Forget the Sabbath day, it's no longer Holy... (2)

[RND]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Forget the Sabbath day, it's no longer Holy..."

 

[from scratch]

I am hoping we can contiune the discussion. I have really been enjoying it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Wow! A whole millennium has passed! Has anyone forgotten the Sabbath day by now?

 

[VictorC]

Uh, the thread split, surprise, surprise...

You may want to take a second look at Rasell's argument on this point. I agree with him the progression is not Annual, monthly, weekly.

Now I of course do not agree with him that the seventh day Sabbath is not included in the progression. But notice the following.

Lev. 28-29 lists the sacrifices for the various times. The Sabbath is included.

Then this section is later referenced in Chronicles.

1Ch 23:31 And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD:

This clearly refers back to Lev. 28-29, and summarizes those times with the terms feasts, new moons and sabbaths.

But then notice this later text that further clarifies what comprises the feasts referenced:

2Ch 8:13 Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.

The feasts component includes the feasts of unleavened bread, weeks and tabernacles. In other words it is referring to the pilgrim feasts.

However, from Ezekiel 45-46, Lev. 23, Numbers 28-29 we would then understand the "sabbaths" to include the Day of Atonement, trumpets and the weekly sabbath.

Ezekiel is particularly enlightening because it uses the same type of list as Col. but then elaborates in a way that makes it plain the weekly sabbath is included.

Hence Rasell has to say that Paul is not necessarily referencing the same thing. But why would we think he was not? The phrase included the weekly sabbath.

But it is not necessarily a yearly, monthly, weekly progression.

I don't agree with your assessment. In order to draw a dependency from what Ezekiel wrote, it needs to be shown that the author of Colossians (Paul) either cited/quoted a text from Ezekiel, or else shows a common authorship - which of course doesn't exist. Ezekiel and Paul both mention components of the law that was mediated by Moses, and the similarity they composed in their disparate writings come from Moses. What you have done is try to draw dependency where traceability cannot be established to either Ezekiel or 1/2 Chronicles. And, a first rule of auditing is that if a trace to a codified body can't be cited, then you can't write a dependency that relies on an allusion that exists nowhere outside personal opinion.

This means that we need to return to the text that the author wrote in his own narrative, rather than try to establish an allusion to a disparate text that is only similar in language, but not in contemporaneous authorship and is not quoted from.

Colossians 2
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,
14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,
17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.​

The context addresses the end of the ordinances that were against us, and concludes that there are no grounds to judge another concerning their compliance or non-compliance to components codified in the law - namely, the dietary restrictions and the periodic observances.

The first part of Colossians 2:16 doesn't specify that there are no grounds to judge another over the food or drink issues, meaning that pork has been okayed while cheeseburgers haven't - rather, it addresses a food or drink, as in any food or drink. The second part of the sentence follows the same composition prescription.

The first in the sequence of periodic observances is the festival, and it is readily apparent that this is drawing support from Moses, specifically Leviticus 23. Your mention that the sabbath (sabbaton in the Septuagint) found in Leviticus 23:32 would be addressed here, as it has a period of the annual cycle as do the other festivals (excluding Leviticus 23:3 for now).

The next period is the new moon. We agree this is a monthly period.

The final is period is sabbaths, rendered as plural. It is not addressing the sabbath, as in a singular day (such as Leviticus 23:32), but rather any sabbath day. This not only includes Leviticus 23:32, but any sabbath that wasn't covered in the sequence previously. Sabbaths that fall on 7 or 49 year periods were generally applied to the land, and not people, and they don't provide grounds to people - these are not germane to the point of the verse. The only other sabbaths that are left are those in the weekly period.

The sequence of annual --> monthly --> weekly sabbaths is perfectly logical and consistent with the global scope of the dietary laws appearing in the same sentence, and the use of sabbaths in the plural addresses any and all sabbaths irrespective of an implied sequence, anyway. The weekly sabbath doesn't escape attention.

Rasell's point of a missing definite article actually forces a conclusion against his own point, as Colossians 2:16 doesn't address any particular sabbath apart from the others.

 

[VictorC]

Marc Rasell:

You can stop ignoring that text that Victor showed you over and over now. Everyone else saw it. You can't pretend it doesn't exist.

Have you now abandoned your contention that Genesis 2:2-3 refers to a periodic sabbath instead of God's rest, and is your non-response an affirmation there isn't any support for your earlier contention that the sabbath existed in Eden?

 

[tall73]

Uh, the thread split, surprise, surprise...

