TRUTH ON TRIAL 2

Post by unknown
The forth commandment is, keep the Sabbath. Many self righteous men
use the excuse that the Sabbath does not apply to Christians,

I find it ironically amusing that you, a Sabbatarian, should call others
"self-righteous men".

[snip]

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

unknown

2007-11-16 03:01:06 UTC

Post by unknown
The forth commandment is, keep the Sabbath. Many self righteous men
use the excuse that the Sabbath does not apply to Christians,

I find it ironically amusing that you, a Sabbatarian, should call others
"self-righteous men".

Isa 56:6 every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my
covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, This is a requirement for
comming to the mountain. This is the first heaven, which is within you. Heb 8:10 For
this is the covenant .... I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their
hearts: Therefore, selfrighteous men say they are a member of the new covenant, yet
they deny the forth commandment. God did not say to pick and choose, which law you
want to obey. If God cast off the first Israel, because they failed in the covenant.
Why do you think you should escape the same destruction. For God to be fair, you also
must be cast off. Self righteous men saying they know God and do not keep the
commandments, are liars. 1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his
commandments, is a liar,

Therefore, someone could steal #8 your possessions, or kill #6 a family member, and
you have no recourse from God. Because you say that you do not have to keep the
commandments. Where there is no law, there can be no sin. Therefore, all things are
lawful, according to false doctrine. Murder, theft, adultery, are now lawful according
to covenant breakers. Sodomy is a sin, but it is not a covenant breaker. Fornication
is a sin, but not a covenant breaker. You can commit these acts without the fear of
the loss of the covenant. Without the law, there can be line between good and evil.
Of course you could say. This law applys to others, but not me. But that makes you a
hypocrite. Without law, there can be no sinners. Deu 24:16 every man shall be put to
death for his own sin. There is a difference between carnal and spiritual death.

Matthew Johnson

2007-11-19 01:59:02 UTC

Post by unknown
The forth commandment is, keep the Sabbath. Many self righteous men
use the excuse that the Sabbath does not apply to Christians,

I find it ironically amusing that you, a Sabbatarian, should call others
"self-righteous men".

This passage applies to proselytes to Judaism (from the pagans), NOT
to all mankind. So no, it does _not_ proves an obligation for
_Christians_ to observe the Sabbath.

Indeed, how _could_ it, when we have enough other passages that make
it clear that no such obligation can exist? The Sabbath was for man,
not man for the Sabbath, and the Sabbath was a foreshadowing of
Christ. Now that Christ has appeared in the flesh and risen from the
dead, the Sabbath, the shadow, is no longer necessary.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant .... I will put my laws into their

That has got to be the most inaccurate Bible quote I have ever seen in
this NG. Are you deliberately changing the meaning of the Apostle's
word? It looks like it. For this _is_ one of the passages showing that
the old commandmets are superceded.

Now let's look at the _whole_ passage this time:

They [the Sabbath-keepers of the time, the Jews] serve a COPY AND
SHADOW OF THE HEAVENLY sanctuary; for when Moses was about to erect
the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make
everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the
mountain." But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as
MUCH MORE EXCELLENT THAN THE OLD AS THE COVENANT HE MEDIATES IS
BETTER, since it is enacted on better promises. FOR IF THAT FIRST
COVENANT HAD BEEN FAULTLESS, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO OCCASION FOR A
SECOND. For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will
come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the
house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant
that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my
covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. This is the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,
says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on
their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my
people. And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his
brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know me, from the
least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their
iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." IN SPEAKING OF A
NEW COVENANT HE TREATS THE FIRST AS OBSOLETE. AND WHAT IS BECOMING
OBSOLETE AND GROWING OLD IS READY TO VANISH AWAY. (Heb 8:5-13 RSVA)

The _entire_ Old Covenant is obsolete and ready to vanish away. This +included+
Sabbath keeping, as Paul again explains more directly in:

having CANCELED the bond which stood against us with its LEGAL
DEMANDS; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the
principalities and powers and made a public example of them,
triumphing over them in him. THEREFORE LET NO ONE PASS JUDGMENT ON YOU
in questions of food and drink or with regard to a FESTIVAL OR A NEW
MOON OR A SABBATH. THESE ARE ONLY A SHADOW OF WHAT IS TO COME; but the
substance belongs to Christ. (Col 2:14-17 RSVA)

Yes, you are serving shadows instead of Christ.

Therefore, selfrighteous men say they are a member of the new
covenant, yet they deny the forth commandment.

Wrong. That does not follow at all. Rather the opposite is true: those
who serve shadows instead of Christ are the self-righteous men,
shutting themselves out of the Church with their stubbornness.

God did not say to pick and choose, which law you want to obey.

So why are _you_ "picking and choosing"? And yes, you do this
yourself, no matter how loudly you might deny it.

If God cast off the first Israel, because they failed in the
covenant. Why do you think you should escape the same destruction.

Well, if I were a Sabbatarian, I certainly _should_ fear that
destruction. But since I am not, I do not have that fear.

For God to be fair, you also must be cast off.

No, not even close. You have completely failed to understand the
nature of God as revealed so much better in the New Testament (than in
the Old). His justice is greater than human justice _precisely_
because He is merciful.

Self righteous men saying they know God and do not keep the
commandments,

This includes Sabbatarians.

are liars. 1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and
keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,

That makes you the liar, since Christ commanded that we no longer
require Sabbath keeping. Yet here you are requiring it.

Therefore, someone could steal #8 your possessions, or kill #6 a
family member, and you have no recourse from God.

This does not follow either.

Because you say that you do not have to keep the commandments.

Ah, but I never said this. You are putting words in my mouth, based on
your own faulty reasoning. This too is violating the commandments.

Where there is no law, there can be no sin.

You yet again show how badly you have misunderstood the Apostle. He
never said there "can be no sin", he said sin is not _imputed_ where
there is no law. [but what about Rom 4:15] Elsewhere, that there is no
_transgression_ where there is no law. But the early chapters of
Genesis make it VERY clear that there is sin even before the Law was
given. Not every sin has to be a transgression of some law.

You forgot about Rom 5:13:

sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not
counted where there is no law. (Rom 5:13 RSVA)

Therefore, all things are lawful, according to false
doctrine. Murder, theft, adultery, are now lawful according to
covenant breakers. Sodomy is a sin, but it is not a covenant
breaker. Fornication is a sin, but not a covenant breaker. You can
commit these acts without the fear of the loss of the covenant.

But this isn't true, either! Again, you forget about Rom 5:13 -- and
much more besides.

Without the law, there can be line between good and evil.

Finally, you get something right, but it really looks like you did not
even say what you meant to say.

Of course
you could say. This law applys to others, but not me. But that makes
you a hypocrite.

This too is false -- just like so MUCH of what you posted here.

Without law, there can be no sinners. Deu 24:16 every man shall be
put to death for his own sin.

You are quoting out of context -- again. You are forgetting about Rom
5:13 -- again.

There is a difference between carnal and spiritual death.

And you have embraced spiritual death by ensnaring yourself in
Sabbatarianism. For by doing this, you have done the same spiritual
violence to yourself that Paul describes in Rom 10:3, _rejecting_ the
righteousness that is from God, and trying to set up your own.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

unknown

2007-11-20 02:24:38 UTC

Post by unknown
The forth commandment is, keep the Sabbath. Many self righteous men
use the excuse that the Sabbath does not apply to Christians,

I find it ironically amusing that you, a Sabbatarian, should call others
"self-righteous men".

This passage applies to proselytes to Judaism (from the pagans), NOT
to all mankind. So no, it does _not_ proves an obligation for
_Christians_ to observe the Sabbath.

You are wrong. The spiritual mountain was not available untill Jesus founded it. Jesus
also stated that. Mat 5:18 Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. You or no one else can remove
anything from the covenant law. Therefore when you remove the forth commandment from
the Holy and everlasting covenant, you become a covenant breaker.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Indeed, how _could_ it, when we have enough other passages that make
it clear that no such obligation can exist? The Sabbath was for man,
not man for the Sabbath, and the Sabbath was a foreshadowing of
Christ. Now that Christ has appeared in the flesh and risen from the
dead, the Sabbath, the shadow, is no longer necessary.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, There is light from God.
There is a carnal shadow on earth. ( the law ) There is the spiritual law that stands
between the light and this is what cast the shadow.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant .... I will put my laws into their

Jesus will be the Lord in the sabbath, which has not been fulfilled yet. This is the
thousand year reign. The sabbath was made for man, to spend time with God.

Post by Matthew Johnson
That has got to be the most inaccurate Bible quote I have ever seen in
this NG.

I just used only the pertinent part of the verse. I did not change anything as you
say.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Are you deliberately changing the meaning of the Apostle's
word? It looks like it. For this _is_ one of the passages showing that
the old commandmets are superceded.

There are NO old commandments when they are called Holy and everlasting.

Post by Matthew Johnson
They [the Sabbath-keepers of the time, the Jews] serve a COPY AND
SHADOW OF THE HEAVENLY sanctuary;

Now look who is adding and changing things in verses.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The _entire_ Old Covenant is obsolete and ready to vanish away. This +included+

Had you look at the KJV you would see that the word covenant does not exist in this
verse. It is in italics. Heb 8:13. Actually this verse belongs in the ninth chapter.
The chapters were added around the tenth centuary. This was done by the catholics. The
catholic's changed the sabbath to the first day of the week. Thereby making people
covenant breakers. Because they knew that God does not associate with covenant
breakers.

Post by Matthew Johnson
having CANCELED the bond which stood against us with its LEGAL
DEMANDS; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the
principalities and powers and made a public example of them,
triumphing over them in him. THEREFORE LET NO ONE PASS JUDGMENT ON YOU
in questions of food and drink or with regard to a FESTIVAL OR A NEW
MOON OR A SABBATH. THESE ARE ONLY A SHADOW OF WHAT IS TO COME; but the
substance belongs to Christ. (Col 2:14-17 RSVA)

Excuse me! Paul is a false prophet. So I don't count him as anything but a deciever.
Paul by his own words., said he was aborted. That is "not born" but aborted, and unfit
for service. 1 Cor 15:8. The word for BORN means aborted. But you say you follow Paul.
So you can not deny that Paul said, Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just
before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Therefore the law that you
canceled. Shows you are not justified because you do not "DO" the law. Not only do
you not DO the law, you refuse to hear it.

