Babylon the Great?

[stauron]

Why not?

Those who are part of the New Covenant have no need to be taught to know God. They are born again of incorruptible seed. They have eternal life and cannot die. This is what the righteous of the Old Covenant longed for. The Old Covenant had both righteous and unrighteous as full members. The New only has born again members, washed in the blood of Jesus.

Totally different entrance requirements. Totally different membership and totally different outcomes. The Law only pointed out sin and condemned any that were not perfect. The New Covenant makes them clean on the inside (a new heart) and gives them the ability (the Spirit) to actually perform righteously.

 

[LightBearer]

Those who are part of the New Covenant have no need to be taught to know God.

I suspect you are referring to this scripture. “‘And they will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from [the] least one to [the] greatest one of them. Heb 8:11

You are clearly reading into this what it is not saying.

The Jews were born into the Old Covenant. Whether they wanted to or not, the Law commanded they learn about Jehovah. This meant that it was often just intellectual, just head knowledge. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as a nation God eventually destroyed them. Although having all that knowledge of God they didn’t know Jehovah. Compare Jer 22:13-17.

Those who accepted Christianity and were brought into the New Covenant did so as the result of a reasoned, conscientious and personal decision. No one had to TELL them to know Jehovah, they voluntarily and wanted to know him. And so this knowledge was in their hearts not just in their heads.

That Christians still needed to be continually educated about God is highlighted by Jesus words at John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ”. The term “Taking in knowledge” is a continuous action.

This continuous action is also highlighted in Paul’s words at Colossians 1:9-10 “That is also why we, from the day we heard [of it], have not ceased praying for YOU and asking that YOU may be filled with the accurate knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension, in order to walk worthily of Jehovah to the end of fully pleasing [him] as YOU go on bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the accurate knowledge of God”

They are born again of incorruptible seed. They have eternal life and cannot die. This is what the righteous of the Old Covenant longed for. The Old Covenant had both righteous and unrighteous as full members. The New only has born again members, washed in the blood of Jesus.

As a group yes, (the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16) the Christian Congregation) God will fulfil his purpose regarding them.

They (Individuals) receive immortality as a reward only if they remain faithful to the end of their earthly life course.

Just because someone is born again does not mean they are incorruptible.

Heb 10:26, 27 For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but [there is] a certain fearful expectation of judgment and [there is] a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition.

1 Timothy 1:18-20 This mandate I commit to you, child, Timothy, in accord with the predictions that led directly on to you, that by these you may go on waging the fine warfare; holding faith and a good conscience, which some have thrust aside and have experienced shipwreck concerning [their] faith. Hy·me·nae´us and Alexander belong to these, and I have handed them over to Satan that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.

Thus the warning in James 4:4 Born again christians can still apostatize,
even becoming a part of BTG who's destruction is still future. REV 1:1; 18:8.

 

[LightBearer]

Sorry, you have eliminated all meaning of time so a future tense definitely can refer to an event 30 years past.

You are saying God doesn't seem to be able to tell time, or if He can, He isn't able to communicate it to man in a meaningful way. So sure, shortly can mean what ever YOU want.

As I said in my earlier post, when it is convenient for your theology, time statements are flexible and non-literal, you have the classic case of theology driving hermeneutics. Start out with your presuppositions and then build a hermeneutic to match.

Nope. Just pointing out that how you interperet the term "shortly take place " is not how God sees it from his wiewpoint of time. After all, the term "Shortly" is indefinite. What is "shortly" to God if to him a thousand years can be as one day. You tell me.

 

[stauron]

Nope. Just pointing out that how you interperet the term "shortly take place " is not how God sees it from his wiewpoint of time. After all, the term "Shortly" is indefinite. What is "shortly" to God if to him a thousand years can be as one day. You tell me.

You have already decided. Time is elastic if your theology needs it to be.

We can't trust God to tell us about time statements. Soon means approximately anything and therefore nothing. The audience of the letter to the churches in Asia minor were under persecution and John's answer for them was "in a little while, 2000 years more or less, you will be rescued".

Very comforting, I'm sure.

 

[stauron]

I suspect you are referring to this scripture. “‘And they will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from [the] least one to [the] greatest one of them. Heb 8:11

You are clearly reading into this what it is not saying.

The Jews were born into the Old Covenant. Whether they wanted to or not, the Law commanded they learn about Jehovah. This meant that it was often just intellectual, just head knowledge. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as a nation God eventually destroyed them. Although having all that knowledge of God they didn’t know Jehovah. Compare Jer 22:13-17.

