Hebrews 4:9 rediscovered

[Darrell C]

All that scripture says is there is Gentiles will seek God.

There is no scripture YET to counter the Judiazer's position.

Had Peter had a King James version bible he would have quoted Paul's by faith rather then law.


We don't read a vote of 50 Judiazers vs 50 gentiles. Its Peter's judgment not scriptures.

He saw Gentiles get the Holy Spirit without needing Jewish Law. And God without distinction gave holy spirit to Jews and Gentiles.

If the law was like a flint and tinder to start a fire that no one knew how to make work. The gentiles already had a fire did not need the law.

A ruling and judgment had to be made by the church.

What was previously thought necessary, Jewish Law, was obviously not it is by faith. They are in the midst of learning this and later it does become or realized as doctrine.

First, it is James, not Peter, who appeals to the Scripture that was in place in that day.

Secondly, he uses what has been written to explain what is going on with the Gentiles (in regards to salvation).

Third, I have no idea what you are trying to say in...

Had Peter had a King James version bible he would have quoted Paul's by faith rather then law.

Fourth, the Gentiles very much had "The Law" written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15).

Fifth, you undermine the very Covenant God Himself established and expected to be obeyed.

Which Christ did.

We don't fail to distinguish between the will of God as expressed in the Covenant of Law and the Covenant itself. It is the Covenant that has been abrogated, not the will of God as expressed in the Law. IT is still, for example, still against the will of God to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc.

Lastly, and most importantly for you, I think, is that it is necessary to understand that the Church did not "make a ruling." Gentile Inclusion is but one of the many Promises of God fulfilled in and by Jesus Christ.


God bless.

 

[utilyan]

First, it is James, not Peter, who appeals to the Scripture that was in place in that day.

Secondly, he uses what has been written to explain what is going on with the Gentiles (in regards to salvation).

Third, I have no idea what you are trying to say in...

Had Peter had a King James version bible he would have quoted Paul's by faith rather then law.

Fourth, the Gentiles very much had "The Law" written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15).

Fifth, you undermine the very Covenant God Himself established and expected to be obeyed.

Which Christ did.

We don't fail to distinguish between the will of God as expressed in the Covenant of Law and the Covenant itself. It is the Covenant that has been abrogated, not the will of God as expressed in the Law. IT is still, for example, still against the will of God to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc.

Lastly, and most importantly for you, I think, is that it is necessary to understand that the Church did not "make a ruling." Gentile Inclusion is but one of the many Promises of God fulfilled in and by Jesus Christ.


God bless.

The Church did make a ruling else no point in having a council at all.

I never said Peter quoted scripture but that if they had a King James bible he would have.

Nothing inside what James quotes indicates that Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish Law.

Acts 15

8“And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

GOD testifies giving them the holy spirit. In a nutshell Peter is saying GOD HAS SPOKEN, these Gentiles have the holy spirit and we would be putting God to the test by requiring them to follow Jewish Law.

"Fourth, the Gentiles very much had "The Law" written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15)."

Peter didn't have a copy of King James to cite Romans. And all romans does is show that Jews are not superior to Gentiles. None of it saves Gentiles or Jews, we are saved through the grace of Jesus Christ.

Keep in mind:

Acts 15
6The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up...

The apostles and elders had MUCH DEBATE. So its obvious they considered having Gentiles follow the Law, the game breaker was GOD HIMSELF testifying to them by giving them the holy spirit.

Even your very best theologians will admit Jesus, the apostles and hearers of our lord did not follow sola scriptura. Name one who does, so I can go study him. That would be a interesting read.

 

[Darrell C]

The Church did make a ruling else no point in having a council at all.

I never said Peter quoted scripture but that if they had a King James bible he would have.

Nothing inside what James quotes indicates that Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish Law.

Acts 15

8“And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

GOD testifies giving them the holy spirit. In a nutshell Peter is saying GOD HAS SPOKEN, these Gentiles have the holy spirit and we would be putting God to the test by requiring them to follow Jewish Law.

