The books of Hebrews and Revelation prove the unchangeableness of God's Holy Law. (3)

[Stryder06]

Then why are her works pervasive in your church?

This question has nothing to do with my answer to Rev. Her works are very important, but because of the strong bias against them, quoting from her to certain individuals is as useful as quoting scripture to an atheist.

 

[from scratch]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7777598/#post64240810

The word for "rest" in Hebrews 4:9, is:

Sabbatis-mos [Sabbath - keeping] is a specialized word [from Sabbatizo, verb - Exodus 16:30; Leviticus 23:32, 26:34; 2 Chronicles 36:21, see also the LXX in all its uses; like as is the word Baptis-mos [G909], utilized [Mark 7:9, etc "βαπτισμους", literally thoroughly or totally washing] from Baptizo].

"Σαββα^τ-ισμός , ὁ,
A.a keeping of days of rest, Ep. Hebr.4.9, cf. Plu.2.166a (codd., βαπτισμούς Bentley)." - Perseus-Tufts-Edu; LSJ - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B2%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%E1%BD%B8%CF%82&la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=*sabbatismo/s-contents

" Σαββατισμός 1
a keeping of days of rest, NTest.

1 Σαββα^τισμός, οῦ, ὁ," - Perseus-Tufts-Edu; Middel Liddell - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B2%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%E1%BD%B8%CF%82&la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=*sabbatismo/s-contents

...in the extant Greek literature, always, in every single case, means a literally keeping of the Sabbath Day

Plutarch, De Superstitione 3 (Moralia 166A)

Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 23:3

Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses 30:2:2

Martyrium Petri et Pauli 1

Apostolic Constitutions 2:36:2

Neither Christ Jesus, nor Paul, etc, anywhere give 'rest' from the keeping of the Ten Commandments, the Moral/Spiritual, Holy, Just and Good and Perfect Law of God, which would include the 7th Day Sabbath of the Lord thy God, for if these are not kept by the powerful grace of God, then we shall never enter into Heaven, for nothing defiling shall enter there, and Lucifer was cast out from there for his transgressions, even as Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden on earth for theirs...

...therefore "Labour" [by overcoming even as He overcame] to enter into it...

You should really read and understand what you write. You've stated there is no salvation.

 

[from scratch]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Martyrium Petri et Pauli 1[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]μαρτυριων των αγιων αποστολων πετρου και παυλου [Greek Translation][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Passio sanctorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][Latin Translation][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Martyrdom of the Holy Apostles Peter And Paul [English Translation][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]aka The Passion of Saints Peter And Paul [alternate English Translation][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]See [The Martyrdom of St. Paul: historical, and judicial context, traditions, and legends by H. W. Tajra – Tubingen: Mohr, 1994; Chapter 5, page 143] - [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://books.google.com/books?id=d--2wss0t1cC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Listed in the 'P' Manuscripts under Ps.-Marc. [Pseudo-Marcellus] [German] - [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Abk%C3%BCrzungen_antiker_Autoren_und_Werktitel/P[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][Greet Text [left page] and Latin Text [right page]] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://archive.org/stream/actaapostolorvm01tiscgoog#page/n234/mode/2up[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][Greek Text; page 234, line 10, 2[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]nd[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] word from the left, [/FONT]“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]...[/FONT]τον σαββατισμον kαi...”[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://archive.org/stream/actaapostolorvm01tiscgoog#page/n234/mode/1up[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][Latin Text; page 235, line 8-9, beginning from the 7[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]th[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] word from the left and continuing onto the next line, 1[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]st[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] portion of the word, [/FONT]“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]...omnem obseruationem nostrae legis, euacuauit, exclusit [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]sabbatis-mum[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]et neomenias et legitimas ferias exinaniuit...”[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://archive.org/stream/actaapostolorvm01tiscgoog#page/n235/mode/1up[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][Translation and editing by Dr. Ricardus Albertus Lipsius and Maximillianus Bonnett [Bennett]; original Greek Manuscript, Codex Marcianus, authored by 'Pseudo-Marcellus' [ [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Marcellus[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]]originally edited by J. C. Thilo in two programmes of the University of Halle in 1837-1838 – see page 102 notations for further details - [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://books.google.com/books?id=miJVuXgM1acC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]- [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://archive.org/stream/actaapostolorvm01tiscgoog#page/n234/mode/1up[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]- [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://archive.org/stream/actaapostolorvm01tiscgoog#page/n235/mode/1up[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Ante-Nicene Christian library : translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325 (1867) Volume XVI [16]; Roberts, Alexander, 1826-1901; Donaldson, James, Sir, 1831-1915; Publisher: Edinburgh : T. and T. Clark [page 260, beginning with lines 9-19, reading:][/FONT] “[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]And Paul having come to Rome, great fear fell upon the Jews. They came together therefore to him, and exhorted him, saying: Vindicate the faith in which thou wast born; for it is not right that thou, being a Hebrew, and of the Hebrews, shouldst call thyself teacher of Gentiles, and vindicator of the uncircumcised; and, being thyself circumcised, that thou shouldst bring to nought the faith of the circumcision.1 And when thou seest Peter, contend against his teaching, because he has destroyed all the bulwarks of our law; for he has prevented [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]the keeping of Sabbaths[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]and new moons, and the holidays appointed by the law. ...” - [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://archive.org/stream/antenicenechrist16robe#page/260/mode/2up[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]- [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]http://archive.org/stream/antenicenechrist16robe#page/260/mode/1up[/FONT]