Those who accepted Christianity and were brought into the New Covenant did so as the result of a reasoned, conscientious and personal decision. No one had to TELL them to know Jehovah, they voluntarily and wanted to know him. And so this knowledge was in their hearts not just in their heads.

That Christians still needed to be continually educated about God is highlighted by Jesus words at John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ”. The term “Taking in knowledge” is a continuous action.

This continuous action is also highlighted in Paul’s words at Colossians 1:9-10 “That is also why we, from the day we heard [of it], have not ceased praying for YOU and asking that YOU may be filled with the accurate knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension, in order to walk worthily of Jehovah to the end of fully pleasing [him] as YOU go on bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the accurate knowledge of God”


As a group yes, (the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16) the Christian Congregation) God will fulfil his purpose regarding them.

They (Individuals) receive immortality as a reward only if they remain faithful to the end of their earthly life course.

Just because someone is born again does not mean they are incorruptible.

Heb 10:26, 27 For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but [there is] a certain fearful expectation of judgment and [there is] a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition.

1 Timothy 1:18-20 This mandate I commit to you, child, Timothy, in accord with the predictions that led directly on to you, that by these you may go on waging the fine warfare; holding faith and a good conscience, which some have thrust aside and have experienced shipwreck concerning [their] faith. Hy·me·nae´us and Alexander belong to these, and I have handed them over to Satan that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.

Thus the warning in James 4:4 Born again christians can still apostatize,
even becoming a part of BTG who's destruction is still future. REV 1:1; 18:8.

Well when you leave out the other half of the Scripture about the effect of the Holy Spirit and what it means to be born again you can get any answer you like.

The purpose for which Jesus came was to make a holy nation that produced fruit, unlike those under the Law.

I believe that the Scriptures teach that Jesus was and is successful in that mission.

His disciples are those that don't turn back to the Old Covenant. In fact that is the hallmark of His children, they persevere and prove His power and work in their life. The others leave, proving that they were not really part of us in the first place.

This is the difference between the Covenants, the first was a covenant of death the greater is one of life. Due to the perfect mediator of the New, the outcome is perfect, and the children are free. They are new creations and ARE righteous.

Those that are predestined are also glorified and none shall be lost.

So, just to explicitly disagree and disprove your major premise, being born again is to be born incorruptible.

1:23 You have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God.

1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

[LightBearer]

Well when you leave out the other half of the Scripture about the effect of the Holy Spirit and what it means to be born again you can get any answer you like.

The purpose for which Jesus came was to make a holy nation that produced fruit, unlike those under the Law.

I believe that the Scriptures teach that Jesus was and is successful in that mission.

His disciples are those that don't turn back to the Old Covenant. In fact that is the hallmark of His children, they persevere and prove His power and work in their life. The others leave, proving that they were not really part of us in the first place.

This is the difference between the Covenants, the first was a covenant of death the greater is one of life. Due to the perfect mediator of the New, the outcome is perfect, and the children are free. They are new creations and ARE righteous.

Those that are predestined are also glorified and none shall be lost.

So, just to explicitly disagree and disprove your major premise, being born again is to be born incorruptible.

I clearly showed you scriptures that proved that Born Again Christians are not incorruptable while on earth as you implied, that some of Jesus "Born Again" disciples did apsotatize from the Christian Congregation. Alexander and Hymaneaus are examples.

Here is another scripture which clearly proves this:

"For it is impossible as regards those who have once for all been enlightened, and who have tasted the heavenly free gift, and who have become partakers of holy spirit, and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, but who have fallen away, to revive them again to repentance, because they impale the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame. Heb 6:4-6

Note: They had been enlightened, tasted the heavenly free gift and been partakers of holy spirit. The term "Fallen Away" indicates an apostatizing.

Also that Heb 8:11 did not mean what you implied. That rather, according to John 17:3 and Col 1:9,10 Christians CONTINUE to learn about and get to know Jehovah.

You sidesteprd this scriptural proof and the gave you own personal opinions and philosophies.

I really dont see the point in continuing this line of reasoning.

At least we settled one thing. Jerusalem/Israel couldn't possibly be the BTG of Rev 17 and 18 since her destruction was yet future from when john wrote his prophecy in 98 C.E. While Israel/Jeruslaem was destroyed 30 years previous.

I'm off to post elswhere.

