Why I believe SDA's (& other sabbatarians) Are In Error

[Vic C.]

And, cj, don't exalt yourself above other Christians on this forum in regard to your higher understanding of scripture. You are not debating these issues with a bunch of slouches. You should surely know that by now.

I resent that. :x You can't take my "Chief of the slouches" away from me. 8-)

All kidding aside, lets try and keep the tone down.

Thanks,
Vic

 

[SputnikBoy]

You people are doing just what the Jews do who as Jesus says are obeying "teachings that are rules taught by men."

Whoa there, Heidi. Are you saying that the commands of God are rules (teachings) of men? What precisely WERE the 'teachings of men' that Jesus was referring to ...do you even know or are you making stabs in the dark as you go?

Do you not understand what Paul means in Colosians when he says that it doesn't matter if someone honors one day or no days?

Do you? Do you know who he was talking to and about what? Do you not understand the issue that Paul was addressing? Hint: It had nothing to do with the 7th-day Sabbath. So, how come you're implying that it did? You can't base your arguments on scriptures that don't mean what you say they mean, Heidi.

And, I personally don't give a bull's foot what Paul says about not honoring God's commands ...if we're to believe what YOU imply that he's saying. No man of God would ever promote disobedience to God and I'm sure that Paul was not doing this. You're obviously reading Paul through tunnel-vision glasses, Heidi. There are two alternatives and only two. One is either obedient to God or one is not.

We worship the living God, not rules, regulations, or days of the week! Your really do need to figure out what Jesus means by "teachings that are rules taught by men."

Just WHAT are these 'teachings of men' you keep referring to, Heidi? Don't be so vague (although 'vagueness' IS typical of the proclaimed 'Spirit-filled Christian) and be more specific if you're able. I really would like to know. Again ...what are the 'teachings of men' in regard to this thread issue? And, how can you worship God without following SOME form of criteria? Are not 'the rules, regulations, or days of the week' (as you put it) the responses of a born-again Christian? Will not 'obedience' to God be a matter of course? And, is there a chance that YOU are following the 'teachings of men' and not realizing it? Hmmm . . .

And if you finally understand that, you will see why it's ridiculous to quibble about the law or on which days of the week to worship which Paul tells us in Titus. Hebrews 4:1-9 tells us what the Sabbath rest is. I'm sorry that so many people don't believe him and could care less.

If we finally understand what, Heidi? Humor me, 'spoon-feed' me if you must, but please articulate your point in a manner that a pleb such as me can understand.

Hebrews 4:1-9 has been explained over and over and over and yet you STILL continue to bring that scripture up to support whatever the heck it is that you're supporting, Heidi. This shows that you have no intention of understanding anything that might deviate from your one-track thinking. There is no reasoning with you. Hebrews 4:1-9 aside - no point covering that one yet again - I WOULD like you to respond to my above questions.

 

[wavy]

I'm not going to respond to everything in here, but I have two things I noticed that I wanted to ask questions about.

Some one said that the "OT law" was a shadow of things to come (although the Hebrews 10:1 scripture they are referring to only speaks in the context of the priesthood and tabernacle, and Colossians 2:16-17 tell us that when we do the things in verse 16, we are showing forth the future).

Then they asked something like "what does the Jewish sabbath foreshadow"?

I think this is not a good question. What did killing foreshadow? What did commiting adultery foreshadow? What did not having sex with animals foreshadow? These are all in the "Jewish" so-called "law".

Secondly Vic, you said I should not post something that I said. What did I say that was wrong? Point it out to me?

Sputnik, I wouldn't waste my time, seriously. It's the flesh not being subject to Torah as Paul said in Romans 8:7. I don't have time to argue with abstract concepts of man's definition of what are shadows and "walking in the spirit" and being "born of God" is.

I believe in all these things, but how they apply is a different matter. And if some of these guys are already programmed (as I used to be) in their mind to assume that the "old testament" is not valid as Yahweh's Word, then there's no point in arguing. They'll have to come to their own conclusions on that. Tell them a scriptural truth and they "spirit it away", and tell YOU that you are not born of God if they don't see the "spiritual" way that they do.

However, I want scripture, not man-made concepts of what being "born of God" is and comments that flush Yahweh's Word (called the "old" testament by men) down the toilet, being of no value except "historical", by most. All scripture is inspired by Yahweh and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness and when that was written by Paul to Timothy, the only "scripture" there was was the "old" testament.