How this got started was. I told of how to get to the mountain of God which is through
the court of the tabernacle. This is a way you have never been. Then I said that a
requirement for coming to the mountain is by keeping the sabbath. Which is what Isaiah
said. So you said "This passage applies to proselytes to Judaism" This is actually a
"cop out" that people use, when they don't understand. So they blame it on the Jews.
The mountain was founded by Jesus. And in the court of the tabernacle is the place
where people are born again. So this passage applies to all belivers. If man or beast
even touch the mountain, they must be killed. So you must be of the spirit to be on
the mountain. The conception takes place in the court of the tabernacle, but the
birth takes place on ZION. Psa 87:5 And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man
was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her. This is the first
Kingdom. Isa. 2:2 For out of Zion shall go forth the law. This law that you refuse to
hear. NO! you don't have to obey God. But you will never come to the mountain.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yes, you are serving shadows instead of Christ.

Therefore, selfrighteous men say they are a member of the new
covenant, yet they deny the forth commandment.

Wrong. That does not follow at all. Rather the opposite is true: those
who serve shadows instead of Christ are the self-righteous men,
shutting themselves out of the Church with their stubbornness.

Pay attention. I did not say to serve shadows. The law is the shadow of the true
spiritual. By the way, his name is not christ. It can be Jesus THE christ. Because
there are many anointed. Be clear which anointed you are speaking to or of.

God did not say to pick and choose, which law you want to obey.

So why are _you_ "picking and choosing"? And yes, you do this
yourself, no matter how loudly you might deny it.

If God cast off the first Israel, because they failed in the
covenant. Why do you think you should escape the same destruction.

Well, if I were a Sabbatarian, I certainly _should_ fear that
destruction. But since I am not, I do not have that fear.

For God to be fair, you also must be cast off.

Off the top, God does not have a nature. God has an essence. To have a nature you must
be from this earth. The essence of God is found in his law. This only shows that you
do not know God. Just like 1 John 2:4 said. Yes God is merciful. But not to people
that willfully continue in sin and willfully lead others into sin. Sin is a
transgresion of the law. This shows you are a follower of Paul. Eleminate or ignore
the law, so you can not be called a sin.

The ways of God are better described in the O.T. When God speaks his word becomes
law. When that word comes to man. It is in the shadow. Therefore men look to the
spiritual, to see what is casting the shadow. When man begins to see the spiritual, he
has crossed over. Therefore no longer carnally minded, but now spiritually minded. But
if man just ignores the carnal shadow. He will never understand the spiritual and
never know God, as he shoud be known. This is the purpose of the commandment. God set
aside one day a week, for man to learn from God. God told this to those in his
kingdom. They are there and ready to instruct, but no one shows up. Because Satan
does not want people to learn about God. So when you deny the sabbath you are doing
the will of Satan, and not God. You are denying the people their right to learn from
God. So who is going to teach them, YOU, a person that does not know God. Because you
deny the Holy covenant laws.

Self righteous men saying they know God and do not keep the
commandments,

This includes Sabbatarians.

are liars. 1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and
keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,

That makes you the liar, since Christ commanded that we no longer
require Sabbath keeping. Yet here you are requiring it.

That is an out right lie. No place did Jesus say to "deny the sabbath". Jesus did say
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: This is for the
least commandment. What about a great commandment. Such as the forth commandment
within the Holy and Everlasting covenant. If you want to throw it out, thats your
choice. But don't try to drag Jesus down to your level of contempt, for the law.

Let me see now. You call me a liar, because I keep the commandments. Yet you say, you
are justified, because you do not "DO" the commandments. Thats a strange
determination.

Matthew Johnson

2007-11-21 02:39:18 UTC

Post by unknown
The forth commandment is, keep the Sabbath. Many self righteous men
use the excuse that the Sabbath does not apply to Christians,

I find it ironically amusing that you, a Sabbatarian, should call others
"self-righteous men".

This passage applies to proselytes to Judaism (from the pagans), NOT
to all mankind. So no, it does _not_ proves an obligation for
_Christians_ to observe the Sabbath.

You are wrong. The spiritual mountain was not available untill Jesus founded it.

Your objection is irrelevant. What the prophet describes is for
proselytes, NOT for all believing Gentiles.

Post by unknown
Jesus also stated that. Mat 5:18 Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be
fulfilled.

You have misunderstood Him. It _has_ been fuffilled -- in His own work
and person.

Post by unknown
You or no one else can remove anything from the covenant
law. Therefore when you remove the forth commandment from the Holy
and everlasting covenant, you become a covenant breaker.

Not at all, since the Old Covenant was made with the Jews, not with
Gentiles. I am under the New Covenant, which _you_ are breaking by
requiring works of the Law.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, There is
light from God. There is a carnal shadow on earth. ( the law ) There
is the spiritual law that stands between the light and this is what
cast the shadow.

Yet again, you toss aside all common sense by mixing the pure words of
Scripture with your own demented ravings. What Heb 10:1 _really_ says
is:

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead
of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same
sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect
those who draw near. (Heb 10:1 RSVA)

There is NOTHING about where the light comes from or what casts the
shadow. All that was your own demented words.

But of course, you could not bear to cite the whole verse, since the
_whole_ verse exposes you for the fraud that you are: the _whole_
verse shows how _powerless_ the Law is, which is embarassing for your
position.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant .... I will put my laws into their

Jesus will be the Lord in the sabbath, which has not been fulfilled
yet. This is the thousand year reign. The sabbath was made for man,
to spend time with God.

What are you talking about? He is Lord OF the Sabbath, not Lord IN the
Sabbath, and He is Lord of the Sabbath already, and has been ever
since at least when Mark 2:28 was written:

so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."
(Mar 2:28 RSVA)

So much for your wild, even anti-christian, judaizing speculation.

Post by Matthew Johnson
That has got to be the most inaccurate Bible quote I have ever seen
in this NG.

I just used only the pertinent part of the verse. I did not change
anything as you say.

Yes, you did change it. See below.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Are you deliberately changing the meaning of the Apostle's word? It
looks like it. For this _is_ one of the passages showing that the
old commandmets are superceded.

You _did_ change the meaning of his words, by omitting some words and
blending his words with your own. The passage does _not_ support you,
not even close.

Post by unknown
There are NO old commandments when they are called Holy and everlasting.

Not true. They are old commandments. This is _clear_ from the
passage. It is even unavoidable.

Post by Matthew Johnson
They [the Sabbath-keepers of the time, the Jews] serve a COPY AND
SHADOW OF THE HEAVENLY sanctuary;

Now look who is adding and changing things in verses.

Not me! Using capitalization for emphasis and parenthetical comments
in brackets is NOT "adding and changing things in verses".

Post by Matthew Johnson
The _entire_ Old Covenant is obsolete and ready to vanish away. This

Had you look at the KJV you would see that the word covenant does not
exist in this verse.

Well, so what? Had I looked at the KJV I would have only seen poor
translation. Besides: had _you_ looked at the Colossians quote, you
would have seen how wrong you are.

But since you are pretending to ignore it, here it is again:

having CANCELED the bond which stood against us with its LEGAL
DEMANDS; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the
principalities and powers and made a public example of them,
triumphing over them in him. THEREFORE LET NO ONE PASS JUDGMENT ON YOU
in questions of food and drink or with regard to a FESTIVAL OR A NEW
MOON OR A SABBATH. THESE ARE ONLY A SHADOW OF WHAT IS TO COME; but the
substance belongs to Christ. (Col 2:14-17 RSVA)

The words of the Apostle are _so_ clear against Sabbath-keeping, you
have to hide from them. You hide from them by calling the chosen
vessel of God an 'false prophet'.

But you can persuade no one with such a diabolical accusation. Unless,
of course, you want to persuade people that you are an enemy of Christ
and of all Christianity. That you have achieved.

Post by unknown
It is in italics. Heb 8:13.

I have already refuted this captious, specious objection in another

Post by unknown
Actually this verse belongs in the ninth chapter.

No.

Post by unknown
The chapters were added around the tenth centuary.

You have misunderstood. The chapter divisions were _standardized_
"around the tenth century". There were chapter divisions before, but
they were not standardized, no one of them was any more authoritative
than another.

In fact, NONE of the chapter divisions are authoritative. Even the
verse divisions are not authoritative.

Post by unknown
This was done by the catholics.

More specifically, it was done by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of
Canterbury since 1205 and proponent of the Magna Carta.

Post by unknown
The catholic's changed the sabbath to the first day of the
week.

No, rather, they made the special day of observation Sunday, the
Lord'd Day. But it is NOT a 'Sabbath'.

Post by unknown
Thereby making people covenant breakers. Because they knew that God
does not associate with covenant breakers.

This is the fallacy known as "circumstantial ad hominem". But it is
only a fallacy, not convincing at all.

Post by Matthew Johnson
having CANCELED the bond which stood against us with its LEGAL
DEMANDS; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the
principalities and powers and made a public example of them,
triumphing over them in him. THEREFORE LET NO ONE PASS JUDGMENT ON
YOU in questions of food and drink or with regard to a FESTIVAL OR A
NEW MOON OR A SABBATH. THESE ARE ONLY A SHADOW OF WHAT IS TO COME;
but the substance belongs to Christ. (Col 2:14-17 RSVA)

Excuse me! Paul is a false prophet.

Whoah! Now you have _really_ let your true colors show! Big mistake!
Most people in this Newsgroup understand that Paul is Christ's chosen
vessel (Acts 9:15), so that contradicting Paul _is_ contradicting
Christ.

So by calling Paul a "false prophet", you are not only contradicting
Luke (who wrote Acts), you are not only contradicting Paul, but you
are contradicting Christ Himself. And yet you would have us believe
your Sabbatarianism is righteous!

Post by unknown
So I don't count him as anything but a deciever.

Newsflash: I don't count YOU as anything but a deceiver.

Post by unknown
Paul by his own words., said he was aborted.

And this is a perfect example of your deception. He said no such thing.

Post by unknown
That is "not born" but aborted, and unfit for service. 1 Cor
15:8. The word for BORN means aborted.

