity in the world today and as discussed earlier at one consensus over 40,000 different denominations of Christianity were recorded and growing in fulfillment of the very Words of Jesus (Matthew 24:24; 2 Peter 2:1 etc). Why do you feel that that is an argument that there is no true Church and that there is no correct and true understanding of the scriptures? How then Brian are you going to know if your not deceived in following the false teachings of the majority when the many come up to Jesus at the second coming and say Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (sin). According to Jesus only those who do the will the will of God will enter the kingdom of heaven.

So by you saying "false teachings of the majority" it seems logical to conclude you are saying that true teaching only exists within the minority.

And it seems logical to conclude that you consider yourself to be part of the minority that knows the truth and is not deceived, the way the majority is.

So how does that not add up to: Your claim seems to be that only you and those who see things the way you do, know the truth and everyone else is deceived?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

So tell me, how was the new moon fulfilled? And how is it a shadow?

that is a good question, what is the new moon a shadow of?