Please heed Titus 3:9, sput.

No hard feelings anyone, but this is ridiculous.

I believe all of us have valid points (some more than others), but we can't even discuss them without getting angry and when that happens, people are only concerned about being right, with both parties (or how ever many there are). No one wants to listen or consider the other's persons view as credible. But anyway, I don't see myself being on too much often if this continues.

Yahweh's favor on all and may his Spirit lead us to the truth.

Shalom!

 

[wavy]

For the record...

Whoever said that Yahweh has not worked since the 7th day needs to read below. This, imo, not to offend anyone, is abstract form of theology not supported by scripture.

Isaiah 43:13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

John. 5:17 But Yahshua answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

Psalm 95:9 (where the author of Hebrews is quoting from) also tells us that Yahweh worked to bring the children of Israel out of Egypt. Yahweh is still working to build up his nation and gather them as one under one Head.

I still think Hebrews 4 has been largely taken out of context. It is not saying that the children of Israel who kept the sabbath really didn't get true rest, and so therefore we must cease from our labors because Yahweh stopped working on the 7th day (which is proven wrong by above).

It speaks of the unbelieving parts Israel who died in the wilderness in Hebrews 3 whom Yahweh swore would not enter into his rest (which I believed referred to the land of Israel after Yahweh working to bring them out of Egypt and into the wilderness).

Nothing about "the sabbath day is not the true rest even though the children of Israel kept it". No, based on context, the ones that didn't enter were the disobedient and the unbelieving.

Why do I believe the "rest" they didn't enter into was the land? In Hebrews 4:8 the contrast is this:

Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

If Joshua (son of Nun) had given the people rest after he took them into the Land, then Yahweh would not have spoken of another rest at another time. The rest in the land wasn't the rest we are going to get from the new heavens and earth when it comes. This has nothing to do with comparing the sabbath day to the rest to come, and thus, we don't have to keep the sabbath. Nothing like that at all. Go back and read these in context also:

Deuteronomy 3:20 Until YHWH have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess the land which YHWH your God hath given them beyond Jordan: and then shall ye return every man unto his possession, which I have given you.

Deuteronomy 12:9 For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which YHWH your God giveth you.
Deuteronomy 12:10 But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which YHWH your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety;

Deuteronomy 25:19 Therefore it shall be, when YHWH thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which YHWH thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.

Joshua 1:13 Remember the word which Moses the servant of YHWH commanded you, saying, YHWH your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land.

Joshua 1:15 Until YHWH have given your brethren rest, as he hath given you, and they also have possessed the land which YHWH your God giveth them: then ye shall return unto the land of your possession, and enjoy it, which Moses YHWH's servant gave you on this side Jordan toward the sunrising.

Joshua 21:44 And YHWH gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; YHWH delivered all their enemies into their hand.

Joshua 22:4 And now YHWH your God hath given rest unto your brethren, as he promised them: therefore now return ye, and get you unto your tents, and unto the land of your possession, which Moses the servant of YHWH gave you on the other side Jordan.

Joshua 23:1 And it came to pass a long time after that YHWH had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua waxed old and stricken in age.

So I believe it is logical to assume that it is not comparing the "rest" in Hebrews with the sabbath, but with these here as it ties in with Hebrews 4:8.

Why do I believe the rest is future?

Hebrews 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

It remains that we must enter into the rest. We haven't rested yet.

Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

There remains a rest for the people (which has not come yet). The word for "rest" here is "sabbath rest", or sabbatismos in the Greek. This word is the only word used for "rest" in the whole context. And I believe this means that the future rest to come is foreshadowed by our "sabbath-rest" on the seventh day.

Hebrews 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

He says let us LABOR to enter into the rest (meaning if we are laboring, we are not resting and thus, the rest is still future). If there were any doubts before, there are none now. This tells us that we should labor to enter into the rest to come. I do not believe this scripture is comparing a weak sabbath day rest with a spiritual rest that is now "in Christ".

I think this is a logical conclusion to come to without being told I am not born of God and have "ridiculous", and "fleshly", and "legalistic", or "false" doctrines. This is a weird passage, but I think there is more to it than this. One things for sure though: this is not comparing a sabbath day rest with a present spiritual rest "in Christ", and thus the sabbath day is now everyday. Can some one point out to me how this is saying that? Or can some one tell me how this chapter has anything to do with what Yahshua said at the end of Matthew 11, when he said "I will give you rest" (the Greek word for this "rest" mentioned here being a completely different word than the one used in Hebrews 4)?