What nonsense is this? The word for BORN is not even IN this verse. It
is "untimely born", not 'born'. And Paul never said he was "untimely born". He
said rather:

ESXATON DE PANTWN _WSPEREI_ TWi EKTRWMATI WFQH KAMOI

WSPEREI (G5619) means "just as if" or "as it were". That is, he is not
saying that he actually _is_ an 'abortion', but that he is "just as if
an abortion". But this is not the same at all.

Post by unknown
But you say you follow Paul.

No, I said no such thing. How can you lie over and over like this and
still claim to follow the commandments? Who do you think you can fool
with such open falsehood?

Post by unknown
So you can not deny that Paul said, Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of
the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be
justified. Therefore the law that you canceled.

Now you have polluted the Bible citation with an utterance that is not
even a sentence: "Therefore the law that you canceled" is NOT a
sentence!

Post by unknown
Shows you are not justified because you do not "DO" the law.

The capitalization show that you started another sentence. Except that
_this_ isn't a sentence, either!

Post by unknown
Not only do you not DO the law, you refuse to hear it.

As long as you keep up these lying accusations, you are broadcasting
to the entire NG that you do not keep the Law.

Post by unknown
How this got started was. I told of how to get to the mountain of God which is
through
the court of the tabernacle. This is a way you have never been.

You haven't either.

Post by unknown
Then I said that a requirement for coming to the mountain is by
keeping the sabbath. Which is what Isaiah said.

You have yet to read Isaiah closely enough to say what he said, and
what he did not say.

Post by unknown
So you said "This passage applies to proselytes to Judaism"

Which is exactly right.

Post by unknown
This is actually a "cop out"

No, it is not a "cop out". And it is you who does not understand. Just
as you did not understand whose word you are really rejecting when you
reject Paul's word.

Post by unknown
that people use, when they don't understand.

No, blaming rejection of the Sabbath commandment on Paul is the
cop-out used by people who don't understand. Especially when they deny
that Paul is Christ's own chosen vessel.

Post by unknown
So they blame it on the Jews. The mountain was founded by Jesus. And
in the court of the tabernacle is the place where people are born
again.

No, it is not. That is your invention. It is not in Scripture, not
anywhere.

Post by unknown
So this passage applies to all belivers.

No, it does not.

Post by unknown
If man or beast even touch the mountain, they must be killed. So you
must be of the spirit to be on the mountain.

That does not follow, either.

Post by unknown
The conception takes place in the court of the tabernacle, but the
birth takes place on ZION.

All speculation. Theologically biased speculation, too. Biased from a
Judaizing 'perspective'.

[snip]

Post by unknown
Pay attention. I did not say to serve shadows.

No, YOU pay attention. I never said you _admitted_ to saying to serve
shadows. No, of course you do not admit it. But you _are_ telling us
to serve shadows.

Post by unknown
The law is the shadow of the true
spiritual.

Which "true spiritual" you militate against with your foolish devotion
to the shadow.

Post by unknown
By the way, his name is not christ. It can be Jesus THE
christ. Because there are many anointed. Be clear which anointed you
are speaking to or of.

Did I say that was His name? Do you even know the diference between
'name' and 'title'?

God did not say to pick and choose, which law you want to obey.

So why are _you_ "picking and choosing"? And yes, you do this
yourself, no matter how loudly you might deny it.

If God cast off the first Israel, because they failed in the
covenant. Why do you think you should escape the same destruction.

Well, if I were a Sabbatarian, I certainly _should_ fear that
destruction. But since I am not, I do not have that fear.

For God to be fair, you also must be cast off.

Off the top, God does not have a nature.

This is wrong, of course.

Post by unknown
God has an essence.

Anything that has an essence has a nature.

Post by unknown
To have a nature you must
be from this earth.

Nonsense.

Post by unknown
The essence of God is found in his law.

Even wilder nonsense. How can His essence be found in a written Law?
The Law is created, but He is essentially uncreated.

It sounds to me rather that you do not even know what 'essence'
means. That would explain why you believe that it is possible for God
to have an essence w/o a anture.

Post by unknown
This only shows that you
do not know God.

No, it is you who do not know God, since you deny Christ's words
spoken through His chosen vessel Paul.

[snip]

Self righteous men saying they know God and do not keep the
commandments,

This includes Sabbatarians.

are liars. 1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and
keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,

That makes you the liar, since Christ commanded that we no longer
require Sabbath keeping. Yet here you are requiring it.

That is an out right lie. No place did Jesus say to "deny the sabbath". Jesus
did say
Mat 5:19

You are quoting Him out of context. Just two verses before He said
"until all has been fulfilled". It _was_ fulfilled in His work at
Calvary.

[snip]

Post by unknown
Let me see now. You call me a liar, because I keep the commandments.

No, I call you a liar, because you SAY you keep the commandments. But
you do not.

Post by unknown
Yet you say, you are justified, because you do not "DO" the
commandments. Thats a strange determination.

That would be a strange determination, but yours is even stranger. For
I did not write about justification at all, yet somehow, you extracted
this out of my words. Now _that_ is strange!

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

unknown

2007-11-26 00:29:56 UTC

Post by unknown
The forth commandment is, keep the Sabbath. Many self righteous men
use the excuse that the Sabbath does not apply to Christians,

I find it ironically amusing that you, a Sabbatarian, should call others
"self-righteous men".

This passage applies to proselytes to Judaism (from the pagans), NOT
to all mankind. So no, it does _not_ proves an obligation for
_Christians_ to observe the Sabbath.

You are wrong. The spiritual mountain was not available untill Jesus founded it.

Your objection is irrelevant. What the prophet describes is for
proselytes, NOT for all believing Gentiles.

So let me see. You paint youself in a corner by making false statements. So now you
want to start over. Well did Isaiah say. You have eye's to see but you can not see.
Actually I learned from you. I always thought people could not see the truth, because
they could not see. But you have convinced me that you can't see, because you just
don't want to.

A proselyte is a new convert. So if Isa 56:6 was only for new converts. When you were
a new convert, were you invited to the mountain. This is the spiritual mountain, that
you have no knowledge of. You have no knowledge of the spiritual tabernacle either.
You have no idea of a trial by fire. I'm not talking about when you are drawn away
with your own lust. I speak of baptism by fire. Which is compleat emersion in fire.
You don't even know that there is no such thing as a believing gentile. When you are
saved you lose your ethnicity, and become a child of the kingdom. It is the biggots
that try to use race in the kingdom. A saved soul, IS a saved soul, no matter which
body it is in.

Post by unknown
Jesus also stated that. Mat 5:18 Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be
fulfilled.

You have misunderstood Him. It _has_ been fuffilled -- in His own work
and person.

Here is another false doctrine of yours, with no foundation. Perhaps you could show me
exactly which word I misunderstood. Let me see, Heaven and earth has not passed away
yet, so the law can not pass away. No, I didn't misunderstand that. I read it like
this. Nothing can pass from the law, TILL "ALL" BE FULFILLED. So lets try the NIV.
Mat 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest
letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until
everything is accomplished. So maybe you should write to those that wrote these books,
and inform them that this verse needs to be removed from the bible. Because you don't
want it to be there. Better yet, why don't you just tell Jesus that he was wrong and
you don't want to believe what he said.

How can you say that the sabbath has been fulfilled, when it can not be fulfilled till
after the thousand. Did Jesus fulfill the law of adultery? Did Jesus fulfill the law
of stealing? I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to steal the people's
right to come to the mountain. I seem to have this problem. I put the word of God
first. Then I put the word of Jesus second. All others come after these.

Psa 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, There can only be one firstborn. Psa
89:30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; :31 If they
break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; :32 Then will I visit their
transgression with the rod, I don't even see a hint of Jesus having the power to
abolish or change the law. Notice how God sayes MY law and MY judgements MY
commandments. So if the law no longer exist because Jesus fulfilled it. Why would God
say. "I WILL" PUNISH.THEM

Post by unknown
You or no one else can remove anything from the covenant
law. Therefore when you remove the forth commandment from the Holy
and everlasting covenant, you become a covenant breaker.

Not at all, since the Old Covenant was made with the Jews, not with
Gentiles. I am under the New Covenant, which _you_ are breaking by
requiring works of the Law.

Exactly where in the covenant is this said. I say, observe the covenant, then you say,
I'm breaking the covenent by telling you to observe it. That makes no sense.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Indeed, how _could_ it, when we have enough other passages that make
it clear that no such obligation can exist?

Let me explain something to you. I don't care if you a million different passages. A
doctrine that is in direct conflict with what Jesus said, is a false doctrine. Perhaps
you may be able to find another way into the kingdom without Jesus. Only then can you
tell people to ignore what Jesus said.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The Sabbath was for man,
not man for the Sabbath,

The sabbath was created for man to spend time with God.

Post by Matthew Johnson
and the Sabbath was a foreshadowing of
Christ. Now that Christ has appeared in the flesh and risen from the
dead, the Sabbath, the shadow, is no longer necessary.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, There is
light from God. There is a carnal shadow on earth. ( the law ) There
is the spiritual law that stands between the light and this is what
cast the shadow.

Yet again, you toss aside all common sense by mixing the pure words of
Scripture with your own demented ravings. What Heb 10:1 _really_ says
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead
of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same
sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect
those who draw near. (Heb 10:1 RSVA)
There is NOTHING about where the light comes from or what casts the
shadow. All that was your own demented words.

Can't you understand something a simple as a shadow. The spiritual light come's from
God. This is why he is called, the God of light. It is not my fault that you have no
knowledge of spiritual things. I tried to tell you that God will not show you
anything, as long as you wilfully break the covenant. The only thing in your mind is
NEW covenant. Therefore, you think that if it is new, it must have new laws. But the
thing is, God said, he would write HIS laws, in their heart. And his laws are not new.
The essence of God is found in his law. Therefore if you change the law you change
God. God does not change. Especially for someone that lets his pride stand between him
and the truth.

In the beginning of Jesus ministry he said, keep the commandments. Mat 19:17 but if
thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. A little while later John said. 1
John 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. 1 John
5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: So after all the
books of the NT were written. With Rev. being written last. Rev 22:14 Blessed are
they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, Then 2000
thousand years later you show up and say, you do not have to keep the commandments.