I don't agree with your assessment. In order to draw a dependency from what Ezekiel wrote, it needs to be shown that the author of Colossians (Paul) either cited/quoted a text from Ezekiel, or else shows a common authorship - which of course doesn't exist. Ezekiel and Paul both mention components of the law that was mediated by Moses, and the similarity they composed in their disparate writings come from Moses. What you have done is try to draw dependency where traceability cannot be established to either Ezekiel or 1/2 Chronicles. And, a first rule of auditing is that if a trace to a codified body can't be cited, then you can't write a dependency that relies on an allusion that exists nowhere outside personal opinion.

I would be surprised if Paul were not familiar with all the old testament. And he is drawing on an idea present in several texts, which is a summary of the holy times by the terms feast, newmoon and sabbath. Lev. 23, which you mention, does not summarize the days in that way. It lists the procedure and prescriptions for each day. But it does not list them succinctly right in a row. So when you say he is only drawing on Moses, that is not immediately obvious.Ezekiel, Hosea, Nehemiah and Chronicles would all be closer parallels to what he actually said.


And we do know that Paul was familiar with at least two of the texts that lists the terms that way.

Rom 9:25 As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"


The phrase, “I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people” is from Hosea 2:23.


And

Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

The phrase “in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” Comes from Hosea 1:10.

Between Hosea 1:10 and Hosea 2:23 comes Hosea 2:11:

Hos 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.


So if Paul is familiar with Moses he is also familiar with Hosea 2, and its listing in this fashion. And the listing in Hosea is certainly more similar than that of Lev. 23.


Paul also alludes to, but does not quote Ezekiel in his appeal to the Corinthians to avoid idols Paul refers to the text in Ezekiel 37:

Eze 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.


2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So we know he is familiar with Ezekiel’s work.

So I don’t find it hard to believe that when Paul lists the days in the succinct fashion used by these two verses that he might have such things in mind.

But the point is Paul did not quote any of them directly. He is drawing on the various listings in this fashion, he is listing all the holy times. I imagine he also had in mind Lev. 23, and Numbers 28-29, etc. They all list the holy times.

Now apart from the idea that Paul used these texts as a basis there is the idea that these authors show how Moses was to be understood. Would God lead Paul to a different understanding than the other biblical authors?


As Rasell mentioned there are two words for "feast" being used in Hebrew.

But both are translated by the one Greek word εορτη.

Yes the Day of Atonement is a "moed", or an appointed time. Moed is translated εορτη in Greek and "feast" by many English translations.

But the Day of Atonement is not a "chag" which has different connotations. And chag is also translated with εορτη.


You insist above that the Day of Atonement would be included in the feasts, or εορτη section of Col. 2. But by that logic you would need to include the weekly sabbath in feasts as well because the sabbath was a "moed" in the chapter. And "moed" is rendered "feast".

Lev 23:2 "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts (moed) of the LORD that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.
Lev 23:3 "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.

So you have to distinguish between what underlying Hebrew word is being referenced when you see the word “feast” or the Greek εορτη


With that in mind, look at Ezekiel:

Eze 45:17 It shall be the prince's duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel.


The feasts in the first part are the "chag"
The "appointed feasts" are the "moed". They are all "moed", but they are not all "chag."



Now look at Chronicles. There are several parallel passages which use this short hand method of referring to the holy times. They particularly note they refer back to the law of Moses. But in 2 Ch. 8:13 it spells out the feast portion.


1Ch 23:31 And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD:


2Ch 2:4 Behold, I build an house to the name of the LORD my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our God. This is an ordinance for ever to Israel.


2Ch 8:13 as the duty of each day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual feasts--the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths.


2Ch 31:3 He appointed also the king's portion of his substance for the burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the LORD.

I would think Paul would be familiar with all this usage.

We know he was with Hosea and with Ezekiel’s work. I am not aware of him ever quoting Chronicles. But it seems strange to think he would not be familiar with it.

And when he uses a similar listing of the holy things there is no reason to think the contents of his listing differ from those of

Chronicles
Ezekiel
Lev. 23
Numbers 28-29

In other words, they would include the

Feasts –three pilgrim feasts, unleavened bread, Pentecost, feast of booths
New moons-self explanatory
Sabbaths—Day of Atonement, trumpets and weekly sabbath.

As you said before, it is all the sabbath days being referred to by the term in Colossians.

But I do not think it is a progression of yearly, weekly, monthly.Because that is not how we see other biblical authors spelling it out. And I don't see why God would need to reveal it one way to one author and another way to another.





Rasell on the other hand wants to say that we don't know what the terms refer to. But in the Old Testament we do know what they referred to.