And just for the record, how many "rest for your souls" are there?

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith YHWH, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

I personally believe Messiah was alluding to this, and what he was saying was for us to return to the ancient ways of truth, which can be found by listening to his teaching. He makes an example in the next chapter where he rebukes the Pharisees for wrongly accusing the disciples for breaking the sabbath. Yahshua reminds him of older days when things considered unlawful were permitted for the sake of good. He says he is the Master of the sabbath, thus he knows what to do on it and what is and isn't a violation. He rejects the ways of the Pharisees and calls them back to truth, telling them to remember the scripture. Nothing to do with "keep the sabbath in me, it's not a day". His point is found here:

Matthew 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

That is the point. Has nothing to do with him being the sabbath as opposed to the sabbath day.

Is this or is this not a logical conclusion based on scripture?

 

[AHIMSA]

I'd like to say that no matter how many people believe something, truth is still truth, and it must be back with the bible

If you can make such a hypocritical statement, then I don't think you really understand the nature of truth. Truth must not be backed up by the Bible, biblical claims must be backed by truth if they are to be taken seriously. Which means the bible must be subjected to OBJECTIVE criticism. You can't quote the bible and say "this is true because the Bible says it is" then asked "how do you know the bible is true?", respond "The bible says it is true' and proceed to quote a passage.

 

[SputnikBoy]

You choose to live by THE LAW, you are bound by ALL THE LAW. I however revel in the freedom offered by Christ.

And what freedom IS that, Imagican? Do you not know that those who choose to keep the Sabbath also have the very same freedom available NOT to keep the Sabbath? You don't have dibs on this freedom. They too revel in the freedom offered by Christ. It's because they have freedom in Christ that they are free to choose. I really don't know why this issue is so problematic.

While I must admit that one that is truly saved will be conformed by the Spirit,

How will they be conformed? Can you be more specific?

that individual is no longer bound by the ancient laws of the Hebrew, (unless you WANT to be. That's your choice).

Tell me, Imagican, how many people in the Old Testament were saved by being bound to the ancient Law? How many in the OT were saved by God's grace?

But beware my friend, you are doing just as those Paul warned us about.

Which 'those' who Paul warned about are you referring to, Imagican? I mean, really? Can you imagine Paul wagging a stern finger at a group of people who had the audacity to NOT murder, to NOT steal, to NOT commit adultery, NOT have any other Gods ...you get the point ...and 'chastise' them for BEING obedient? That's basically what you're saying, Imagican. If not, what exactly ARE you saying?

Re-teaching the 'old' laws as if Christ had NOT fulfilled these. Dangerous my friend.

You must know, Imagican, that 'fulfill' in this case does not mean 'to bring to an end' but simply means that Jesus 'kept the Law perfectly'? Jesus was sinless, remember. His life personified and magnified the Law. And, to top that off, Jesus distinctly said that He had not come to abolish the law. It surely is not dangerous to at least try to emulate the standards that Jesus set. Why would it be? Sure, we'll fall, but that's what Jesus is there for to pick us up when we do.

From what you offer, Christ's death isn't needed.

Sure it is. Prior to Jesus' sacrifice it had been bulls and goats and laws contained in the ordinances. No need for those burdensome laws any more. No one need ever get uptight by another's loving God with all their heart, soul, and mind (commands 1-4) and loving their neighbor as themselves (commands 5-10). You mean to say that you have a problem with these commands?

Actually, nine of the commandments are not a problem to mainstream Christians. Not at all. If it were "The Nine Commandments" we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Christians could live with them and wouldn't be so anxious to abolish them. It’s that confounded 4th-commandment that’s a huge thorn in the side of most Christians. The 4th-commandment IS the issue.

 

[Vic C.]

Secondly Vic, you said I should not post something that I said. What did I say that was wrong? Point it out to me?

Fair enough.

Solo, alright. I'm done. You just want to argue ad hominem. No scripture. I can't continue.

I noticed that you never post scripture, you just post your interpretation that follows your false doctrine.

Your definition is as skewed as the rest of your doctrine. I know that you hate to post scripture and I know why. It refutes you ridiculous stance on the Word of God.