So you try to convince people that Jesus abolished the commandments. I know that you
are a follower of Paul. Paul did not say that Jesus abolished the Holy covenant
commandments. Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances; The actual Greek word used here for "ordinances"
is "DOGMA" Which is the civil, ceremonial, or ecclesiastical or church law. Only a
fool would call the Holy Covenant commandments "DOGMA" Dogma is only, what is
concidered an authoritative opinion. The law of God, can not be called an opinion.
Jesus did not say, it is God's opinion that you should keep the commandments. Jesus
said, DO IT. Actually Paul even said DO IT. Rom 2:13. Also John said DO IT. Or you
won't know God. 1 John 2:4

Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you could not bear to cite the whole verse, since the
_whole_ verse exposes you for the fraud that you are: the _whole_
verse shows how _powerless_ the Law is, which is embarassing for your
position.

So I'm a fruad, because I see the carnal law as a shadow of the true spiritual. For
since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead
of the true form of these realities, So the carnal law states that an animal must be
slain for a sacrifice for sin. That is the carnal. So Jesus was slain to take the
place of the sacrifice for sin. This was the spiritual. The carnal law is the shadow
of the true spiritual. God was the originator of that (LIGHT ) law. Therefore look to
the shadow, to see the true spiritual. How am I susposed to be embarassed by that? You
know, when you start making false statements, and overly exaggerated statements, you
show your desperation.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant .... I will put my laws into their

Jesus will be the Lord in the sabbath, which has not been fulfilled
yet. This is the thousand year reign. The sabbath was made for man,
to spend time with God.

What are you talking about? He is Lord OF the Sabbath, not Lord IN the
Sabbath, and He is Lord of the Sabbath already, and has been ever
so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."
(Mar 2:28 RSVA)

There is no word "of", in this sentence, I thought you knew something about how the
bible was translated. Sorry, I just assumed that. This was a false assumption on my
part. This word had to be added to make a smooth sentence. The previous word could be
"also" or "even". But the very next word is " HO" G3588 which is the definite artical
"THE." So it could say "of" or " in" or several other words. You seem to have a
problem with ghost words. Or words that don't exist. I have five Greek bibles and none
of them have the word "OF" in them, at this place. I also checked Luke 6: 5. No "OF"
there either.

By using to word "OF" here, the verse has no spiritual association. However, by using
the word "IN". It has association with Isaiah, Psalms, and Revelation. Isa 9:6 and
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting
Father, The Prince of Peace. This will be when he assumes the throne. Jesus will
assume the throne for a thousand years during the sabbath day of the seven thousand
year cycle. Therefore, Lord "IN" the sabbath. See, I have back up for, what I believe,
and I know why I believe it. Yet you say you believe things, that do not exist. You
have become so obsessed with trying to find fault with what I say, you failed to do
your homework.

Matthew Johnson

2007-11-28 04:41:48 UTC

[snip]

Post by unknown
You are wrong. The spiritual mountain was not available untill
Jesus founded it.

Your objection is irrelevant. What the prophet describes is for
proselytes, NOT for all believing Gentiles.

So let me see. You paint youself in a corner by making false
statements.

I haven't made any false statements, much less "painted myself in a
corner".

Post by unknown
So now you want to start over.

Considering the "spiritual mountain" is not "starting over". Pointing
out how irrelevant it is when the mountin became available is not
"starting over" either.

Post by unknown
Well did Isaiah say. You have eye's to see but you can not see.

Funny, I thought he said that about people like you.

Post by unknown
Actually I learned from you.

Not yet you haven't. You are still repeating the same inexcusable
errors.

Post by unknown
I always thought people could not see the truth, because they could
not see. But you have convinced me that you can't see, because you
just don't want to.

And even when you say you 'learn', what you 'learn' isn't even true.

But there are people who cannot see because they refuse to see. You
should have figured this out not from my example, but from your
own. For it is _you_ who refuses to learn how you have plunged
yourself into spiritual death by denying the words of Christ, telling
us that Paul is His Chosen Vessel (Act 9:15).

Post by unknown
A proselyte is a new convert.

Not just _any_ "new convert". Specifically a convert to Judaism. I
said that in my previous post. Did you miss it?

Post by unknown
So if Isa 56:6 was only for new converts. When you were a new
convert, were you invited to the mountain.

No, because at the time Isaiah wrote, there were Jewish converts who
were not yet invited to the mountain.

Post by unknown
This is the spiritual mountain, that you have no knowledge of. You
have no knowledge of the spiritual tabernacle either. You have no
idea of a trial by fire. I'm not talking about when you are drawn
away with your own lust. I speak of baptism by fire. Which is
compleat emersion in fire. You don't even know that there is no such
thing as a believing gentile. When you are saved you lose your
ethnicity, and become a child of the kingdom. It is the biggots that
try to use race in the kingdom. A saved soul, IS a saved soul, no
matter which body it is in.

Post by unknown
Jesus also stated that. Mat 5:18 Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be
fulfilled.

You have misunderstood Him. It _has_ been fuffilled -- in His own work
and person.

Here is another false doctrine of yours, with no foundation.

It is easy for you to make empty accusations like this; isn't it? It
is not 'false' and there is MUCH foundation for it. I even already
gave much of it. You snipped it with no comment other than to REJECT
Christ's words telling us that Paul is His Chosen Vessel (Acts 9:15).

Post by unknown
Perhaps you could show me exactly which word I misunderstood. Let me
see, Heaven and earth has not passed away yet, so the law can not
pass away.

The Law has not passed away. But it is obsolete. Remember Hebrews says
(Heb 8:13) "close to vanishing", NOT "has passed away".

Post by unknown
No, I didn't misunderstand that.

Yes, you did. If only this were the only thing you misunderstood!

Post by unknown
I read it like this. Nothing can pass from the law, TILL "ALL" BE
FULFILLED.

All _what_? And what does 'fulfilled' really mean in this context? It
si the answers to these basic questions that you do not
understand. But you think you _do_ understand, which is what makes
your error so pernicious.

Post by unknown
So lets try the NIV.

No, let's not, since there is no significant difference there.

[snip]

Post by unknown
How can you say that the sabbath has been fulfilled, when it can not
be fulfilled till after the thousand.

How can you not only offend all common sense with such a loaded
question, but even forget to put a question mark at the end?

Post by unknown
Did Jesus fulfill the law of adultery?

You miss the point. "Fulfill the Law" is NOT the same as "carry out
each individual commandment". He fulfilled the Law, the _whole_ Torah,
not any one individual commandment, though He certainly kept them all,
according to the spirit, not the just letter of the Law.

[snip]

Post by unknown
Exactly where in the covenant is this said. I say, observe the
covenant, then you say, I'm breaking the covenent by telling you to
observe it. That makes no sense.

Well, of _course_ what _you_ say makes no sense. But you have
(predictably) confused New and Old covenant.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Indeed, how _could_ it, when we have enough other passages that make
it clear that no such obligation can exist?

Let me explain something to you. I don't care if you a million
different passages. A doctrine that is in direct conflict with what
Jesus said, is a false doctrine. Perhaps you may be able to find
another way into the kingdom without Jesus. Only then can you tell
people to ignore what Jesus said.

And your doctrine is in direct conflict with what Jesus
said. Therefore it it false.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The Sabbath was for man, not man for the Sabbath,

The sabbath was created for man to spend time with God.

That is _Jewish_ dogma, not Christian. Christian dogma is that the Old
Testament Sabbathg, like _all_ the OT ceremonial commands, is a
foreshadowing and antitype of the work of Christ. So the Sabbath was
created to foreshadow Christ's rest after His saving work on Great and
Holy Saturday. But even this 'rest' was work for our salvation.

[snip]

Post by unknown
So I'm a fruad, because I see the carnal law as a shadow of the true
spiritual.

No, you are a fraud because you claim to follow the Law, yet you
slander so many people, even calling Paul a "false prophet" in your
posts.

You are a fraud because you call yourself 'christian', while rejecting
Christ's Chosen Vessel, Paul.

Post by unknown
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead
of the true form of these realities, So the carnal law states that an
animal must be slain for a sacrifice for sin.

You are confusing 'THE Law' with 'carnal law', which you assume in
turn refers only to the law of the sacrifice (as described in
Hebrews). But it does not. When the divinely inspired author of
Hebrews says the law is obsolete, he is referring to the _whole_ OT
Law, not just of the sacrifice.

Post by unknown
That is the carnal.

It is only _one_ example of "the carnal law".

Post by unknown
So Jesus was slain to take the place of the
sacrifice for sin.

He did much more than just this.

Post by unknown
This was the spiritual. The carnal law is the shadow of the true
spiritual. God was the originator of that (LIGHT ) law. Therefore
look to the shadow, to see the true spiritual.

This is all wrong, as explained above.

Post by unknown
How am I susposed to be embarassed by that?

If you knew how badly you are still misreading this passage, you would
indeed be embarassed by it. For this passage does not support you at all.

Post by unknown
You know, when you start making false statements, and overly
exaggerated statements, you show your desperation.

It is you who make the false statements, condemning Paul as a "false
prophet" and in essence calling Luke a liar. And you do a lot of
exaggeration, too. Even your commentary on this passage of Hebrews is
full of exaggerations, many of them by omission of what so clearly
contradicts you, such as:

In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And
what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
(Heb 8:13 RSVA)

Yes, the _entire_ Old Covenant "is becoming obsolete and growing
old". But you _hide_ from this truth, in order to make your fantastic
misreading of the rest of the chapter _look_ believable.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant .... I will put my laws into their

Jesus will be the Lord in the sabbath, which has not been fulfilled
yet. This is the thousand year reign. The sabbath was made for man,
to spend time with God.

There is no word "of", in this sentence, I thought you knew something
about how the bible was translated.

I do. Even by making this captious, nonsensical objection, you show
that it is you who does not know. Of _course_ there is no 'of' in the
Greek, since it uses the plain genitive for this meaning. What Greek
word _were_ you looking for as a counterpart to the English 'of'?

Post by unknown
Sorry, I just assumed that. This was a false assumption on my part.

No, the false assumption was when you assumed _you_ knew something
about how the bible is translated. So you should be sorry, but not for
what you say you are sorry for.

Post by unknown
This word had to be added to make a smooth sentence.

No, it has to be added because in English, we use A OF B to translate
A(nominative case) B (genitive case).

Post by unknown
The previous word could be "also" or "even".