Regards,
LB

 

[stauron]

I clearly showed you scriptures that proved that Born Again Christians are not incorruptable while on earth as you implied, that some of Jesus "Born Again" disciples did apsotatize from the Christian Congregation. Alexander and Hymaneaus are examples.

Here is another scripture which clearly proves this:

"For it is impossible as regards those who have once for all been enlightened, and who have tasted the heavenly free gift, and who have become partakers of holy spirit, and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, but who have fallen away, to revive them again to repentance, because they impale the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame. Heb 6:4-6

Note: They had been enlightened, tasted the heavenly free gift and been partakers of holy spirit. The term "Fallen Away" indicates an apostatizing.

Also that Heb 8:11 did not mean what you implied. That rather, according to John 17:3 and Col 1:9,10 Christians CONTINUE to learn about and get to know Jehovah.

You sidesteprd this scriptural proof and the gave you own personal opinions and philosophies.

I really dont see the point in continuing this line of reasoning.

At least we settled one thing. Jerusalem/Israel couldn't possibly be the BTG of Rev 17 and 18 since her destruction was yet future from when john wrote his prophecy in 98 C.E. While Israel/Jeruslaem was destroyed 30 years previous.

I'm off to post elswhere.

Regards,
LB

Actually, you never addressed the scripture that I originally started with. 1 Pet 1:23. None of your verses served to mitigate Peter's words that we have an imperishable seed from Christ.

You have also failed to answer the simplest questions about time statements. Why do they get to be flexible as long as they prove your theology?

And finally you have only provided assertion after assertion about the date of Revelation, and not answered any of the questions about your presuppositions.

But if you are convinced, I wouldn't want to upset the cart.

 

[Suede]

LB


Suede wrote: No other group of people/nation had a covenant with God like Israel did.

LB: Not so.

Suede- Actually, it is true. Only Israel at that time was under a Covenant with God, and therefore, only they could actually be a harlot. It's sort like this. Imagine all the nations as wives, and your wife is Israel. You have a marriage contract, or covenant with her. Now, other nations/wives may commit adultery, but that's of no consequence to you. However, if your wife, Israel, commits adultery, then it is of a consequence to you.

LB: In what sense did Israel become a Harlot?

By going against God, by backslidding. The OT is literally FULL of condemning statements about Israel. Most of the OT Prophets had zero nice things to say in regards to Israel. You actually answer yourself below,

LB: The term "harlot" is at times used in a figurative way to apply to a professed worshiper of Jehovah, or to an organization or a nation that claims to worship him but that actually gives affection and worship to other gods.
Suede- Agreed.

LB: The christian congregation is in Covenant with God, The New Covenant.

Suede- Correct. Christians are faithful Jews and Gentiles. We are the bride of Christ.

LB: The Christian congregation is also likened to a virgin espoused or promised in marriage to one husband the Christ as her Head and King. (2Co 11:2; Eph 5:22-27)
James warned Christians against committing spiritual adultery or fornication through friendship with the world of whome Satan is it's God. (Jas 4:4; compare Joh 15:19.) If doing so he could rightly wiew them as spiritual Harlots.

Suede- Yes. You're preaching to the choir.

LB: So BTG still has a wider application.

Suede- How so? I'm quite amazed that you can list all of the above and still think that Jerusalem is NOT the Harlot, or that 70 AD was not the time of the Tribulation. Please explain. take care,

SUEDE

 

[BrightCandle]

If you look at ancient Babylon and ancient Rome it quickly becomes clear that there were are many similarities. Babylon was the Queen of the East in the time of the Hebrew Prophets; and Rome was the Mistress of the West in the first century when John wrote the book of Revelation. Babylon was called the Golden City; Rome also called herself the Golden City. The King of Babylon took the sacred vessels of the Jerusalem Temple away into Babylon; and so did Rome do also in 70 A.D., that can even now be seen illustrated in the carved sculptures of the triumphal Arch of Titus.

But key points brought out in Revelation 17 & 18 point out clearly that John was referring to Papal Rome, and not Pagan Rome, as the Mother of Harlots. Here is why: Pagan Rome persecuting the Church was no mystery, but a Christian Church (Papal Rome), calling herself the Mother of Christendom, and yet drunken with the blood of the saints--that is a mystery! Pagan Rome was built on the seven hills and and has ruled over large geographical regions politically, but Papal Rome, has history proves, ruled as a religio-political power, which professed to be Christian, but at the same time had the blood of millions of God's saints on her hands, which is why those still belonging to her were called to come out of her my people.