You accuse him of not quoting scripture, yet when one goes back and reviews posts, one would see plenty of scripture; whole passeges at times.

Rule 1 - Post content and general conduct:
Rule 2 - No Flaming
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=9219

As far as YOU, cj you must have a secret camera that follows me around too because I do not know how in the world you could make these statements:

Thus I am done with you too. No hard feelings anyone, sorry if I have offended anyone. But this can't continue. The whole purpose of the scriptures is defeated doing this bickering.

Same rules apply. Was this comment to cj needed? All I suggested was that people review their posts before submitting. Are these things really what God wants you to post? I don't think so. A little humility goes a long way.

James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

 

[cj]

How many more times does one have to make the point that the Sabbath was initiated at Creation,...

Nobody's listening because we all know what you're saying just ain't so.

I know you desperately want to have this false assumption accepted as it will make your erroneous doctrine more palatable, but scripture is simply and clearly against what you're saying.

If 'nobody' is listening because they just can't see the contents of the scripture that Vic posted above ...then that's too bad. What did I say that 'just ain't so', cj? Point it out to me and I'll concede that I'm wrong.

I really hope that Vic did not post those verses as some sort of support for what you are saying, as I hold his scriptural understanding in higher regard.

See my response to Vic for clarification....
In love,
cj

Whoa! LOL I'm about to fall off the pedestal you keep putting me on, cj. My views on certain traditional doctrines are on the unorthodox side, in case you haven't noticed.

Let me break down the quotes above and explain why I quoted from Genesis.

Sputnik said sabbath was initiated at creation. You said no one is listening because what he is saying "ain't so".

I posted scripture showing sabbath was instituted at creation. As Moderator, I'm trying to expand the dialogue, maybe even play a little "devil's advocate". You did bring up something interesting when you said,

"Where is the verse that tells us He came "out of it" and began working again."

Although there is no explicit scripture saying so, I would disagree. I would ask this... if God never came out of His rest, when did He create Woman? When did He sacrifice animals to clothe them after the Fall? When did He do a lot of things that were done after the seventh day?

This is why I really love speaking with you Vic,... you have a stand, yet you always listen and consider.

You are a wonderful, hearing, believer in this way,.... very pliable, firm but able to be molded.

Your question,..... "When did He do a lot of things that were done after the seventh day?"

The answer,..... He didn't,....... man did. Or more specifically,.... a Man did.

God worked through man after He rested.

And, can anyone tell me the Name of the man He worked through?

I'll give a hint,..... Revelation 13:8

"And all those dwelling on the earth will worship him, every one whose name is not written in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.

The Bible is a most wonderful book of revelation.


In love,
cj

 

[cj]

I'd like to say that no matter how many people believe something, truth is still truth, and it must be back with the bible

If you can make such a hypocritical statement, then I don't think you really understand the nature of truth. Truth must not be backed up by the Bible, biblical claims must be backed by truth if they are to be taken seriously. Which means the bible must be subjected to OBJECTIVE criticism. You can't quote the bible and say "this is true because the Bible says it is" then asked "how do you know the bible is true?", respond "The bible says it is true' and proceed to quote a passage.

It is hard for someone who is veiled to the truth to have a clear speaking as to what truth is AHIMSA.

This is why why folks can love Jesus yet love Him for all the "wrong" reasons.

Many believers have little understanding regarding the word truth and its relationship to a thing called reality. Yet, if bible readers would spend some more time truely seeking God, in His written word, in the Spirit, prayerfully, and through the fellowship of the saints, perhaps this shortfall would be a thing of the past.

And this thing,.... reality,.... what is it?

Our brother John told us;..... there is a word that is often translated as "truth" in many Bible versions, yet a more proper translation is "reality".

And what was John talking about? Or better yet, Who was John talking about when he used this word?

Christ Jesus.

John declares to us that Christ Jesus is the reality of all things. Including the Sabbath of God.

And guess what,..... Christ Jesus is a man.

Which tells us what?

It tells us that God's Sabbath is in reality a Man.

As we used to say,.... "Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

The Sabbath of God is a Man....... "For Jehovah has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. This is My resting place forever; Here will I dwell, for I have desired it.

I will abundantly bless its provision; I will satisfy its poor with bread. And its priests I will clothe with salvation, And its faithful ones will shout with a ringing shout.