 

[tall73]

This means that we need to return to the text that the author wrote in his own narrative, rather than try to establish an allusion to a disparate text that is only similar in language, but not in contemporaneous authorship and is not quoted from.

This isn't some author in 20th century England we are talking about.

Paul quoted from the Old Testament all the time. So "contemporaneous" authorship is hardly as important a rule as some other types of literature.

The old testament is not a "disparate" text to Paul.

Now if you cannot find a similar listing in Moses, where the shorthand reference is given, feasts, new moons, sabbaths, why do you find it so hard to believe that Paul read other books of the Old Testament?

 

[tall73]

Colossians 2
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,
14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,
17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.​

The context addresses the end of the ordinances that were against us, and concludes that there are no grounds to judge another concerning their compliance or non-compliance to components codified in the law - namely, the dietary restrictions and the periodic observances.

The first part of Colossians 2:16 doesn't specify that there are no grounds to judge another over the food or drink issues, meaning that pork has been okayed while cheeseburgers haven't - rather, it addresses a food or drink, as in any food or drink. The second part of the sentence follows the same composition prescription.

The first in the sequence of periodic observances is the festival, and it is readily apparent that this is drawing support from Moses, specifically Leviticus 23. Your mention that the sabbath (sabbaton in the Septuagint) found in Leviticus 23:32 would be addressed here, as it has a period of the annual cycle as do the other festivals (excluding Leviticus 23:3 for now).

But the "appointed times" included the weekly sabbath as well. We don't know precisely what these terms mean if we take just Paul's words. But if we look at the OT that he is likely referencing we do know.

If Paul can draw on Leviticus he can draw on the other passages as well. And they are closer parallels than Leviticus, because they too mention all the "moed" and but they list them in short form as Paul does here, feast, newmoon and sabbath.

The next period is the new moon. We agree this is a monthly period.

The final is period is sabbaths, rendered as plural. It is not addressing the sabbath, as in a singular day (such as Leviticus 23:32), but rather any sabbath day. This not only includes Leviticus 23:32, but any sabbath that wasn't covered in the sequence previously.

The plural doesn't mean quite what you think when applied to the neuter term sabbath.

This neuter term can be used in the plural, even when referring to a specific sabbath day.

Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.


After the sabbath is here a reference to a specific sabbath before the resurrection. But it is the plural form.

Mar 1:21 And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching.

The sabbath again is the plural. But it obviously has reference to that particular singular sabbath.

Mar 2:23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.

Again sabbath is plural.

Luk 13:10 Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath.

Again sabbath in the plural.

Moreover, in Col. 2 it appears in a list of singular non-definite items. The meaning is likely the same here.

Let no one judge you in regards to a feast, a new moon or a sabbath.

I agree that the meaning is ANY type of sabbath such as the Day of Atonement, the trumpets, or the weekly sabbath.

But we have more to go on than just that this is indefinite. We have concrete examples in the old testament where the Sabbath is included in the long and short lists which this is a reference to.

The sequence of annual --> monthly --> weekly sabbaths is perfectly logical and consistent with the global scope of the dietary laws appearing in the same sentence, and the use of sabbaths in the plural addresses any and all sabbaths irrespective of an implied sequence, anyway. The weekly sabbath doesn't escape attention.

The plural means no such thing here, and sequence of annual, monthy, weekly may seem perfectly logical to you, but it is not the understanding of the Old Testament. And Paul was into the Old Testament above simply logic.

I agree however, the weekly sabbath would be included in this recounting of the holy times, just as it was in the other OT listing of holy times, whether in long form (Lev. 23 and Numbers 28-29) or in short form, such as the references in Chronicles, Nehemiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea.

Rasell's point of a missing definite article actually forces a conclusion against his own point, as Colossians 2:16 doesn't address any particular sabbath apart from the others.

I agree, it is indefinite.

What he is trying to avoid is any definite reference though as that is usually associated with the weekly sabbath exclusively. So this way he can cast doubt because that is his only option.

The listing of holy times in the OT included the weekly sabbath. If he gets too much into that argument he is in trouble. So he tries to simply say it is indefinite, so it doesn't necessarily reference the weekly sabbath.

No, it references all the sabbaths.

 

[tall73]

I held to the yearly, monthly, weekly progression for a time. But after I started studying the various passages and the usage of the term chag, and the references to the holy days in short form it just didn't add up.

So as I have with many notions, I dropped it in favor of something I think fits better.