Finally, someone mentioned earlier in this thread, something about Sunday worship and its link to Babylon (Rome), history proves that Sunday worship in the Christian church has its beginnings and strongest promotion in, and by, the Church of Rome.


Brooks

 

[Suede]

BrightCandle,

I think because you are a Seventh Day Adventist, you are placing Church teaching above the Bible and Christian History.

Though the RCC has killed several people in the past, Protestantism is guilty as well. I wish it weren't so, but it is. However, this makes neither of them Babylon.

Babylon in Revelation is given a similar charge that the Jews were, note

Rev 18:24 "And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth."

Matthew 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."

Matthew 23:34,35 "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."

As far as Rome being called the Mistress of the West, please identify some sources, because I have never heard that before.

The RCC killing MILLIONS is a bit of a stretch too, much less claiming that these millions were saints.

As far as Sunday worship goes, sources verify that Christians were worshipping on Sunday LONG before the RCC.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (110 AD), wrote: "If, then, those who walk in the ancient practices attain to newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's Day on which our life also arose through Him, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher."

Justin Martyr (150 AD) describes Sunday as the day when Christians gather to read the scriptures and hold their assembly because it is both the initial day of creation and the day of the resurrection.

The Epistle of Barnabas (120-150) cites Isaiah 1:13 and indicates that
the "eighth day" is a new beginning via the resurrection, and is the day to
be kept.

The Didache (70-110) instructs believers: "On the Lord's own day,
gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks."

I know SDA like to believe the Mark of the Beast is Sunday worship, but that's unfounded. I know the common statement is that Sunday is Sun Day, to worship the Sun and that Christians are apostates. Of course what is Saturday? Well...it's Saturn's Day after the Pagan god Saturn. Early Christians worshiped on Sunday in honor of our Lord God Jesus, not to worship the Sun.

And despite what the RCC says, it really cannot trace its roots back to the Bible, or to even the earliest of Christendom. Really the split between East and West gave rise to the RCC, but really the RCC as we know it with the Pope at the head didn't start til after the first Millennium. Delegates from Rome were often NOT given high status at councils either. In fact, it wasn't until 451 that they even headed a council. RCC bashing is popular due to Protestantism being at odds with it. Protestants started to demonize the RCC, their opponent, in their creeds. It was here, almost 1400 or 1500 years AFTER Jesus that the RCC is linked up with the Harlot, and only by it's opponents none the less! Jerusalem is the only city in accordance with the Bible that is a Harlot,

Isaiah 1:21
See how the faithful city [Jerusalem] has become a harlot!

Jeremiah 3:6-10
"Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. Because Israel’s immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. In spite of all this, her unfaithful sister Judah did not return to me with all her heart, but only in pretense," declares the LORD."

Take care,

SUEDE

 

[Hidden Manna]

HI SUEDE,
I agree with you. I was an SDA for ten years up to two years ago. I found somethings that do not add up in their view of history.

First off they claim the Papacy as being the first Beast of Rev.13 and that the second Beast is the USA. They take the numbers 666 from the second Beast the “USA” and give it to the first Beast RRC. Then in Rev.18 the Harlot Babylon rides the first Beast the Papacy, SDA's claim that the first Beast and Mystery Babylon are both the Papacy.

I makes no sense that the papacy would ride the Papacy and then take the USA’s 666 and give it to the first Beast. Do you see the inconsistency's they have. I'm surprised now that I didn't see this sooner. I would not have giving so much time and money to them to support their confusion and out right lies.

Also the Seal of God taken from the Ten Commandments in Exodus were not the original. The original Commandments written on stone came from Deut.5 which did not has the seal that SDA’s make the seal out to be. The Seal idea came from a Jewish Priest and he placed Exodus 31:16,17 which says that the Sabbath was a sign or seal, into the ten Commandments from Exodus 20 so that Israel would have a official Seal in the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath or forth commandment was right in the middle of the other commandments.

We were taught as SDA’s that Ten Commandments were written on stone to signify they would last forever. However they were written on stone to signify that they were to be written in the heart. Mankind has a stony heart until the Holy Spirit comes in and takes it out.