No, it cannot. That would be the conjunction KAI, not the adverb. Yet
the conjunction is impossible here. KAI is a particle, with both
conjunctive and adverbial uses. Hence people sometimes describe it as
"the conjunction KAI" versus "the adverb KAI".

Post by unknown
But the very next word is " HO" G3588 which is the definite artical
"THE."

Wrong again. HO is the _nominative_ case of G3588. But the very next
word it TOU, the _genitive_ case of G3588.

With such a gross misreading, it sounds to me like you are not _even_
reading a Greek bible; it sounds like you are relying on a
concordance, or on an Interlinear.

Post by unknown
So it could say "of" or " in" or several other words.

Dead wrong, for the reason I explained above.

Post by unknown
You seem to have a problem with ghost words. Or words that don't
exist.

Nope. The problem is _purely_ yours.

Post by unknown
I have five Greek bibles and none of them have the word "OF" in them,
at this place. I also checked Luke 6: 5. No "OF" there either.

This only shows you do not even know how to check. You should be
looking for what _case_ the words are in. If you did this, you would
see that ALL of them have "the Sabbath" in the _genitive_ case, TOU
SABBATOU, which means "OF the sabbath".

Post by unknown
By using to word "OF" here, the verse has no spiritual association.

This is nonsense, of course.

Post by unknown
However, by using the word "IN". It has association with Isaiah,
Psalms, and Revelation.

But the word 'in' isn't there, nor is any word in a case that could be
correctly translated as 'in' (such as the dative). So this is just a
highly imaginative fiction of yours.

Post by unknown
See, I have back up for, what I believe, and I know why I believe it.

That is not what I see: what I see is that you pretend to know enough
Greek to "look up in 5 Greek bibles", yet you make a gross mistake
even a first semester Greek student would never make. Why, most
students would know better after just the first _week_ of college
level classes in Greek, Ancient _or_ Modern.

Post by unknown
Yet you say you believe things, that do not exist.

No, that is what you do with your nonsense about "IN the Sabbath".

Post by unknown
You have become so obsessed with trying to find fault with what I
say,

'Obsessed'? Hardly. Why, you have made it all too easy to find fault
with what you say.

Post by unknown
you failed to do your homework.

No, it is you who failed to do it when you came up with so much
absolute nonsense about 'IN', where the text has 'OF'.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

unknown

2007-11-29 02:19:29 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
You are wrong. The spiritual mountain was not available untill
Jesus founded it.

Like I said , You only try to condemn what I say, sentence by sentence. If you ask a
question, I'll answer. But I will ignore your rantings. It doesn't accomplish
anything. You are trying to lead away from what is relevant. You said the old covenant
became old and vanished. I said it did not.

The Greek Byzantine, Westcott-Hort, and Textus Receptus, do not have the word
"covenant" in verse 8:13.

Exo 34:28 And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten
commandments. Exactly which part of the covenant could ware out. If you throw out the
4th commandment Then you must also throw out the 6th, which is, Thou shalt not kill.
If these laws vanished, they no longer exist. Thou shalt not commit adultery would now
be a legal act. It would now be lawful to steal. Exo 34:28 And he wrote upon the
tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. You could follow Chrishna,
because you could put any God, before God. The first commandment.

Of the over 30 gosples written. The catholics chose only 4. You don't know what Jesus
said in the others. Actually, Jesus either repeated or made reference to, all the
covenant commandments, except the first and third. Jesus did, make this statement.
Nothing can pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Mat 5:18

You try to insinuate that I was judging you in the matter of the sabbath. This would
be your reference to Col 2:16. Actually, I said, Isaiah said it was a requirement for
coming to the mountain. So if you feel judged, then blaim Isaiah. As far as the
sabbath day being a holy day. It can not be called a holy day, if it is a day other
wise than proscribed by God. Actually Paul said. Rom 2:13 but the "doers" of the law
shall be justified. Then also Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment
holy, and just, and good. That which is holy and just, does not get old. And certainly
adultery does not get old and ready to vanish.

God did not give man a blank covenant. He didn't give any terms about the new
covenant, except the place of writting. He did not say which laws are covenant laws.
He did say MY laws. So actually, God could be saying, ALL of his LAWS, "MUST" be
applyed as covenant laws. .

By your doctrine, a man could come to your house and commit adultery with your wife.
If you objected, he could just kill you. You could not ask God for justice, because
you desolved the laws that would convict him. Adultery and killing never gets old.
When you see a kid in a store hit his mother, because he didn't get his way. This
action can be laid at your feet. Because it was you, that told them, Honor thy father
and mother got old and vanished, and no longer applys, according to your doctrine. You
can not remove just one law, because you don't like it. You must remove all of them.
ALL TEN commandments are covenant laws.

So I was telling people how to get to the mountain of God. Which is through the court
of the tabernacle. This is a place that you have never been. First comes the trial by
fire on the alter of fire. The covenant commandments were given by God, to Moses, on
the carnal mountain. Now man must come to the spiritual mountain and recieve the law
from God. Those that recieve the law, have those laws written in their heart. So by
listening to you, I know you have never acomplished this. So if you do not have God's
laws, written in your heart, you are not obliged by the new covanant. Therefore, you
have no part in the new covenant. No place said the covenant applies to everyone.

The only place to recieve the covenant laws, is on the spiritual mountain. The
covenant applies to those that will rule in heaven. Those that can not make it to the
mountain, will be servant to those that rule. The tabernacle is laid out as the body
of man. Those that enter into the trunk of the body or "court of the tabernacle" will
be the vital organs of the spiritual body of Jesus. Those that are not attached to the
trunk, are not part of the body.

Denis Giron

2007-11-30 03:41:34 UTC

Post by unknown
Exo 34:28 And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten
commandments.

I'm curious as to where in the text it states that the ten
commandments (and only the ten commandments!) was a law incumbent upon
gentiles. Not that Jewish beliefs are the stick by which Christian
doctrine is measured, but *perhaps* it is worth noting that the Jews
themselves don't seem to believe the ten commandments were a covenant
made with the whole world (rather they argue that the covenant in
Genesis 9 is the one made with the whole world, which today they call
the Noachide mitsvot).

Whatever the case, perhaps we should compare Exodus 12:49, Leviticus
24:22, Numbers 15:16 and Numbers 15:29 with the 15th chapter of Acts.
I mention this because of your appeal to Isaiah. It seems Matthew is
correct, that the passage is referring to concerts to Judaism. But you
disagree. So, consider the passages just mentioned. They all seem to
have a single law for Jew and gentile living amongst Jews. I take that
to be a reference to conversion to Judaism, but in line with how you
approach the passage in Isaiah, one could conclude that gentile
Christians are required to keep all of the Jewish law.

This is where Acts 15 comes into play, as it is there that the Church
(at the Council of Jerusalem) decided what aspects of the Jewish law
gentiles should keep. Notice that we do not see anyone raising a
stink, trying to dispute the Council's decision by citing the passages
in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers I just called to witness. The Bishops
had spoken, that was it. It seems to me that the ultimate lesson to be
derived is that the Church decides the issues, not some competition of
"my private interpretation vs your private interpretation".

It is worth noting that (A) the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts
did not make keeping the sabbath incumbent on gentiles, and (B) the
Church after New Testament times never required such. In fact, it
seems that since the earliest times, Christians kept kyriake, not the
Sabbath, as their chief day of worship. This makes Acts 20:7, 1
Corinthians 16:2, and especially Revelation 1:10 all the more
relevant.

Post by unknown
Of the over 30 gosples written. The catholics chose only 4.
You don't know what Jesus said in the others.

Huh? This surprised me. I had you pegged as a standard Sabbatarian
(i.e. one of these types which reveres the KJV, like the Seventh Day
Adventists, though not necessarily a Seventh Day Adventist). Does the
above mean you believe in other gospels not considered part of the
canon by the broad spectrum of mainstream Christians (i.e.
Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox)?

Whatever the case, I'm not sure I understand such an argument.
Couldn't we presuppose anything from such a vacuum and silence?
Couldn't we make an appeal to a hypothetical lost Gospel which
accurately records Jesus saying emphatically that gentiles don't have
to keep the Sabbath?

Post by unknown
Jesus did, make this statement. Nothing can pass from
the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Mat 5:18

And in what sense do you consider this relevant? Do you believe
gentiles therefore have to follow the entirety of Old Testament Jewish
law? Circumcision? Dietary laws? Stonings?

unknown

2007-12-03 02:12:01 UTC

Post by Denis Giron

Post by unknown
Exo 34:28 And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten
commandments.

You are right. the law is not incumbent upon gentiles. But what is a gentile? The
minute a person is saved, they become a member of the tabernacle of Jesus. Also called
the body of Jesus. The tabernacle in the wilderness was laid out in the form of a man.
Two arms with their three parts. Two legs with their three parts. Four limbs with
three parts each make twelve. The first tabernacle was built to represent the shadow
of the body of Jesus. Jesus is the head of the body, and Jesus was of the house of
Judah. So the whole body is of the house of Judah. So when a person is saved, they
also are of that body, and of the house of Judah, through Jesus. Therefore, no longer
a gentile. I just assumed that everyone knew this, because of what Paul said in Rom
2:28 For he is not a Judaean, which is one outwardly. Therefore, the covenant
commandments are incumbent upon all Israel, including, the house of Judah.

As touching covenants. God made a covenant with Noah. As a token of the covenant, he
set his bow in the clouds. Gen 9:12. The word used for token is 'owth H226. This word
is also used for "a sign". God made a covenant with Abraham. The token or sign of the
covenant was circumcision. Gen 17:11 Then God made a covenant with the people of
Israel. The token or sign was the Sabbath. Exo 31:13 Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep:
for it is a "sign token" between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may
know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Therefore the forth commandment is
the" sign". This token or sign was given to all Israelites, including the house of
Judah. In what is called the new covenant, there was no terms or sign given. There was
nothing given except the words new covenant, and where the laws would be written.
Because people should know that the covenant commandments were incumbent up on Jesus.
So if the commandments are incumbent upon the head of the body. The body must follow
suit.

This also has other ramifications. The beast spoken of in Revelation, is also shown in
Dan 11:30 and have "indignation against" the holy covenant: and have intelligence
with them that "forsake" the holy covenant. I knew that the followers of the beast,
would expose themselves. But I didn't think it would be this early.