 

[tall73]

I guess you're trying to say that it was based in paganism. I don't believe that very easily. First because the observance of days, weeks, months and years are part of the law and Judaism. Second the problem of the Judaizers was still very predominate as evidenced in other of Paul's writings and Acts.

Well there are a couple of things going on.

A. I think there is obvious reference to Jewish days, so that has to be a part of it. It also makes reference to being circumcised in Him, as opposed to physical circumcision:

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.


The gentiles don't need physical circumcision but spiritual circumcision through baptism.





B. But there are references to some other elements too. In chapter 1 Paul describes Jesus in a remarkable way. Everything was created by him, everything holds together by Him, He has the preeminence in everything, etc.

Then in chapter two he goes on to discuss how all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ.

Col 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ,
Col 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.


He then warns against merely human philosophy, which depends on human wisdom.

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Col 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.


Chapter 2 COULD be warning against a specific synchretistic heresy blending Jewish elements and philosophy, along with worship of angels, etc.

Or it could just be cataloging various things that can detract from Christ who is the real wisdom. These might include Jewish legalism OR philosophy OR worship of angels etc.



Other elements:

Col 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
Col 2:19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

The worship of angels does not seem to be a Jewish element.


Col 2:20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations--
Col 2:21 "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch"
Col 2:22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings?
Col 2:23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.


Here he references harsh treatment of the body. This could be a distorted version of Jewish legalism. But notice it also refers to human wisdom. The law of God in the OT was not human wisdom. And this could refer again back to the philosophy mentioned above.

The upshot is that all these various ways (philosophy, worship of angels, legalism in regards to the OT law) man has devised to bring him close to God are distractions from the real way, Christ through whom all things were made, and in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

 

[tall73]

In all these arguments and counterarguments one thing is clear to me, that to interpret Paul's writings in such a way as to abolish the 10 commandments is contrary to what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19

Matt. 5 dealt with more than the ten.

Please answer the question Rasell. Do you think there were MORAL commandments in the rest of the law?

 

[tall73]

And where is God's right hand? According to Rev. 4-5 Jesus after his ascension was in the holy place next to his Father.

For those confused about what Rasell is trying to say here, he thinks that the reference to the 7 spirits is to the lampstand. Therefore he interprets this to be the holy place of the sanctuary, and believes that God's throne was in the holy place equivalent in heaven.

Rev 4:2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.
Rev 4:3 And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald.
Rev 4:4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads.
Rev 4:5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God,
Rev 4:6 and before the throne there was as it were a sea of glass, like crystal. And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind:
Rev 4:7 the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight.
Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"
Rev 4:9 And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives forever and ever,
Rev 4:10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives forever and ever. They cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Rev 4:11 "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."


But actually what we see here is what we see in Hebrews 9:24:

Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.


Heaven has the Spirit and it has the living creatures or seraphim as Isaiah calls them, or cherubim as Ezekiel calls them. The cherbim were part of the the ark in the earthly, and God dwelt above them in the OT.

Ex 25:21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you.
22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.



Num 7:89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.


Only here they are actual cherubim praising God.

The sanctuary was where God dwelt with the people. And in some ways it was based off the palaces of kings. He had the outer room and the inner room where the throne was. They could not just approach into the God's inner throne room without being summoned.

There was ever increasing holiness as you moved from one area to the next because you were coming into closer proximity to the presence of the King of the Universe.

Think of the story of Esther. You could not just go into the presence of the king.

Est 4:16 "Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish."

Est 5:1 On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace, in front of the king's quarters, while the king was sitting on his royal throne inside the throne room opposite the entrance to the palace.
Est 5:2 And when the king saw Queen Esther standing in the court, she won favor in his sight, and he held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand. Then Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter.


There was an inner court where the king sat on the throne. You could not just approach there. To do so could result in death.

The same was true with the inner court in God's sanctuary.

Lev 16:2 and the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.


But in the heavenly there is no limited access. We through Christ can go right to the throne of grace according to Hebrews. We can go spiritually into God's true throne room in heaven.


Now there are various sanctuary scenes in Revelation that are more direct references to furniture in the earthly.

They progress also in holiness as the judgments in Revelation becoming more severe.

You have the candlesticks in 1:12, then the altar of incense in 8:1-4, then the ark in chapter 11 and finally the whole sanctuary is filled with the presence of God just before the pouring out of the final plagues.

Rev 15:8 and the sanctuary was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from his power, and no one could enter the sanctuary until the seven plagues of the seven angels were finished.


These "cut scenes" if you will build the tension in the book as you progress to greater holiness but greater terror in judgment.