There I will cause a horn of David to shoot forth; I have prepared a lamp for My anointed one. I will clothe his enemies with shame, But on him his crown will shine."

Oh, by-the-way, I just quoted verses 13 - 18 of Psalms 132.

Funny how all the lovers of religious Jewish Sabbath day keeping never seem to bring up this series of verses when discussing all thier wonderful "knowledge" of God and God's rest.


"For Jehovah has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. This is My resting place forever; Here will I dwell, for I have desired it."


And what is this "Zion"?

Revelation 21.....

I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away in spirit onto a great and high mountain....... and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, as clear as crystal.

"And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple."

Zion, in typology, was/is the highest peak in the city of Jerusalem, it was the place on which the temple was built by Solomon.


Some work for you folks....... look up what the NT writings have to say about what and where the temple of God is today.


Zion, God desired and final resting place,..... is the corporate new man, Christ the Head and the body.

What God has done, and is doing, is building Himself into men who would believe, in and through His Son. And this building is and will e God's eternal resting place,.... Zion.


In love,
cj

 

[John the Baptist]

--Truth about God's Sabbath question??--

Here is a post from another site. The poster tells what they believe. Salvation can be had without the Covenant Conditions. It tells why the Lord's Blessed, Set Aside for Holy use 7th Day Sabbath day is of no account to most of his human creation. Notice that the Sabbath is not even mentioned! But both class are seen either believing Christs way, or satans Daniel 7:25 way. ---John

Quote: ---- it strikes me that salvation is spoken of often as a promise, an inheritance, not so much a deal. Sorry to criticise. what do you think?

John here:
Nothing personal regarded by me here. Eternity surely includes the un/needed/Gospel before sin entered, also! All 'time' had an Eternity of the Covenant that was never broken until sin entered into its time/frame. It was still immortal as the Godhead itself. [Their make up.] 2 Cor. 3:3's EPISTLE! LETTER TO US. God is LOVE! (NO SIN, NEVER BROKEN, PERFECT! James 2:8-12's LAW OF LIBERTY)

This was known from Eternity by the Godhead. As was their Gospel provision, the Everlasting Gospel. Rev. 14:6. Surely you can see 1 John 3:4 as defining sin in the Universe, as satan's starting of rebellion??? Even from the sin not unto death to its sin ending, unto death. See James 1:15.

So... on came mankind, made a little lower than the angels. (could die quicker when sin would be known to exist)
And yes, God knew that they would do so from Eternity. And each ones outcome! This was all the Eternal Covenant & Eternal Gospel plan. Yet, both creation's were created perfect & need not to have sinned. This Christ came to prove, (and did as the second Adam) that the creation of the Master was not flawed! This [mature] moral character had to be developed & proven by [free will.] Only the provision are given for the accomplishment, yet, even these provisions of Phil. 4:13 & 2 Cor. 12:9 are CONDITIONAL.

And you say: "It strikes me that Salvation is spoken of often, as a promise, an inheritance, not so much a deal."

Well, bottom line: As the rest of the world has been dangerously wrong, so are you! Man cannot even 'begin' the [Born Again] life without 'total' surrender. Acts 5:32 Salvational Obedience is a CONDITIONAL Eternal Word that is always before any promise of the Godhead! Check Matt. 4:6, what was wrong with that promise from Psalms 91:11-12? (God is not talking of rainbow in the sky promises)

The condition to the 'protection' promise came from the O.T. Deut. 6:16 that Christ quoted back to satan even. But satan see's to it that we have been given a 'steady diet' of promises only, huh? (See Matt. 4:4!) He keeps telling us the truth that God cannot lie! Yet, giving only 1/2 'g'ospel which is [no gospel!!!] See the last few verses of the Bible for our warning.

--------------------
"If ye love Me, keep My commandments".

 

[wavy]

The Sabbath of God is a Man....... "For Jehovah has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. This is My resting place forever; Here will I dwell, for I have desired it.

I will abundantly bless its provision; I will satisfy its poor with bread. And its priests I will clothe with salvation, And its faithful ones will shout with a ringing shout.

There I will cause a horn of David to shoot forth; I have prepared a lamp for My anointed one. I will clothe his enemies with shame, But on him his crown will shine."

Oh, by-the-way, I just quoted verses 13 - 18 of Psalms 132.