"Fourth, the Gentiles very much had "The Law" written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15)."

Peter didn't have a copy of King James to cite Romans. And all romans does is show that Jews are not superior to Gentiles. None of it saves Gentiles or Jews, we are saved through the grace of Jesus Christ.

Keep in mind:

Acts 15
6The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up...

The apostles and elders had MUCH DEBATE. So its obvious they considered having Gentiles follow the Law, the game breaker was GOD HIMSELF testifying to them by giving them the holy spirit.

Even your very best theologians will admit Jesus, the apostles and hearers of our lord did not follow sola scriptura. Name one who does, so I can go study him. That would be a interesting read.

Return to topic.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Nothing inside what James quotes indicates that Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish Law.

Acts 15

8“And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

I will point out what is said to save:

9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”


Now, you said...

A ruling and judgment had to be made by the church.

Do you believe this "ruling?"


God bless.

 

[utilyan]

I will point out what is said to save:

9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”


Now, you said...




Do you believe this "ruling?"


God bless.

That sounds right.

 

[utilyan]

Return to topic.


God bless.

Well the point on topic is Sabbath keeping was Jewish Law. The Sabbath was alien to gentiles so much James had to explain it to them.

Also for them to keep the Sabbath successfully they would have to be circumcised.

John 7

23“If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath?

Acts 15
1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”


There is a reason Jesus calls circumcision on sabbath Law of Moses rather then Law of Abraham.

There is a reason the Judaizers call it according to the custom of Moses.

The custom of Moses is what is at stake here. And part of the custom of Moses is the Sabbath keeping.



Acts 15

28“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
29that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”


You think they would have mentioned the essential burden of Sabbath keeping. I would be impressed to see this. With all phones, TV's, cable, internet, electricity, water all turned off as to not cause others to work ect.

 

[Darrell C]

Well the point on topic is Sabbath keeping was Jewish Law.

I prefer just to revisit Hebrews 4:9, though the term "rediscovered" might be appropriate in how it is being used, lol.


Hebrews 4:9

King James Version (KJV)


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


The "rest" here has nothing to do with the Sabbath of the Law.

The Sabbath was alien to gentiles so much James had to explain it to them.

James makes no mention of the Sabbath, he addresses whether Gentiles had to keep the Law in general.

The short answer is no, because both Jew and Gentile are saved by grace through faith...

...not through works:


Hebrews 4

King James Version (KJV)



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


10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.


The point the writer is making is that those who fell in the Wilderness did not enter into the rest promised them because they were unbelievers, and likewise, those who do not believe in the writer's day will likewise not enter into the Rest which was foretold by Scripture (first in the promise given them by God as they were in the Wilderness, then through David, which again his point being...that wasn't the ultimate rest of Prophecy).

John 7

23“If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath?

Acts 15
1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Christ's point is that the Priests...worked on the Sabbath. Yet His detractors condemned Him for healing a man.

Again, this has nothing to do with what the Writer of Hebrews is conveying to us.

There is a reason Jesus calls circumcision on sabbath Law of Moses rather then Law of Abraham.

There is a reason the Judaizers call it according to the custom of Moses.

The custom of Moses is what is at stake here. And part of the custom of Moses is the Sabbath keeping.

It is "the Law of Moses," which is not what the Covenant of Law was. Moses did not establish the Covenant, God did. Similarly Christ stated "You have heard it said," which distinguishes what is written from what is said, or...oral tradition and the doctrines of men.

Circumcision predates the Covenant of Law, so we get into a little more complicated issue, I feel. Think about it, one could argue that because it predates the Law (which was abrogated in light of the establishment of the New Covenant)...it should still be carried out.

But again, this is not relevant to the passage in view. The attempt to use this passage to undergird legalism is absurd.

Acts 15

28“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
29that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”


You think they would have mentioned the essential burden of Sabbath keeping.