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Cum uenisset Paulus Romam, conuenerunt ad eum omnes Iudaei dicentes: Nostram fidem, in qua natus es, ipsam defende. non est enim iustum, ut cum sis Hebraeus ex Hebraeis ueniens, gentium te magistrum iudices, et incircumcisorum defensor factus tu cum sis circumcisus, fidem circumcisionis euacues. cum ergo Petrum uideris, suscipe contra eius doctrinam, quia omnem obseruationem nostrae legis euacuauit, exclusit [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]sabbatismum[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]et neomenias et legitimas ferias exinaniuit. ...” -[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][URL]http://webpages.ursinus.edu/jlionarons/wulfstan/PsMarcellus.html[/FONT][/URL]

You're really not convincing when I read the Bible.

 

[Keachian]

If what you proposed were true, you're still wrong in not keeping it, for a shadow is only done away with when the fullness of what it points to has come. Hebrews tells us that we must continue to labor to enter in to that rest, which means it hasn't yet arrived.

And of course you have the ever ignored verse in Isaiah where God says that from one sabbath to the next and one new moon to the next, His people will gather to worship before Him.

The fullness of it has come, for God has appointed a new day; 'Today' saying; 'Today' if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts as in the wilderness.

So I join with God and with the Writer in asking you, do not harden your heart, do not dismiss this greater rest of God, he has changed his day to any time it is called today so enter into his rest.

 

[Stryder06]

The fullness of it has come, for God has appointed a new day; 'Today' saying; 'Today' if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts as in the wilderness.

Problem is that the author of Hebrews says that we have to keep working to enter that rest once it comes. So are you saying you made it while he didn't?

So I join with God and with the Writer in asking you, do not harden your heart, do not dismiss this greater rest of God, he has changed his day to any time it is called today so enter into his rest.

LOL

Sorry, I don't see a text where God said He changed His day. This is so sad that you would say you're joining with God and the author, when what you say isn't even close to what they're saying. You receive a copious amount of evidence to the contrary and simply discard it because it's too much to read? If you would join with God then you would be keeping His law.

 

[from scratch]

This question has nothing to do with my answer to Rev. Her works are very important, but because of the strong bias against them, quoting from her to certain individuals is as useful as quoting scripture to an atheist.

That could be read several ways. I certainly agree that quoting or even paraphrasing her to a knowledgeable individual is worthless for the purpose of conversion.

 

[from scratch]

Problem is that the author of Hebrews says that we have to keep working to enter that rest once it comes. So are you saying you made it while he didn't?



LOL

Sorry, I don't see a text where God said He changed His day. This is so sad that you would say you're joining with God and the author, when what you say isn't even close to what they're saying. You receive a copious amount of evidence to the contrary and simply discard it because it's too much to read? If you would join with God then you would be keeping His law.