Post by Denis Giron
Whatever the case, perhaps we should compare Exodus 12:49, Leviticus
24:22, Numbers 15:16 and Numbers 15:29 with the 15th chapter of Acts.
I mention this because of your appeal to Isaiah. It seems Matthew is
correct, that the passage is referring to concerts to Judaism. But you
disagree. So, consider the passages just mentioned. They all seem to
have a single law for Jew and gentile living amongst Jews. I take that
to be a reference to conversion to Judaism, but in line with how you
approach the passage in Isaiah, one could conclude that gentile
Christians are required to keep all of the Jewish law.

Mal 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb
for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. You are not bound by these laws, but
Malachi said to "remember" them. Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your
heads, There are those in Israel today, that let the hair grow on the front sides of
their head, to keep this law. I think they are called the orthodox. This law is only
the shadow of the true spiritual application. Round equals "To compass". Corners
equals mouths. So thou shalt not "compass" the "mouths" of your heads. Basically
saying, you are not allowed to tell your heads ( leaders ) what to say or what not to
say. Thou shalt not kindle a fire on the Sabbath day. The Sabbath day was made for
man, to spend time with God. A fire is caused by friction. Friction can cause a hostel
state. God does not want to spend time with you, while you are in a hostel state. It
is hard to give instruction when the receiver is on fire. The laws were given in
carnal concrete form. These are the shadow of the spiritual. These are only two
example's and there are many.

Malachi said to "remember" because these laws are good advise, about how to get along
with God. God would not be pleased, if you let someone tell you, not to speak on a
subject, after God told you to do it. God would not be pleased, if he came to instruct
you on ways of peace, and you are on fire or in a hostel state. Thou shalt not eat the
flesh of a pig. I heard of a preacher somewhere in Texas, that would take the
collected money from church and go to Vegas with it. He would come back just in time
to take up another offering. So he would clean himself up, and be presentable to the
people, then he would return to wallowing in the mire. This law is God's way of
telling you, do not eat anything produced spiritually, by this man or this type of
man. Because he is corrupt and you could become corrupt by eating that which is
produced by him. The carnal is the shadow of the spiritual.

I use the reference in Isa. because Isa. said the HOLY mountain. The holy mountain is
Zion. It is clear that God did not intend to bring his people "back" to Sinai. Luke
21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that ""all things which are written"" may
be fulfilled. So if all things are to be fulfilled at the end or last days. The
mountain spoken of by Isa. must have been Zion. This is the mountain that Jesus
founded. Jewish converts could not come to the spiritual mountain. The spiritual
mountain is exclusive to the spiritual Israel. The way to the mountain is through the
court of the tabernacle. One can not enter the court, unless he is a member of the
limbs outside of the court. No one can be a member of the limbs, unless he has been
saved.

Post by Denis Giron
This is where Acts 15 comes into play, as it is there that the Church
(at the Council of Jerusalem) decided what aspects of the Jewish law
gentiles should keep. Notice that we do not see anyone raising a
stink, trying to dispute the Council's decision by citing the passages
in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers I just called to witness. The Bishops
had spoken, that was it. It seems to me that the ultimate lesson to be
derived is that the Church decides the issues, not some competition of
"my private interpretation vs your private interpretation".

Again there are two circumcisions. One carnal, the other spiritual. Where are these
men of these councils? I think they are all dead. Should the living seek answers from
the dead? Especially when there is a living God that has the ability to speak. There
is also a large host of "living messengers" ready to answer questions. The problem is,
on the day set aside by God to instruct, no one show's up. God does not come to you on
your terms, you must come to him on his terms. Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the
LORD than to put confidence in man. And when God puts you on a path of learning Isa
30:21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye
in it, You know that what I'm telling you is possible. But it is not happening to you.
Why not?

As far as circumcision is concerned. No one can be a member of the tabernacle, until
he is circumcised in the heart. This does not place them in the court of the
tabernacle. They are of the arms and legs of the body. The court is reserved for the
vital organs. But the vital organs are taken from the arms and legs. There are ten
long bones in the body. These produce the blood of the body. There are ten
commandments which are the bones of the spiritual body. These produce the blood of the
spiritual body. Which is righteousness. Therefore, the righteous blood of the spirit,
is pumped through the body by the heart, where the laws are written. Righteousness is
doing things right, the way God said to do them right. Isa 51:7 Hearken unto me, ye
that know righteousness, the people in "whose heart" is my law; Those under the new
covenant have these laws "written in their heart".

Post by Denis Giron
It is worth noting that (A) the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts
did not make keeping the sabbath incumbent on gentiles, and (B) the
Church after New Testament times never required such. In fact, it
seems that since the earliest times, Christians kept kyriake, not the
Sabbath, as their chief day of worship. This makes Acts 20:7, 1
Corinthians 16:2, and especially Revelation 1:10 all the more
relevant.

1 Cor 16:2. Upon the first "day" of the week. The word "day" was added by the
translator's. This word is not in the Greek testaments. What this actually said was,"
upon the first of the Sabbaths" For Sabbath, they translated week. So this verse does
not say anything about the first DAY of the week. This would place the time at the
first of the week of Sabbaths, between passover and Pentecost. The same in Acts 20:7.
As far as Rev. 1:10 is concerned. The word "ON" the Lords day, can also be translated
as, IN the Lords day. G1722. Because this is the time he was speaking of. The day of
the Lord or the end time event. In the beginning of the catholic church there were
many Gods in the Roman world, Each had their day as the first day of the week. The
pagans had their "Lords Day" for their God's. The Living God, had his day on the
seventh day. Exo 31:13 for it is a sign between me and you throughout your
generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. So to change
the Sabbath of the Living God, to the day of other Gods is sacrilegious. The writer of
Rev. would not associate the living God, with the day of other God's. Just like they
placed the name of Jesus, among the birthday of the other Gods. The excuse they used
was, by switching days, the pagans, would be worshiping God ignorantly.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by unknown
Of the over 30 gosples written. The catholics chose only 4.
You don't know what Jesus said in the others.

The reason I inserted this is because every time I bring this up, someone will say,
that Jesus never said to keep the Sabbath. So I say. How can you know this, "for
sure" if you know you don't have all the evidence. John 21:25 Actually Jesus did
mention the Sabbath. Mat 24:20. As far as the KJV goes. I use it because most bible
programs are synchronized to match it. I'm familiar with it, and it's vocabulary. I
also know of many mistakes in it. This version is no more biased than the others. If
you were to take a survey right now, you would probably find that 90 percent of the
people using computer based bible programs, are using the KJV. Because it is FREE. So
much for the majority text. Some people don't have a lot of money to buy expensive
programs. They use the free bible programs. Mostly E-sword or OLB. This I have said
though. If you use a bible that does not have a dictionary, such as Strongs, coded to
it, you will be the looser. You have placed the translators, between you and God.
Because translations or interpretations are not always correct. God will stand behind
his word, but he will not honor someone's false interpretation of it. Mat 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and "FEW"
there be that find it. By the meaning of the word FEW. This can not be the broad
spectrum of mainstream believers.

Post by Denis Giron
Whatever the case, I'm not sure I understand such an argument.
Couldn't we presuppose anything from such a vacuum and silence?
Couldn't we make an appeal to a hypothetical lost Gospel which
accurately records Jesus saying emphatically that gentiles don't have
to keep the Sabbath?

I believe I answered this above.

Post by Denis Giron

Post by unknown
Jesus did, make this statement. Nothing can pass from
the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Mat 5:18

And in what sense do you consider this relevant? Do you believe
gentiles therefore have to follow the entirety of Old Testament Jewish
law? Circumcision? Dietary laws? Stonings?

I also think I answered this above. All things spiritual.

Dave

2007-11-16 03:01:07 UTC

Post by unknown
The forth commandment is, keep the Sabbath. Many self righteous men
use the excuse that the Sabbath does not apply to Christians, If the
covenant commandments do not apply to you, the covenant does not apply
to you.

That's right! The old covenant, containing the fourth commandment, was
made with the Jews. As a Gentile, I'm not under the old covenant. As a
Christian, I'm under the new covenant. The new covenant includes many
of the laws of the old covenant, but not all of them. Similarly, the
new covenant includes new laws not included in the old covenant. The
new covenant makes the old one obsolete (Heb 8:13).

Dave

unknown

2007-11-19 01:59:02 UTC

Post by Dave

In Heb. 8:13 the word "covenant is in italics". This means the word was added, and not
from the origional. I guess I'll have to write something showing the true meaning of
"everlasting." Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our
Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the "everlasting"
covenant, Isa 24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because
they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the "everlasting"
covenant. An "everlasting" covenant does not grow old, nor does it become obsolete.
There was only one covenant. The only thing changed is the place where it was written.
The first covenant was carried in a box. The second covenant is in the heart of men.
God did not make a blank covenant with man. When a covenant is made, the terms of the
covenant must be given. Therefore when he said. I will write MY LAWS in their hearts.
These were the same covenant laws he gave to the first Israelites. The first
Israelites refused to continue in the covenant. Then comes you, who also deny the
covenant laws. For God to be fair in judgement, he must also treat you, in the same
mannor, as he did to the other covenant breakers.

Jesus said. Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till "ALL" be fulfilled. The law of
the sabbath has not been fulfilled yet. From Adam till now there has been about six
thousand years. The seventh or the sabbath thousand years has not happened yet.
Therefore it can not pass from the law. Rev 20:6 and shall "reign with him a thousand
years." Only after the thousand years reign, the sabbath will have been fulfilled.
Then it can pass from the law. God works for six thousand years then the people spend
a thousand years with God. This is the fulfillment of one week. The law can not
change untill after the week has been fulfilled.

I was showing how to get to the mountain of God. And I said, this is the way. Yet you,
which has never been that way, say this is wrong. The only way to the mountain is
through the court of the tabernacle. Isa 56:6 every one that keepeth the sabbath from
polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy
mountain, There were two mountains, one carnal, the other spiritual. Jesus founded
Zion, the spiritual mountain. Isaiah specificly stated in prophesy, that a requirement
for coming to the spiritual mountain is, keep the sabbath. If you throw out the law of
the sabbath, you prevent people there rightful place on the mountain of God. A place
you have not been, and you can not go there, because you don't believe Isaiah. Isaiah
said keep the sabbath, and Jesus said the law CAN NOT change. Yet you say, let Isaiah
and Jesus be liars, so that you can continue in false doctrine. To change the law of
God, means to change God. God does not change. The only thing that changes is man's
false interpretation of what God said.