Why?

If you notice, James does not say "If you do these things you will be saved," but, "...you will do well."

In view is interaction between Gentiles and Jews, a volatile issue in this day, and we can see that adherence to the Law earned Peter the title of Hypocrite (Galatians 2:9-14). They, the Gentiles, would do well in this interaction if they did not offend the sensibilities of people who had their entire lives lived under Law. Secondly, there is no command for a Jew to throw off his heritage. If a Jew decided he would still not eat unclean animals, that was his right. If he decided to observe Passover, that was his right.

The problem was with the Judaizers telling Gentiles they must adhere to the Law in order to be saved.

And that is in conflict with the Gospel of Christ.

I would be impressed to see this. With all phones, TV's, cable, internet, electricity, water all turned off as to not cause others to work ect.

Christ made it clear that to do good on the Sabbath, even if it appeared to be "work," was the will of God. That was, in fact, the point of the Law altogether. That men would love God and love their fellow man as God loves them.

But we go back to what the Writer of Hebrews states and see that when one enters into the Rest promised by God there is a completion of "works."




Hebrews 4

King James Version (KJV)



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


10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.


Again, to try to use this as a proof-text for Sabbath Keeping defiles this Chapter and Book, and stands in direct contradiction with what Paul taught here:



Colossians 2:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:



God bless.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It simply looks at those who do not understand the difference between the "rest" given Israel in the physical, and the Rest we have in Christ.

I fail to see a <<"rest" given Israel in the physical>> in Hebrews anywhere.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I prefer just to revisit Hebrews 4:9, though the term "rediscovered" might be appropriate in how it is being used, lol.

Revisit you will forever and NEVER through your tears for ROFL will be able to see the appropriateness of Hebrews 4:9 rediscovered, shame.

Hebrews 4:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

The "rest" here has nothing to do with the Sabbath of the Law.

<<The "rest" here>> which Darrell C claims he sees, <<has nothing to do with>> the "Sabbath for the People of God a keeping of, is being evinced" in Hebrews 4:9.

That I guarantee him ROFL!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

James makes no mention of the Sabbath, he addresses whether Gentiles had to keep the Law in general.
The short answer is no, because both Jew and Gentile are saved by grace through faith...

The skewest, most miserable and faked view of the Gospel of Jesus Christ I have seen in my life!

 

[Darrell C]

I fail to see a <<"rest" given Israel in the physical>> in Hebrews anywhere.

I'll show it to you:


Hebrews 3
King James Version (KJV)

7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,


8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:


9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.


10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.


11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)


The "rest" in view is the land itself. That is what they did not enter. And this because of unbelief:


Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)

1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.


Now the next statement speaks from a perspective of viewing the past event:


7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.


It is Joshua in view here, rather than our Lord. That is the point he makes to his people, that the land wasn't the rest that was ultimate, else why would David speak of it again.

Here is an example of the "rest" promised:



Deuteronomy 12:8-10
King James Version (KJV)

8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.

9 For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God giveth you.

10 But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety;


The point is that those who were unbelieving did not enter. That same standard applies today. Not even Moses was immune to this standard:



Deuteronomy 32:48-52

King James Version (KJV)


48 And the Lord spake unto Moses that selfsame day, saying,

49 Get thee up into this mountain Abarim, unto mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, that is over against Jericho; and behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel for a possession:

50 And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people:

51 Because ye trespassed against me among the children of Israel at the waters of MeribahKadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel.

52 Yet thou shalt see the land before thee; but thou shalt not go thither unto the land which I give the children of Israel.



While some may deny a rest was given those who entered into the land, we have to take what the Writer states as it is given. It is clear that rest was denied...only to the unbelievers. That implies that rest was given to those who entered the land. There are numerous texts we could look at concerning the concept of "rest" in the Pentateuch, but it is just as easy to start with rest on Strong's Concordance. The rest in view is temporal, and goes back to "rest" from bondage (to Egypt), and even rest from being a people without a land, and from their enemies.