Imo, you took these verses completely out of context. The word "rest" here is in no way related to the sabbath, and Yahweh says Tzion is his resting place, which is us (how do you superimpose anything to do with the sabbath in this context?). Nothing in these scriptures even indicate the sabbath as being a man. Not one of these verses.

Funny how all the lovers of religious Jewish Sabbath day keeping never seem to bring up this series of verses when discussing all thier wonderful "knowledge" of God and God's rest.

Well, because they have little (or nothing rather) with the sabbath. The context of this Psalm has everything to do with Yahshua being established on David's throne by Yahweh.

And what is this "Zion"?

Zion, in typology, was/is the highest peak in the city of Jerusalem, it was the place on which the temple was built by Solomon.

Some work for you folks....... look up what the NT writings have to say about what and where the temple of God is today.

Believers are the temple of Yahweh. However, these verses still have little (that is, absolutely nothing) to do with the sabbath. I have no clue how you could arrive at this interpretation of scripture against those who obey Yahweh by keeping his appointed times.

Zion, God desired and final resting place,..... is the corporate new man, Christ the Head and the body.

Little to do with sabbath day keeping, however. Well, we all have our opinions.

 

[cj]

Imo, you took these verses completely out of context. The word "rest" here is in no way related to the sabbath, and Yahweh says Tzion is his resting place, which is us (how do you superimpose anything to do with the sabbath in this context?). Nothing in these scriptures even indicate the sabbath as being a man. Not one of these verses.

The word sabbath means rest, how could God's eternal resting place not have anything to do with His rest?

You are so caught up in your self indulgent "Sabbath-keeping" that you have never considered just what God's rest is.

Honestly, you don't have a clue do you. You love to tell others of your service to God, yet have you ever asked God what He desires?

I would even go as far as to say that you possibly have never considered Psalms 132 in a deep way.

Well, because they have little (or nothing rather) with the sabbath. The context of this Psalm has everything to do with Yahshua being established on David's throne by Yahweh.

You're funny.

You think so huh,... the verses I quoted have to do with Jesus and David's throne.

You are scripturally inept;....... Wavy,..... David's throne was never located on Mount Zion.

And what is this "Zion"?

Believers are the temple of Yahweh. However, these verses still have little (that is, absolutely nothing) to do with the sabbath. I have no clue how you could arrive at this interpretation of scripture against those who obey Yahweh by keeping his appointed times.

Anyone who would say that Zion has to do with David's throne has little or no understanding of the scriptures.

You are right to say you have no clue.

Little to do with sabbath day keeping, however. Well, we all have our opinions.

I'm way past the abolished Sabbath day of the Jews.

But I know, as the scriptures tell us, you are blinded by your own false concepts.

Such as the one that led you to say that Zion and David's throne are the same.

In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

The word sabbath means rest, how could God's eternal resting place not have anything to do with His rest?

Because if it did, he would have used the word shabbat here for rest, which he did not. Just because we find the word "rest" in a passage does not mean it has anything to do with the sabbath.

You love to tell others of your service to God

This is a lie. Not once have I ever said anything, or rather boasted about anything I do concerning Torah.

As far as Tzion, this is a also a metaphor for Yahrushalayhim, where Yahshua will reign from.

But that had nothing to do with my point. I was focusing on the entirety of the chapter, not that once reference to Tzion. And calm down...

I am not out to get you...

 

[cj]

Because if it did, he would have used the word shabbat here for rest, which he did not. Just because we find the word "rest" in a passage does not mean it has anything to do with the sabbath.

You need to learn some more about the Hebrew language Wavy.

The word used for "rest" in the verse from Psalms is very particular, inthat it defines the type of rest that is permanently found in..... marriage.

Whereas, the word you presented above, "shabbath" defines a temporary rest, a kind of intermission from one's work yet with the intention of continuing to work.

Additionally, "shabbath" is not,..... let me repeat again,..... "shabbath" is not.... the word used in relation to God's rest in Genesis,.... the word used is "shabath", which means in a sense, a putting away of something or desisting from it with no implication of any continuation of what was put away.

When God rested from His work (in Genesis) it was an eternal rest (shabath), but when a Jew rests from his work it is a temporary rest (shabbath).

Its not the same Wavy, and the words used in scripture tell us that.