So what exactly is this rest of God the Israelites couldn't enter even while keeping the 7th day Sabbath? It obviously isn't the 7th day Sabbath.

 

[CFTerminator]

Replying to:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7752117-100/#post64240375

There still is no reason to consider the Sabbath commandment as the 4th or the longest, both claims used by SDAs to try and convince others that they should observe the Sabbath in dereliction and violence to Christ and his work

Jesus kept the 7th day Sabbath his whole life on Earth as an example to us. Why don't you, "go thou and do likewise"?

 

[from scratch]

Jesus kept the 7th day Sabbath his whole life on Earth as an example to us. Why don't you, "go thou and do likewise"?

Judas hung himself, too. Now why do you preach something you're unwilling to do?

 

[CFTerminator]

So what exactly is this rest of God the Israelites couldn't enter even while keeping the 7th day Sabbath? It obviously isn't the 7th day Sabbath.

While wandering in the wilderness many of the children of Israel rebelled against Moses and God's Holy Laws. There state of rebellion hindered them from going into the Promised Land. They either died in the desert or were killed by divine judgement like Korah and Dathan. They were rebellious against Moses and God himself. Those professed Christians who rebel against God's Law in modern times will suffer the same judgement if they are in rebellion against God's Holy Ten Commandments in modern times. Sin is sin, and if you continue in sin you will die. And in the day of judgment you will die the second death.

 

[from scratch]

While wandering in the wilderness many of the children of Israel rebelled against Moses and God's Holy Laws. There state of rebellion hindered them from going into the Promised Land. They either died in the desert or were killed by divine judgement like Korah and Dathan. They were rebellious against Moses and God himself. Those professed Christians who rebel against God's Law in modern times will suffer the same judgement if they are in rebellion against God's Holy Ten Commandments in modern times. Sin is sin, and if you continue in sin you will die. And in the day of judgment you will die the second death.

Guess you just plain don't like the better promises of God.

 

[Keachian]

Problem is that the author of Hebrews says that we have to keep working to enter that rest once it comes. So are you saying you made it while he didn't?

I'm beginning to wonder about your reading comprehension skills, as I explained in my exegesis of Heb 3-4 our faith in Christ is the rest and becomes God's rest if we hold on to the end.

LOL

Sorry, I don't see a text where God said He changed His day.

Heb 4:7

This is so sad that you would say you're joining with God and the author, when what you say isn't even close to what they're saying. You receive a copious amount of evidence to the contrary and simply discard it because it's too much to read?

No I discard it because it is convoluted and simply ignores the context of the key statements and message of the Book of Hebrews, 3AMs posts are empty and devoid of meaning because they are just a long stream of data without any attempt to make them information.

If you would join with God then you would be keeping His law.

I keep the Law which has been written on my heart, not some external law.

 

[Keachian]

Jesus kept the 7th day Sabbath his whole life on Earth as an example to us. Why don't you, "go thou and do likewise"?

We're discussing faith in Christ as the Rest of God if you want to join in, rather than shorting from the hip.

 

[Stryder06]

I'm beginning to wonder about your reading comprehension skills, as I explained in my exegesis of Heb 3-4 our faith in Christ is the rest and becomes God's rest if we hold on to the end.

Your exegesis is wrong. You can't make the text say something more than what it says. If the author, while explaining the "rest" says that we must therefore labor to enter into that rest, you can't say that it's already here. He's obviously saying otherwise.

Heb 4:7

And you think I'm the one with the comprehension problem? Israel had the sabbath when God said that they wouldn't enter His rest. It's not the same thing. The sabbath is being used as an example of the rest that remains.

No I discard it because it is convoluted and simply ignores the context of the key statements and message of the Book of Hebrews, 3AMs posts are empty and devoid of meaning because they are just a long stream of data without any attempt to make them information.

How do you know it's convoluted, empty, and devoid of meaning if you haven't read them?

I keep the Law which has been written on my heart, not some external law.

It's the same thing. The law that was to be written on the heart was the law that had been given. How many laws do you think God has?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Jesus kept the 7th day Sabbath his whole life on Earth as an example to us. Why don't you, "go thou and do likewise"?