 

[Suede]

Hello Hidden Manna,

Good to hear that you could deal with the truth and pull yourself out, that's great. I too was in a 'cultic' type church, but pulled myself out due to too many inconstencies. I know a few SDAs, but they are sadly ignorant and arrogant. I feel sorry for them, but sense they are adults my sympathy is slight. Like all Sabbaterians, whether SDA or Messianics, their take on the OT and the Old Covenant is grossly lacking. Take care,

SUEDE

 

[BrightCandle]

Suede:

Time and time again on Christian Forums other members have tried to marginalize comments by SDA members by saying that they are just repeating what their church says, while the same thing could be said about your posts, as well as the other member's posts. Why not look at the facts of History and the Bible and let them speak for themselves? I agree that certain Protestant Reformers sanctioned the persecution of Catholics at times, but the number was minute compared to the several million martrys that historians attribute to Papal Rome. And what adds to its significance is the fact that Rome was built on seven hills, professed to be Christian, infallible, and directly descendent from Peter, with a highly organized religio-political structure that systematicly persecuted thousands of Christians (Waldenses, Huegonots, ect) over a period of many centuries, which cannot be said of the Protestant movement.

I agree that the Jews did persecute the prophets, but Preterists loose perspective when they limit the application of prophesy to the past, while SDAs and almost all of the Protestant Reformers, were historists which takes a look a long view of history to get a better perspective, by not trying to make all things prophetic being fullfilled in past, or as the futurist trying to make all things prophetic being fullfilled in the future. SDAs just built on the foundation that was laid by the majority of the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Wesley, etc.), and was that the "harlot of Bablylon" arose out of Pagan Rome, when Papal Rome became the dominant religio-political force in the West.

Here is the reference that you wanted regarding the Roman Church being called the "Mistress of the West", it is from the article "Latin Church" taken from the online Catholic Encyclpedia, you can view the whole article online.

"The expression "Church of Rome", it should be noted, though commonly applied by non-Catholics to the whole Catholic body, can only be used correctly in this secondary sense for the local diocese (or possibly the province) of Rome, mother and mistress of all Churches."

Note, that I didn't say that Sunday worship originated with the Roman Catholic Church, I said that with the Church of Rome, meaning with the early Christian church that was in Rome in the early part of the second century. Yes, there were other regions of Christendom where Sunday worship was being celebrated, but what set Rome apart was its early abandonment of Sabbath worship, and the enactment of laws against Sabbath worship, that were further promoted in later centuries by Papal Rome. In the fifth century the historian Socrates Scholasticus wrote: "For although almost all the churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [the Lord's Supper] on the sabbath of the every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this". Ecclesiastical History book 5, chap. 22, p. 289

History is clear that Rome's way of keeping the "Sabbath" become the norm over the passage of time, not because it was Biblical, but because of the political power that Rome used to enforce her doctrine over powered the other churches of Christendom. Note, too, that not one of the quotes from the early church fathers regarding Sunday worship quote from the words of Jesus or the apostles as a reason for doing so, because there are none.

Worshipping Jesus on Sunday is not the "Mark of the Beast", what is the "Mark of the Beast" is when a Christian living at the end of time depicted in Revelation 14, chooses to ignore the Sabbath commandment, and chooses to obey a commandment of men (Sunday) in its place, by that person's choice they mark themselves by their loyalty. That is why the saints of Revelation 14 are described as "those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus".

Brooks

 

[Hidden Manna]

The mark of the beast may have been the keeping of the Ten Commamndments instead of having the laws of the Spirit which is I believe the fruit of the Spirit and that being love.

In Rev.13 the mark of the Beast goes on the same place the the Law was to be wtitten, The hand or forehead in Deut.6:8. As the early church was in transition from the OC to the NC they were to walk in the Spirit and severe God, forsaking and coming out of the OC system that became Mystery Babylon, Jerusalem as it's mother. Those that did not were committing Spiritual Adultry by rejecting the laws fulfullment that it foreshadowed, being the Holy Spirit.

Rom.13:8 says Love fulfills the law, which was referring to the Ten Commandments in the verses around verse 8. If we love one another as Christ did to us the Ten Commandments fade away. The Ten Commandments did nothing like the fruit of the Spirit. The TC were found by Paul as week and begging for better in the scripture. The Sabbath Day foreshadowed resting or abiding in Christ.

Some Preterists believe that the second Beast was Apostate Israel just before 70 AD. Where the 666 comes in with Israel I do not know. I've seen the Popes title add up and I've seen Ellen G Whites name add up also to 666 but this is after the fact that Nero's name adding up also and was more in the right timing of all OT scripture being fulfilled at 70 AD

 

[stauron]

Suede and HiddenMana,

You boys are great! Love to seen some consistency and logic.