Matthew Johnson

2007-11-20 02:24:34 UTC

Post by Dave

Post by unknown
The forth commandment is, keep the Sabbath. Many self righteous
men use the excuse that the Sabbath does not apply to Christians,
If the covenant commandments do not apply to you, the covenant
does not apply to you.

That's right! The old covenant, containing the fourth commandment,
was made with the Jews. As a Gentile, I'm not under the old
covenant. As a Christian, I'm under the new covenant. The new
covenant includes many of the laws of the old covenant, but not all
of them. Similarly, the new covenant includes new laws not included
in the old covenant. The new covenant makes the old one obsolete
(Heb 8:13).
Dave

In Heb. 8:13 the word "covenant is in italics".

That depends, of course, on which translation you are using. It is not
"in italics" in any translation I would use.

Post by unknown
This means the word was added, and not from the origional.

That is not what it means. It does not mean that it was 'added' under
such circumstances, that it was not "from the original". On the
contrary: it means that it was added because it _is_ logically implied
by the original, but because the structure of Greek is so different
from English, the word itself was not used in the original, necessary
though it is for grammatical completeness in English.

And this is _exactly_ the case in Heb 8:13! For instead of saying
KAINHN DIAQHKHN ("new covenant"), the divinely inspired writer wrote
just KAINHN. But the reader was expected to figure out that he meant
KAINHN DIAQHKHN. How? By seeing that there was no other feminine noun
in the accusative to agree with it, therefore recognising the
'ellipsis'.

This is a very common construction in Greek. So common, that it was
really pedantic for your chosen translation to put it in italics in
the first place.

Post by unknown
I guess I'll have to write something showing the true meaning of
"everlasting."

Writing about the _true_ meaning would be a pleasant change...

Post by unknown
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our
Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of
the "everlasting" covenant, Isa 24:5 The earth also is defiled under
the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws,
changed the ordinance, broken the "everlasting" covenant. An
"everlasting" covenant does not grow old, nor does it become
obsolete.

Ah, but it does. You are resorting to drastic and wrong
misinterpretation of Hebrews to hide from this fact. And your nonsense
about 'covenant' being in italics is only one example of how
drastically wrong you are.

[snip]

Post by unknown
Jesus said. Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till
"ALL" be fulfilled. The law of the sabbath has not been fulfilled
yet.

Yes, it _has_ been fulfilled. It was fulfilled when _Christ_ took the
_real_ Sabbath rest on Holy and Great Saturday, when He rested from
all His work saving fallen Man by re-applying Himself, the creative
Word of God, to our fallen nature.

[snip]

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

unknown

2007-11-21 02:39:19 UTC

Post by Dave

Post by unknown
The forth commandment is, keep the Sabbath. Many self righteous
men use the excuse that the Sabbath does not apply to Christians,
If the covenant commandments do not apply to you, the covenant
does not apply to you.

That's right! The old covenant, containing the fourth commandment,
was made with the Jews. As a Gentile, I'm not under the old
covenant. As a Christian, I'm under the new covenant. The new
covenant includes many of the laws of the old covenant, but not all
of them. Similarly, the new covenant includes new laws not included
in the old covenant. The new covenant makes the old one obsolete
(Heb 8:13).
Dave

In Heb. 8:13 the word "covenant is in italics".

That depends, of course, on which translation you are using. It is not
"in italics" in any translation I would use.

I happen to use the KJV mostly. It explains in the front of the book that words added
by translators, were put in Italics. Sure you would not use a bible like this the KJV.
Because the bible you use accepts falsehood for truth. They know these words were
added, but they did not tell you. Therefore, being deceitful.

Post by unknown
This means the word was added, and not from the origional.

That is not what it means.

Thats exactly what it means. The bible was written in such a way that unjust men could
make it say just about anything. So someone thought that the KJV was inferior. How
does the word of God become inferior.? It doesn't, only the false interpretation
becomes inferior. So someone comes along and makes a new bible or a new Word of God,
acording to their bias. Then another belief or church say, we can do this to. So then
another version comes out. There are over a hundred bibles out and each bible is
different, and each claim to be the word of God. God will stand behind his word, but
he will not stand behind their false interpretation of his word. So man has a choice.
He can put his trust in man, or he can put his faith in the author. God and Jesus are
alive, they can speak to you. But they don't speak to covenant breakers. So if they
are not talking to you. You need to find out what the problem is.

Post by Matthew Johnson
It does not mean that it was 'added' under
such circumstances, that it was not "from the original". On the
contrary: it means that it was added because it _is_ logically implied
by the original, but because the structure of Greek is so different
from English, the word itself was not used in the original, necessary
though it is for grammatical completeness in English.

Lets put it like this. This is a very important word in this sentence. In fact a word
has to be inserted here, for the sentence to make sense. Look at verse 9:1 This verse
has the same problem. The word covenant is in italics. Heb 9:1 Then verily the first
"covenant" had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. It does not
take a lot of smarts to figure out, that the covenant did not have a divine service,
or worldly sanctuary. The temple or tabernacle did though. The temple is the
tabernacle, in it's permanent place. So why would anyone leave out such an important
word? The writer did not. The catholics removed it in their editing. They "want"
people to be covenant breakers. Because if man talked to God, he would find out that
the catholics were the children of Satan. So if your bible does not have "Covenant" in
italics in 9:1. You know for an absulute fact, this word does not belong there. You
might find out that the bible you use, is inferior.

Post by Matthew Johnson
And this is _exactly_ the case in Heb 8:13! For instead of saying
just KAINHN. But the reader was expected to figure out that he meant
KAINHN DIAQHKHN. How? By seeing that there was no other feminine noun
in the accusative to agree with it, therefore recognising the
'ellipsis'.

Who told you this was a divinely inspired writer? The catholics? And you believe
them. Perhaps you should read my part three of this message, thats in this group now.

This does not fit the criteria for an ellipsis. The ellipsis word must be understood
as to the meaning of the missing word. In this instance there could be two or more
words added. Therefore the reader must look to the precedeing verse and the next
verse, or the other words in the sentence. You could use tabernacle or temple or
covenant. So if God changed the covenant, then he would be a covenant breaker. Or as
Satan sayes. Let God be unjust so that man can be true in his delusions. As long as
there was one person alive, that held the covenant in honor. Like the Essenes. God
could not change the covenant. This makes God the sinner. Like I said. verse 8:13
belongs in the next chapter. Now the old tabernacle and temple could decay and vanish.
Because the new spiritual tabernacle was ready to be set up. That is, the body of
Jesus.

It is not absulute that a feminine noun would have to be used here. There is evidence
that this book was written in Hebrew, to the Hebrews, and translated into Greek.
Therefore, is it not dependent upon Greek grammar. The Hebrew Grammar was not used
fully until around eight hundred to a thousand years, after this was written.

Where is it written or have you ever read or even heard of something that is Holy and
everlasting could decay. How many millions of years would it take for stone to decay.
Stone does not vanish. So the covenant written in stone can not decay or vanish away.
If it is the words that decay, then all promises are in danger of decay. Acording to
you. If Holy things can decay maybe we should worry about God decaying and vanishing
away.

Mat 5:18 Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till "ALL" be fulfilled. Thou shalt not kill. They are still killing, so this
law has not been fulfilled. They still commit adultery. This has not been fulfilled.
If these laws have not been fulfilled, they can not pass away. Or maybe Jesus just
lied. So you have a choice. You can listen to Jesus, who said, nothing in the law can
pass away. Or you can believe a unknown writer. No one knows who wrote this book.
Some have guessed that it was Paul, but that is false, because it is to advanced for
one that was aborted. But you won't admit that.

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is a very common construction in Greek. So common, that it was
really pedantic for your chosen translation to put it in italics in
the first place.

Post by unknown
I guess I'll have to write something showing the true meaning of
"everlasting."

Writing about the _true_ meaning would be a pleasant change...

Actually, if you were honest, you would have tried to fine out if this was true. It
is true, and it is you that is wrong, again. BUT, Are you willing to stake your
eternal life on a word that does not exist? OR, will your pride prevent you.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Yes, it _has_ been fulfilled. It was fulfilled when _Christ_ took the
_real_ Sabbath rest on Holy and Great Saturday,

You just made that up didn't you. This is really a feeble answer. You have nothing to
back this up. You sound like someone that is really getting desperate. It's really a
shame when pride prevents men, from being honest with themselves and others.

Post by Matthew Johnson
when He rested from
all His work saving fallen Man by re-applying Himself, the creative
Word of God, to our fallen nature.

The work of Jesus is not compleat. His long time work and purpose, began on the other
side. His work here was finished. He had to prove that spiritual birth could be
acomplished. Did you think Jesus went to the other side to lay around and eat donuts
all day. I guess you have absulutely no idea of what takes place on the other side.

Matthew Johnson

2007-11-26 00:29:55 UTC

[snip]

Post by unknown
In Heb. 8:13 the word "covenant is in italics".

That depends, of course, on which translation you are using. It is
not "in italics" in any translation I would use.

I happen to use the KJV mostly.

That is a big mistake already. But not as big as ignoring the
Colossians quote I gave you, which does _not_ have the ellipsis. And
even that is not as big a mistake as your rejection of Paul, Christ's
chosen vessel.

Post by unknown
It explains in the front of the book that words added by translators,
were put in Italics.

True. But what you have not yet understood is WHY the added the words.

Post by unknown
Sure you would not use a bible like this the KJV.

Just as I would never say "like this the KJV". I know better.

Post by unknown
Because the bible you use accepts falsehood for truth.

No, I use the original, especially for the NT.

Post by unknown
They know these words were added, but they did not tell
you. Therefore, being deceitful.

No, it is you who is being deceitful. Stubborn, too. I have already
explained to you why you are dead wrong when you make such claims
about "added words". But did you learn a thing? No, you did
not. Instead, you repeated your absolute nonsense.

But then, as if this was not wicked enough for you, you called Paul a
"false prophet".

Post by unknown
This means the word was added, and not from the origional.

That is not what it means.

Thats exactly what it means.

No, it isn't.

Post by unknown
The bible was written in such a way that unjust men could make it say
just about anything.

Which is what you are doing. You are not even doing it very well!