I'm sure Jesus partook of customary animal sacrifices due to obligation to the Law... do you sacrifice animals annually?

 

[Keachian]

Your exegesis is wrong.

Care to show me where?

You can't make the text say something more than what it says.

I'm not making it say anything other than what I believe it is saying, of course you are doing the same and that is where we are disagreeing, I believe you are avoiding the presentness of the Rest that God gives us through Christ and the differentiation between the Sabbath of the Mosaic Covenant and God's Rest, you believe I am avoiding the futureness of the Rest that God gives us through Christ.

If the author, while explaining the "rest" says that we must therefore labor to enter into that rest, you can't say that it's already here.

Surely you should concede that since the Writer contrasts God's Rest with the Sabbath they are not one and the same as other SDAs have claimed then.

He's obviously saying otherwise.

I think it is both, he is talking of Christ both as our present rest (4:3) and our future rest (4:1) which we must persevere into, seeing as we always come against this disagreement I will just further point out that it seems to me to stem from our differing understanding of warning passages and indeed soteriology in general.

And you think I'm the one with the comprehension problem? Israel had the sabbath when God said that they wouldn't enter His rest. It's not the same thing. The sabbath is being used as an example of the rest that remains.

Did you go read Heb 4:7, that's not what the Writer is talking about there at all. Those who got and adhered to the Sabbath did not gain the Rest of God (v6) and so God appoints a new day; 'Today' saying; "Today if you here his voice do not harden your hearts."(v7) Neither is the land the rest of God otherwise Joshua would have given it to them, (v8) so then it is Today (v9)

How do you know it's convoluted, empty, and devoid of meaning if you haven't read them?

I have.

It's the same thing. The law that was to be written on the heart was the law that had been given. How many laws do you think God has?

Well you would have us believe that there are at least two, otherwise why do we not still sacrifice, etc. etc. you would have us believe that there is both a Moral Law and a Sacrament Law, there is no such distinction in the Mosaic Covenant, however we are not of the Mosaic Covenant, but of the New Covenant with its Law.

 

[Stryder06]

Care to show me where?

Pretty sure that's what we've been doing.

I'm not making it say anything other than what I believe it is saying, of course you are doing the same and that is where we are disagreeing, I believe you are avoiding the presentness of the Rest that God gives us through Christ and the differentiation between the Sabbath of the Mosaic Covenant and God's Rest, you believe I am avoiding the futureness of the Rest that God gives us through Christ.

It's not about what I believe it's saying. I've looked that verse over several times, and I've compared it with others. I quite honestly wouldn't say exactly what it's talking about because I'm not 100% sure. I do think it's interesting that the rest spoken of is compared to the sabbath rest.

Surely you should concede that since the Writer contrasts God's Rest with the Sabbath they are not one and the same as other SDAs have claimed then.

I didn't see it as a contrast but as a comparison. And what SDA's have claimed them to be the same? The text clearly shows this is a different type of rest, which is why I can't for the life of me understand how someone thinks this is proof of the doing away of the 7th day sabbath. Let's take verse 8 for instance: For if Jesus (Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

The sabbath was in full force before Canaan, and long after the death of Joshua. So I ask myself "what rest could Joshua have given to Israel". The only answer I can think of is the rest they would have received in the promised land. However because of the apostasy Israel fell in and out of, they never truly received that rest. Which explains why verse 9 says it still remains, i.e, it's yet to be received.

I think it is both, he is talking of Christ both as our present rest (4:3) and our future rest (4:1) which we must persevere into, seeing as we always come against this disagreement I will just further point out that it seems to me to stem from our differing understanding of warning passages and indeed soteriology in general.

The real question here is what is the rest that Israel didn't enter in to? I'll provide my perspective below. Don't want to be redundant.

Did you go read Heb 4:7, that's not what the Writer is talking about there at all. Those who got and adhered to the Sabbath did not gain the Rest of God (v6) and so God appoints a new day; 'Today' saying; "Today if you here his voice do not harden your hearts."(v7) Neither is the land the rest of God otherwise Joshua would have given it to them, (v8) so then it is Today (v9)

This is not wholly correct. Who did God swear that oath to?
Num 14:22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; 23 Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:

Deut 1:34 And the Lord heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying,35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers.