And concerning the rest found in Psalms 132,.... Zion, as we find out in the book of Revelation, in eternity future, is God and His bride, His bride in whom He finds His eternal rest.

This is a lie. Not once have I ever said anything, or rather boasted about anything I do concerning Torah.

No,... then what are you doing here?

Sure you do Wavy, sure you tell folks here about yourself, your knowledge of the Torah, and by extension, tell us about your service to God.

And so do all the folks on these boards (me included). But the point I was making is that in the content of your telling is found your error.

As far as Tzion, this is a also a metaphor for Yahrushalayhim, where Yahshua will reign from.

In one sense you're right, Zion is a metaphor for Jerusalem.

But not in this case.

Lets look at the verses closely....

The chapter opens with the psalmist speaking about God's place (verse 5), "a tabernacle for the Mighty One of Jacob."

The verses that follow are all about God's place, His tabernacle, His resting place.

In verse 11 the psalmist repeats (in slightly different wording) a promise of God regarding David's throne/kingdom.

But the psalmist says something very particular which must be seen in order to fully understand what is being said later on;...... the psalmist says, "Jehovah has sworn unto David...... I will set One upon..... your throne."

And again in verse 12, "... upon your throne forever."

Not God's throne.

But in verse 13 the psalmist say's that Jehovah has chosen Zion.

What's going on here?

Also, note that in verses 14 - 18 it is no longer the psalmist who is speaking but it is God Himself who is speaking. And He is not speaking about David's throne but about His desired habitation,...... which is His eternal resting place.

This differentiation is seen further in verse 16, where we see the matter of priests being introduced; and we know that priests did not serve David nor His throne.

Therefore, contrary to what you erroneously think, here in this Psalm Zion is not Jerusalem and its relationship to David's throne, but is a seperate entity, in fact, a higher aspect, the highest aspect of the heavenly New Jerusalem.

But that had nothing to do with my point. I was focusing on the entirety of the chapter, not that once reference to Tzion.

Yet, Psalm 132 is all about Zion. Thus your point is once more short.

And calm down...

I am not out to get you...

Never thought you were.

But we all have to contend with an adversary.

In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

cj...

nvm...

you just say...weird stuff sometimes...

your method of interpreting scripture is just...

forget it...

if any one makes any sense out of what he said, please let me know.

 

[cj]

cj...

nvm...

you just say...weird stuff sometimes...

your method of interpreting scripture is just...

forget it...

if any one makes any sense out of what he said, please let me know.

Wavy, it only sounds weird because you've never consider such things

But the fact is you can't say anything against what I've put forward.

You can call it all sorts of names and make all sorts of innuendos about it, but you have no way to refute what I've said as its clearly in scripture.



Tell me, isn't the highest peak.....in.... Jerusalem called Mount Zion?

And isn't it specifically on this highest point that God built His temple?


In love,
cj

 

[John the Baptist]

cj wrote:
SputnikBoy wrote:
How many more times does one have to make the point that the Sabbath was initiated at Creation,...


Nobody's listening because we all know what you're saying just ain't so.

I know you desperately want to have this false assumption accepted as it will make your erroneous doctrine more palatable, but scripture is simply and clearly against what you're saying.

*********
Well for lack of good english, I wonder if any know what a memorial is?
The Eternal Gospel (Revelation 14:6) states that.. "Thy name, O Lord, endureth forever; and Thy Memorial, O Lord, THROUGHOUT ALL GENERATIONS." Psalms 135:13

Do you realize that if you folk here had observed the 7th day Sabbath in all the past, that there would never have bee an atheist.

---John

 

[wavy]

Wavy, it only sounds weird because you've never consider such things

whatever you say, cj.

But the fact is you can't say anything against what I've put forward.

it makes zero sense. it seems to me that you do not know how to properly study the bible. once you've learned to study it in a logical way that makes sense, then i'll have something to say.

its more than i can waste my time arguing against. im sorry, but thats just the way it is.

You can call it all sorts of names and make all sorts of innuendos about it, but you have no way to refute what I've said as its clearly in scripture.

above.

Tell me, isn't the highest peak.....in.... Jerusalem called Mount Zion?

And isn't it specifically on this highest point that God built His temple?

this is IRRELEVANT to anything. the point is whether or not this scripture is some type of form of "rest" that means we dont have to keep the literal sabbath day. its crazy.

 

[wavy]

I changed up my mind a bit. I decided to say just a little something.

