sentipente
Senior Contributor
- Jul 17, 2007
- 11,651
- 4,492
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Remnant has never meant minority. Remnant means what remains.The remnant will always be a minority--
yep... what's left over... so then, all these folks running around with their Remnant Theology, if they die before Christ returns, safe to say, they were not the remnant...Remnant has never meant minority. Remnant means what remains.
First of all, the book of Leviticus chapter 23 gives all of the religious feasts. At the top of the list is the seventh-day Sabbath.
... Throughout the Old Testament, the same construction is used. The weekly, the monthly, the seasonal, and sometimes the yearly or sabbatical years are included. Sometimes the order is reversed, but the same principle applies.
In order to make the horn power fit the Adventist scenario, one must make this horn grow out of
one of the winds rather than the horns of the Grecian empire where it logically fits. The obviousconnection to Antiochus Epiphanes is ignored.
hmmm I cannot point fingers.... but it was them over there ------>And which idiot claimed that "remnant" means that you'll be alive when He comes??
Footnote 4: "There are really three schools of thought in regard to the Sabbath. There is a small group which includes the SDA’s that teach that the Sabbath has continuance in the New Testament. A second group teaches a transference theology and states that the Sabbath command is still binding, but sacredness of the day was transferred from Sabbath to Sunday. (This was actually a much later development in the Christian church. Early Christians did not teach either of these first two concepts.)"
[/font]
That is a flat-out lie--so now you know what you are dealing with. If you examine how the word "feast" in the Bible is used (http://www.666man.net/Colossians_2_16-17_By_David_Conklin/feast.html) you will find that two ceremonial sabbaths are never EVER called "feasts." Therefore, in those days if you wished to list the ceremonial days of the year without actually naming them you would say/write "feasts, new moons, and sabbath."
So, in order to make his attack work he basically hads to attack Christ for not pointing out that the AC had already come in Antiochus rather than predicting that he will yet come!
From my sstudy on the date of the book of Daniel:
"If Antiochus seems to fulfill the prophecies recorded in 8:8-12 then why is there is no evidence that he fulfilled vs 9 and 12? See also the lack of fulfillment of 11:36-45. Both Daniel 8:9-12 and 11:36-45 deal with the blasphemous character of the king of the north which go far beyond anything that we know about Antiochus. He never destroyed the temple (see Dan. 8:11) and his military accomplishments hardly match those "recorded" in 8:9, 12 and 11:22. And while verse 37 states that "neither shall he regard the God of his fathers" it is "attested by Polybius and Livy [as being] the very opposite of his character. For he was more zealous in their worship, than any of the kings before him." [Pusey, 137] Even Towner notes that from 11:39 onwards Daniel does not fit with anything we know about Antiochus IV. [page 151--this is really disconcerting, to say the least, to the Maccabean hypothesis considering that the "predicted end of Antiochus differs from the stories of his death in I and II Maccabees ..." [William H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. (Oxford, 1964): 35-6; Waltke (1976): 322; Baldwin (1978a): 199 notes that one scholar had to re-write this text in order to make it "approximate more exactly to the known history".] We could go even further by noting that Jesus did not consider that vs 31 had yet been fulfilled in his day! [Lacocque (1979): 229 simply refers the reader to Matt. 24:15 without noting that Jesus hadn't yet considered the verse to be fulfilled. Even the critic on the infidel web site, Larry Taylor, concedes that the events at 9:27 and 11:31 and after do not correspond to actual events.] Barnes reports that Bishop Newton and Sir Isaac Newton have looked at verse 31 and found that it was impossible to apply this verse to Antiochus and so they have suggested instead that it be applied to the Romans. [Barnes, 236-7] We can also note that none of his listeners corrected him by saying that this was fulfilled by Antiochus. Nor, did the Jewish leadership in its struggles against the early Christians point out this as an error. Lacocque attempts to escape this dilemma by dating 11:31 to Dec. 7, 167. [Lacocque (1979): 8] Koch points out that "nearly all the rabbis saw that the terrible catastrophe"--the fall of Jerusalem--strengthened the perception that Daniel's prophecies of 9:24-7 were being fulfilled. [Koch, 128--he refers to Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, IV, 100-1] BTW, Antiochus also failed to fulfill the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem as called for in 9:26. [Baldwin (1978): 171] Baldwin also notes that "Dan 9:24 has been expounded in detail to refer to the first advent of our Lord, all six items in that verse being shown to have been accomplished in His life, death and resurrection." [Baldwin (1978): 176]
For more information on how Antiochus IV Epiphanes does not fit the prophecies of Daniel see Shea (1982): 25-54."
This just shows how poorly researched and thought out this "testimony" is.
[/font]
This is another lie for the unwary. Verse 2 starts with the feasts, vserse 3 which talks about the Sabbath tells you that these feasts are to be considered as sabbaths and then in verse 4 it repeats verse 2--i.e. verses 2 and 4 form an inclusio. Any decent commentary on Leviticus will tell you this.
From part of my study:
"Wood cites the commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown which noted that the annual sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Leviticus xxiii. 32, 37-39)," but "the weekly Sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days."13 The J-F-B Commentary states that "sabbatwn" refers to the sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles".14 Fausset then goes on to state that "Lev xxiii. 38 expressly distinguishes "The Sabbaths of the Lord" from the other Sabbaths."15"
This writer is playing a game with your head and is basically taking advantage of his readers.
Oh I can site commentaries that refute yours.
The specified times for public worship according to the Law were(1) The daily morning and evening sacrifices, sometimes called "the continual burnt-offering."(2) The weekly Sabbath.(3) the day of the new moon.(4) the "set feasts" Num_29:39 or appointed times of annual observance,
If that preterist interpretation is correct that AntiChrist had already come, then the 2300 prophetic days are really 1500 literal days to fit in the timeline. Then how could the 70weeks or 490years be a part of it or cut off from it? And how does the gap theory work now?
And didn't Daniel 8 say explicitly the vision was for the endtime? Antiochus Epiphanes' desecration was an endtime event now? Did he copy that also from Canwright?
[/font]
This is another lie for the unwary. Verse 2 starts with the feasts, vserse 3 which talks about the Sabbath tells you that these feasts are to be considered as sabbaths
(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.
(Exo 20:8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(Exo 20:9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(Exo 20:10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(Exo 20:11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
and then in verse 4 it repeats verse 2--i.e. verses 2 and 4 form an inclusio. Any decent commentary on Leviticus will tell you this.
From part of my study:
"Wood cites the commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown which noted that the annual sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Leviticus xxiii. 32, 37-39)," but "the weekly Sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days."13 The J-F-B Commentary states that "sabbatwn" refers to the sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles".14 Fausset then goes on to state that "Lev xxiii. 38 expressly distinguishes "The Sabbaths of the Lord" from the other Sabbaths."15"
This writer is playing a game with your head and is basically taking advantage of his readers.
Ok lets take a look at verse 3.
Quote:
(Lev 23:3)
Quote:
"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 where does it tell us that the feast are to be considered as sabbaths? I think you are reading something into that passage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?