Post by unknown
So someone thought that the KJV was inferior. How does the word of
God become inferior.? It doesn't,

The KJV is NOT "the word of God". It is a late and theologically
biased _translation_ of the word of God.

Post by unknown
only the false interpretation becomes inferior.

In other words, YOUR interpretation becomes inferior.

Post by unknown
So someone comes along and makes a new bible or a new Word of God,
acording to their bias.

Ah, but this is what YOU do when you insist on deleting the words the
KJV put in italics.

Post by unknown
Then another belief or church say, we can do this to.

Which is exactly what YOU do when you insist on deleting the words the
KJV put in italics.

Post by unknown
So then another version comes out. There are over a hundred bibles
out and each bible is different, and each claim to be the word of
God. God will stand behind his word, but he will not stand behind
their false interpretation of his word.

Nor behind _your_ false intepretation.

Post by unknown
So man has a choice. He can put his trust in man, or he can put his
faith in the author. God and Jesus are alive, they can speak to
you. But they don't speak to covenant breakers. So if they are not
talking to you. You need to find out what the problem is.

Newsflash: it is not God who is talking to you. You are being deceived.

Post by Matthew Johnson
It does not mean that it was 'added' under such circumstances, that
it was not "from the original". On the contrary: it means that it
was added because it _is_ logically implied by the original, but
because the structure of Greek is so different from English, the
word itself was not used in the original, necessary though it is for
grammatical completeness in English.

Lets put it like this.

No, let's not.

Post by unknown
This is a very important word in this sentence. In fact a word has to
be inserted here, for the sentence to make sense. Look at verse 9:1
This verse has the same problem.

No, the problem is not the same. You have yet again completely
misunderstood. Here, there are textual differences behind the "missing
word". That is WHY some manuscripts have SKHNH (tabernacle_ in this
passage. But these were late Byzantine manuscripts only. They just
happened to be the ones the KJV followed. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of
Greek manuscripts (including the earliest and best) do NOT have this
word. Even the earliest translations lack it.

Post by unknown
The word covenant is in italics.

Again: not in any translation I would use.

Post by unknown
Heb 9:1 Then verily the first "covenant" had also ordinances of
divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. It does not take a lot of
smarts to figure out, that the covenant did not have a divine
service, or worldly sanctuary.

What are you talking about? Of _course_ it did have both these things.

Post by unknown
The temple or tabernacle did though. The temple is the tabernacle, in
it's permanent place.

Another example of your perverse persistence in total ignorance! No,
the tabernacle is NOT in the temple. It hasn't been there for years,
nor did it start out there.

Post by unknown
So why would anyone leave out such an important
word?

Because it wasn't there in the FIRST place.

Post by unknown
The writer did not.

The writer did NOT write that word.

Post by unknown
The catholics removed it in their editing.

This is another example of your shameful lying and slander. You will
not escape punishment for this.

Post by unknown
They "want" people to be covenant breakers.

How typical of a Sabbatarian! You slander millions, and then deepen
your slander further. And yet you would tell us you keep the Law? You
fool only yourself with such gross, diabolical dishonesty.

Post by unknown
Because if man talked to God, he would find out that
the catholics were the children of Satan.

No, it is the Sabbatarians who are the "children of Satan". You make
this crystal clear by rejecting the chosen vessel of Christ,
Paul. Paul _did_ talk to God, you know.

Post by unknown
So if your bible does not have "Covenant" in
italics in 9:1. You know for an absulute fact, this word does not belong there.
You
might find out that the bible you use, is inferior.

Now that would be funny, if your delusion were not so tragic: the
bible I use cannot be inferior to the KJV, since I use it in the
original language and the best manuscript traditions.

Post by Matthew Johnson
And this is _exactly_ the case in Heb 8:13! For instead of saying
just KAINHN. But the reader was expected to figure out that he meant
KAINHN DIAQHKHN. How? By seeing that there was no other feminine
noun in the accusative to agree with it, therefore recognising the
'ellipsis'.

Who told you this was a divinely inspired writer? The catholics? And
you believe them. Perhaps you should read my part three of this
message, thats in this group now.

I read it. It was all falsehood. You will answer for this at the Last Judgment.

Post by unknown
This does not fit the criteria for an ellipsis. The ellipsis word must be
understood
as to the meaning of the missing word.

And it _is_ so understood. Except by recalcitrants such as yourself.

Post by unknown
In this instance there could be two or more
words added.

Nope.

Post by unknown
Therefore the reader must look to the precedeing verse and the next
verse, or the other words in the sentence.

Well, duh! Don't you know? This entire epistle was read aloud to the
congregation(s) it was written to. So of _course_ they looked to the
preceding verse.

Post by unknown
You could use tabernacle or temple or covenant.

And the meaning is the same no matter which of these you assume. For
the worship service of the Old Covenant _did_ take place in/at the
tabernacle. Until, of course, the tabernacle disappeared.

Post by unknown
So if God changed the covenant, then he would be a covenant breaker.

Nonsense. He had the right to change it.

Post by unknown
Or as
Satan sayes. Let God be unjust so that man can be true in his delusions.

Sounds like a description of Sabbatarianism to me.

Post by unknown
As long as there was one person alive, that held the covenant in
honor. Like the Essenes. God could not change the covenant. This
makes God the sinner. Like I said. verse 8:13 belongs in the next
chapter. Now the old tabernacle and temple could decay and vanish.

You are repeating yourself. It was wrong the first time you said it,
and it is still wrong now.

Post by unknown
Because the new spiritual tabernacle was ready to be set up. That is,
the body of Jesus.

The Jesus whom you deny, when Jesus calls Paul his "chosen vessel"?
(Acts 9:15)

Post by unknown
It is not absulute that a feminine noun would have to be used here.

Yes, it is. It has to be either a noun or substantive (the logical
equivalent of a noun). And even more obviously, it has to be feminine.

Post by unknown
There is evidence that this book was written in Hebrew, to the
Hebrews,

So what? We have only the Greek, not the presumptive Hebrew
original. So that Greek is what we go by. Besides: that 'evidence' is
pretty thin. Very few still believe it was originally written in
Hebrew. That claim was an early attempt to explain why the style of
Hebrews is so different from Paul's style everywhere else.

Post by unknown
and translated into Greek.

Then it was the _translator_ who left it out. What? Aren't you aware
that the translator would have to be inspired also? If, that is, he
exists at all. But the style of the whole Epistle strongly suggests
that it was originally written in Greek. Why, for example, would a
Hebrew original refer to the LXX of the Psalms? Yet this is _exactly_
what Hebrews does.

Post by unknown
Therefore, is it not dependent upon Greek grammar.

Sure, it is dependent on it, as explained above.

Post by unknown
The Hebrew Grammar was not used fully until around eight hundred to a
thousand years, after this was written.

This is not only nonsense, it is irrelevant nonsense.

Post by unknown
Where is it written or have you ever read or even heard of something
that is Holy and everlasting could decay. How many millions of years
would it take for stone to decay.

Who said that the covenant _decayed_? Not me.

Post by unknown
Stone does not vanish.

Sure, it does. It just does it very slowly, except under very
exceptional circumstances.

Post by unknown
So the covenant written in stone can not decay or vanish away.

Sure, it can.

Post by unknown
If it is the words that decay, then all promises are in danger of
decay. Acording to you. If Holy things can decay maybe we should
worry about God decaying and vanishing away.

You are being ridiculous. Have you never read the rest of Hebrews?

Post by unknown
Mat 5:18 Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law, till "ALL" be fulfilled. Thou shalt not
kill. They are still killing, so this law has not been
fulfilled. They still commit adultery. This has not been fulfilled.

You do not understand what 'fulfilled' means.

[snip]

Post by unknown
"everlasting."

Writing about the _true_ meaning would be a pleasant change...

And I see the challenge was too much for you. You haven't written
about any "true meaning" yet.

Post by unknown
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead
our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood
of the "everlasting" covenant, Isa 24:5 The earth also is defiled
under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the
laws, changed the ordinance, broken the "everlasting" covenant. An
"everlasting" covenant does not grow old, nor does it become
obsolete.

Ah, but it does. You are resorting to drastic and wrong
misinterpretation of Hebrews to hide from this fact. And your
nonsense about 'covenant' being in italics is only one example of
how drastically wrong you are.

Actually, if you were honest,

You are the dishonest one, not me. And for some bizarre reason, you
insist on posting more and more evidence of your gross
dishonesty. First, you call Luke and Paul liars, then you call all
Catholics liars and worse.

Anyone who has to stoop so low to such slander must do it because he
is enslaved to the devil.

Post by unknown
you would have tried to fine out if this was true.

Why would I do that? I already know it is false. Only a fool "tries to
found out if it is true", when he already knows it is false.

Post by unknown
It is true,

No, it is false.

Post by unknown
and it is you that is wrong, again.

No 'again' here, since I haven't been wrong in this thread yet.

Post by unknown
BUT, Are you willing to stake your eternal life on a word that does
not exist? OR, will your pride prevent you.

It is you, not I who staked your eternal salvation on something so
fragile. No wonder you still have no answer for the Colossionas quote,
except for the mad delirium of denying that Paul was Christ's chosen
vessel.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Jesus said. Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law, till "ALL" be fulfilled. The law of the sabbath has not been
fulfilled yet.

Yes, it _has_ been fulfilled. It was fulfilled when _Christ_ took the
_real_ Sabbath rest on Holy and Great Saturday,

You just made that up didn't you.

Nope. It has been the common understanding among theologically
educated Christians since about AD170. It was first written down in
Melito of Sardis's Paschal Sermon.

Post by unknown
This is really a feeble answer.

Not at all.

Post by unknown
You have nothing to back this up.

How would you know? Already, in your very brief time in this NG, you
have shown yourself thoroughly incompetent at both hermeneutics and
even elementary logical reasoning. You are in no position to tell
otherws when they have something to back them up or not.

Post by unknown
You sound like someone that is really getting desperate.

Only in your vivid and perverse imagination.

Post by unknown
It's really a shame when pride prevents men, from being honest with
themselves and others.

Yes, it is a shame when men do this. Often, such men turn to
Sabbatarianism to excuse their arrogant pride, just as Paul mentioned
in Rom 10:3 about the Sabbath-keepers of his day. Just as you are
doing now.