You need to learn some more about the Hebrew language Wavy.

The word used for "rest" in the verse from Psalms is very particular, inthat it defines the type of rest that is permanently found in..... marriage.

Missing the entire point. What does the word rest in Psalms 132 have anything to do with the sabbath? None. Sabbath is not the context of this Psalm, which is my entire point. Read verse 11:

Psalm 132:11 YHWH hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

I mean, I really don't want to quote the whole passage to you, but how you actually think this is somehow "against" a sabbath-day keeper and that we can't refute it is mind-boggling, at least to me.

Seriously. How one can find the word "rest" and a passage dealing with the establishment on David's throne (YHWH through Yahshua), and somehow completely twist it into some type of "proof" that we shouldn't be keeping the sabbath day and that those who do don't know the "true rest" of Yahweh, is beyond me.

I can't argue with that. It's like some one repeatedly saying the sky is orange at noon time. What else can you tell them? You can tell them the sky is blue, but they'll just keep saying it's orange. How do you convince them it is blue? You can't.

Color cannot be particularly defined. And this is how this situation is with this passage. You are making the text say something it is not and tried to use it against sabbath-day keepers, but the text indicates ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that even hints at such an interpretation.

Then you want to play semantic games, and a bad one at that. It's just...

Witness? Anybody?

Whereas, the word you presented above, "shabbath" defines a temporary rest, a kind of intermission from one's work yet with the intention of continuing to work.

Additionally, "shabbath" is not,..... let me repeat again,..... "shabbath" is not.... the word used in relation to God's rest in Genesis,.... the word used is "shabath", which means in a sense, a putting away of something or desisting from it with no implication of any continuation of what was put away.

Well, I don't know Hebrew, but I wouldn't trust what you have to say about it either. The difference seems to be a general resting ("shabat") and a specific rest period ("shabbat"). You're going off into stuff that has nothing to do with anything. And your whole theory is wrong about Yahweh not working anymore after the seventh day at creation.

That was disproven on the 4th page, I believe. Something you ignored. What you say has NOTHING to do with anything. How am I supposed to argue against something way in left field?

When God rested from His work (in Genesis) it was an eternal rest (shabath), but when a Jew rests from his work it is a temporary rest (shabbath).

Error.

And concerning the rest found in Psalms 132,.... Zion, as we find out in the book of Revelation, in eternity future, is God and His bride, His bride in whom He finds His eternal rest.

Unsupported concept. Numbers 10:33 uses the same word for "rest" used in Psalms 132. And yet, it was only for the children of Israel to stop during their travelling. Does it mean they "rested" forever? No.

So your whole concept is meh and bleh. I didn't want to get into pointing out how crazy you sound, but it needs to be done. You continually come around and make crazy claims and then assume no one can mess with them, or have the ability to "refute" them. There's nothing to refute.

The only thing to say is that you are starting to act like a crazy, religious nut. I am not trying to be intentionally offensive, but this is the truth and I think you need to get it together.

No,... then what are you doing here?

Sure you do Wavy, sure you tell folks here about yourself, your knowledge of the Torah, and by extension, tell us about your service to God.

And so do all the folks on these boards (me included). But the point I was making is that in the content of your telling is found your error.

And this is another example. What in the world are you talking about? I haven't told anyone of myself. Please calm yourself down and quit acting like you are clueless. The rest of what you said is a bustle and hustle of confusion.

But we all have to contend with an adversary.

And this is why I ignore you. I am not particularly fond of people who say weird stuff like this and think in this type of manner...

 

[wavy]

*********
Well for lack of good english, I wonder if any know what a memorial is?
The Eternal Gospel (Revelation 14:6) states that.. "Thy name, O Lord, endureth forever; and Thy Memorial, O Lord, THROUGHOUT ALL GENERATIONS." Psalms 135:13

Do you realize that if you folk here had observed the 7th day Sabbath in all the past, that there would never have bee an atheist.

---John

I'll have to disagree with you here. The memorial is the Name of YHWH. It is saying here that "Your Name, O YHWH, endures forever and [is] Your memorial, O YHWH, throughout all generations".

This is clearly seen here:

Exodus 3:15 And Elohim said moreover unto Moshe, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH, Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

And again, here:

Hosea 12:5 Even YHWH Elohim of hosts; YHWH is his memorial.