The Law made nothing perfect. It was written on tablets of Stone to show that it was unchanging and UNCHANGEABLE.

The fault with the Law that was holy, just and good was with the humans. The Law points at perfection, and condemns anything less.

Jesus, as the new Lawgiver gave a much higher law than Moses could. Jesus is the one to whom the people listen. Unlike Moses, Jesus is master over the house while Moses was only a servent in the house.

Mature sons no longer need the schoolmaster. Paul is very explicit that the Law was for children. Its rules of "do not taste, do not touch" were not good enough, as they did "nothing against fleshly desire".

This is especially true of the Sabbath. It was a shadow of rest in Christ. It was NOT a day of worship. Look in vain for commands that the Sabbath was specifically a day of worship. It was for ritual and sacrifice pointing to the resting.

Now in the fulfillment, we no longer work for justification or peace with God. Jesus is our rest, He is the Sabbath.

SDA and 'messianic' Jews (that somehow end up 1% messianic and 99% Jew) fail to grasp the significance of John 4. Besides the slap in the face to Nicodemas (the teacher of the Jews) who couldn't figure out a metaphor if it ran him over, Jesus slams the entire Old Covenant worship system.

"Not on this mountain or in Jerusalem" What does that mean? Worship could be anywhere. "In spirit and in Truth" What does this mean? The time was coming (and now is) when true worship was anywhere and anyplace.

We know now that it was the change in realms from "sin death" to "the new heavens and earth wherein dwelleth righteousness".

When we become new creatures in Christ we enter into this righteousness, and are no longer subject to the weak and beggerly elements of the old.

The summary is Col 2:16-17 where the sabbath is specifically mentioned as a shadow of Christ. When the substance came, the shadow went away.

Christians are those that don't have the veil over them.

3:15 But until this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds, 3:16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom. 3:18 And we all, with unveiled faces reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, which is from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

 

[Hidden Manna]

Hi Stauron,

After leaving the SDA's I discovered that the ten Commandments were written on stone because of mans stony heart. The Commandments were to be written in the heart in OC times.

Ezekiel 11:19
Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them,[11:19 Literally [you] ] and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh,

 

[saltoearth]

The Law points at perfection

now here is a simple question:

Was Jesus perfected by the works of the law?

Philippians 2:8-9 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

What was Jesus obedient to unto the death? and How did he humble himself?

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

From his own lips Jesus said "I can of mine own self do nothing". Jesus did the will of the father, through the power the father gave him. This however was not THE LAW. Jesus overcame the law, he tore the veil wide open. Love walks above the law.

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The law points to sin, it is the bullhorn of sin.

 

[stauron]

Hi Stauron,

After leaving the SDA's I discovered that the ten Commandments were written on stone because of mans stony heart. The Commandments were to be written in the heart in OC times.

Ezekiel 11:19
Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them,[11:19 Literally [you] ] and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh,

Well I think that Ezekiel 11 points to the New Covenant the same way Ez 36 does. Both allude to the future gathering when ungodliness was removed from Jacob (Rom. 11).

It is predicting the work of the Spirit in rebirth. I don't believe that the heart of flesh was given until the Son came.

 

[stauron]

now here is a simple question:

Was Jesus perfected by the works of the law?

Philippians 2:8-9 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

What was Jesus obedient to unto the death? and How did he humble himself?

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

From his own lips Jesus said "I can of mine own self do nothing". Jesus did the will of the father, through the power the father gave him. This however was not THE LAW. Jesus overcame the law, he tore the veil wide open. Love walks above the law.

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The law points to sin, it is the bullhorn of sin.

I agree, you must of missed my first point. The Law made nothing perfect.

The fault of the Law was with the worshippers, not any deficiency of the law itself. "for finding fault with them" "weak as it was through the flesh". Although the Law was holy, just and good, it could not meet the human condition. We needed a higher law, a righteousness not based on Law.

So Jesus was/is the double cure. He opened a new way through the veil of His flesh that allowed sinners into the presense of God and He also tore down the old system based on the law so that not a single stone was left upon another. Thus He vindicated His own and judged and condemned those who clung to the Law as their hope.

 

[Hidden Manna]

Well I think that Ezekiel 11 points to the New Covenant the same way Ez 36 does. Both allude to the future gathering when ungodliness was removed from Jacob (Rom. 11).

It is predicting the work of the Spirit in rebirth. I don't believe that the heart of flesh was given until the Son came.

Or perhaps on Pentecost in the upper room.