The truth is that the rest was indeed for those who received God's law
Deut 12:10 But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety;

And Joshua did give the people rest, but it wasn't permanent. Why? Because the people fell away from God. They rebelled. The "today" is not the day that we enter into rest, but the day that we turn to God, for only those who have turned to God may enter into that rest.

I have.

Then please be specific. What's convoluted about it?

Well you would have us believe that there are at least two, otherwise why do we not still sacrifice, etc. etc. you would have us believe that there is both a Moral Law and a Sacrament Law, there is no such distinction in the Mosaic Covenant, however we are not of the Mosaic Covenant, but of the New Covenant with its Law.

We don't sacrifice because that was brought to an end as prophesied. It's not about their being multiple laws, but understanding the purpose of the law. There are moral, ceremonial, civil, and health aspects of the law. The civil aspects of the law changed when Israel said "We want a king like the nations around us" thus moving away from the theocracy. The ceremonial aspects of the law changed when Christ died, thus doing away with the types that pointed to Him, and the earthly priesthood.

The only thing I would have you believe is the truth about the law of God. You say we're under the new covenant with it's law. There is no additional law spelled out anywhere in scripture. God said that the new covenant was His law being put on our hearts by His hand. That's all there is to it.

 

[from scratch]

Pretty sure that's what we've been doing.



It's not about what I believe it's saying. I've looked that verse over several times, and I've compared it with others. I quite honestly wouldn't say exactly what it's talking about because I'm not 100% sure. I do think it's interesting that the rest spoken of is compared to the sabbath rest.



I didn't see it as a contrast but as a comparison. And what SDA's have claimed them to be the same? The text clearly shows this is a different type of rest, which is why I can't for the life of me understand how someone thinks this is proof of the doing away of the 7th day sabbath. Let's take verse 8 for instance: For if Jesus (Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

The sabbath was in full force before Canaan, and long after the death of Joshua. So I ask myself "what rest could Joshua have given to Israel". The only answer I can think of is the rest they would have received in the promised land. However because of the apostasy Israel fell in and out of, they never truly received that rest. Which explains why verse 9 says it still remains, i.e, it's yet to be received.



The real question here is what is the rest that Israel didn't enter in to? I'll provide my perspective below. Don't want to be redundant.




This is not wholly correct. Who did God swear that oath to?
Num 14:22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; 23 Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:

Deut 1:34 And the Lord heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying,35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers.


The truth is that the rest was indeed for those who received God's law
Deut 12:10 But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety;

And Joshua did give the people rest, but it wasn't permanent. Why? Because the people fell away from God. They rebelled. The "today" is not the day that we enter into rest, but the day that we turn to God, for only those who have turned to God may enter into that rest.



Then please be specific. What's convoluted about it?




We don't sacrifice because that was brought to an end as prophesied. It's not about their being multiple laws, but understanding the purpose of the law. There are moral, ceremonial, civil, and health aspects of the law. The civil aspects of the law changed when Israel said "We want a king like the nations around us" thus moving away from the theocracy. The ceremonial aspects of the law changed when Christ died, thus doing away with the types that pointed to Him, and the earthly priesthood.

The only thing I would have you believe is the truth about the law of God. You say we're under the new covenant with it's law. There is no additional law spelled out anywhere in scripture. God said that the new covenant was His law being put on our hearts by His hand. That's all there is to it.

So what do you think Jesus means when He says -

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Jesus can't be talking about the 7th day Sabbath.

 

[CFTerminator]

Guess you just plain don't like the better promises of God.

The Promises were fulfilled to those who obeyed the word of the Lord. Those who rebellions died. Its that simple. Covenants have consequences, while modern Evangelicals think that do whatever they want because they are
"saved", what a deception!

 

[CFTerminator]

So what do you think Jesus means when He says -

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Jesus can't be talking about the 7th day Sabbath.

Those who walk the walk, will follow in Jesus footsteps. What is the record of the NT? Jesus faithfully attending services on the 7th day Sabbath. And there no example of Jesus keeping Sunday! So why aren't following in Jesus' footsteps and keeping the 7th day holy?