Finally at the end the city needs no temple.

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.

 

[tall73]

Again I point you to Gal 5:13-24. The sins listed are referred to as works of the flesh and not against some codified law as such.

Agreed. And they clearly indicate that Rasell's argument that we are for murder, adultery etc. are just a denial of what you and others have been saying.

 

[mrasell]

Matt. 5 dealt with more than the ten.

Please answer the question Rasell. Do you think there were MORAL commandments in the rest of the law?

Certainly there are moral principles in the other parts of the law, for example not being reckless, or helping the poor etc.

However, any violation of the moral law is a violation of the 10 commandments as they encompass the whole moral law. Jesus presented this spiritual side of the law when he said the commandment against adultery included lust. This commandment covers all types of immorality.
The commandment against murder covers revenge etc.

 

[mrasell]

For those confused about what Rasell is trying to say here, he thinks that the reference to the 7 spirits is to the lampstand. Therefore he interprets this to be the holy place of the sanctuary, and believes that God's throne was in the holy place equivalent in heaven.

There is more to it than the 7 spirits, there is also a door in heaven (not into heaven), and the incense.

But actually what we see here is what we see in Hebrews 9:24:

Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Hebrews had already established that there was a temple in heaven, now the author shows it is superior, not made by human hand, not on earth but in heaven.

1 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being. (Heb. 8)

In Revelation, we see a door in heaven, i.e. into the heavenly sanctuary.

 

[mrasell]

If I have any unanswered questions from the old thread before it was closed please feel free to post them here.

 

[mrasell]

from scratch


Originally Posted by mrasell

There are some SDA's who believe Jesus briefly entered the MHP to inaugrate it before starting his ministry in the holy place.

My point is that Hebrews is not concerned with location and timing, rather with the superiority of Christ over the ritual system.
​

How? I don't see that as following the earthly pattern or formula.
​

First the sanctuary was inugurated before it could be used.
Next follows the daily service in the holy place.
At the end of the year the yearly rite in the most holy place.

As Christ is the minister of the "ta hagia" it implies he is minister of both apartments at some point in time.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Who was Ellen White?
Did she not gather a Gospel from an angel?

And did not Paul direct us to not judge regarding sabbaths?

Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths,
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. [18] Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh,


Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

~~~
What was preached?
That we are not to judge according to the Sabbaths... according to eating meat or drinking.
So be it, if an angel comes and says we must judge accordingly then that angel is anathema - which means condemned.
And the only angel to do such a thing - although all creatures come from Heaven, and is condemned that angel is no longer working for God but against Him.

If one follows such a creature - disregarding the fullness of the scriptures as was taught, one is following a fallen angel.

 

[mrasell]

Who was Ellen White?
Did she not gather a Gospel from an angel?

I'm here to discuss Scripture. Ellen White said all our doctrines must come from the Scriptures.

And did not Paul direct us to not judge regarding sabbaths?

Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths,
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. [18] Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh,

In the Greek verse 16 has no definite article, it can be translated "a sabbath day" or "sabbath days".
These refer to the ceremonial Sabbaths, such as Passover, Day of Atonement which required animal sacrifices and hence were shadows.

http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=8&f=s#x

Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=8&f=s#x

Galatians preaches against:
1) trying to be justified by the law
2) trying to observe parts of the ritual law to be justified

None of this gives us a license to break the 10 commandments, to commit murder, adultery, idolatry etc. Christ never taught such a gospel. Where did Christ say we can break the commandments?

That we are not to judge according to the Sabbaths...

Paul speaks here of the ceremonial Sabbaths, we cannot judge someone over whether they celebrate Easter or Harvest Festival.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I'm here to discuss Scripture. Ellen White said all our doctrines must come from the Scriptures.

But Paul said the OT was but a shadow of what was to come and so we cant judge based on them.

In the Greek verse 16 has no definite article, it can be translated "a sabbath day" or "sabbath days".
These refer to the ceremonial Sabbaths, such as Passover, Day of Atonement which required animal sacrifices and hence were shadows.



Galatians preaches against:
1) trying to be justified by the law
2) trying to observe parts of the ritual law to be justified

None of this gives us a license to break the 10 commandments, to commit murder, adultery, idolatry etc. Christ never taught such a gospel. Where did Christ say we can break the commandments?



Paul speaks here of the ceremonial Sabbaths, we cannot judge someone over whether they celebrate Easter or Harvest Festival.

I didnt say to break the Ten.
Dont forget the Apostles made the day of celebrating the Lord was on the Lord's Day - Sunday - the Day He rose.