And if you don't mind, I will just take us back to Ch.3:


Hebrews 3:14-19
King James Version (KJV)

14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.


Not all were unbelieving, but, those who were did not enter into His rest. Their carcasses stayed in the Wilderness. This presents the same ratio the Lord did in His teachings, a many/few ratio.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Revisit you will forever and NEVER through your tears for ROFL will be able to see the appropriateness of Hebrews 4:9 rediscovered, shame.

It was never lost.

How then can we "rediscover it?"

Darrell C said: ↑

Hebrews 4:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

<<The "rest" here>> which Darrell C claims he sees, <<has nothing to do with>> the "Sabbath for the People of God a keeping of, is being evinced" in Hebrews 4:9.

I quite agree.

Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)

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


Because the Sabbath is not what God Promised.In view is a resting from works, not being brought under bondage to the Law again.

And again, as pointed out earlier, you violate a pretty clear teaching:



Colossians 2:16
King James Version (KJV)

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:


Romans 14
King James Version (KJV)

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.


You disregard this teaching with your own:

<<Christ cancelled the Sabbath Law on the cross; it no longer is valid for Christians.>>


But what does the Scripture, Hebrews 4:9, say? It says, "A Sabbath Rest Day remains for the People of God." [apoleipetai Sabbatismos tohi Laohi tou Theou]

That I guarantee him ROFL!

Not sure you can guarantee it if you don't agree, lol.

The "rest" received by Israel through receiving the land was a picture of the Rest we have in Christ.

It has nothing to do with keeping the Sabbath,

Darrell C said: ↑

James makes no mention of the Sabbath, he addresses whether Gentiles had to keep the Law in general.
The short answer is no, because both Jew and Gentile are saved by grace through faith...


The skewest, most miserable and faked view of the Gospel of Jesus Christ I have seen in my life!

So point out what is "fake." Love to discuss it with you.


God bless.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

But we go back to what the Writer of Hebrews states and see that when one enters into the Rest promised by God there is a completion of "works."

Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Hebrews in 4:9,10 in no manner states <<one enters into the Rest>>. It states "JESUS having entered into His own Rest as God in his own gave the People of God Rest" -- THROUGH HAVING RAISED FROM THE DEAD.

There is no <<completion of "works">> of any <one> audacious braggart in Hebrews 4:9 or in the whole of the Letter for that matter. Hebrews 4:4 on the contrary states that "GOD, from all HIS works rested the day The Seventh Day".

Who are those who claim <<God loves them>>, as they are <<entered into rest>> and <<ceased from own works>> and <<love God and their fellow man>> in obedience to Hebrews 4:9? SEEN HERE, Christians! Christians so called, supposed to be -- the very ones who hate, while saying they love; who hate the Sabbath and, saying they love all, hate whoever "eating and drinking of Sabbaths' Feast of Christ, holding to the Head receive Nourishment ministered."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The "rest" received by Israel through receiving the land was a picture of the Rest we have in Christ.

WHERE do you <read> "The "rest" received by Israel through receiving the land" in Hebrews? YES, NOWHERE! And the very fact <<It has nothing to do with keeping the Sabbath>> proves it's NOWHERE in Hebrews where it is written <<The "rest" received by Israel through receiving the land was a picture of the Rest we have in Christ>>!

There is only one "Rest" written in Hebrews, GOD'S Rest, 'katapausis TOU THEOU'. NO <<"rest" received by Israel through receiving the land>> which <<was a picture of the Rest we have in Christ>>!

WHAT BLASPHEMOUS FICKLENESS to base GOD'S Promises and Assurances and Oath and Covenant <<of the Rest we have in Christ>> on!

‘Sabbatismos tohi Laohi tou Theou’- "a Sabbath Day of Rest of God for the People" is based on Jesus Christ the ‘Katapausis tou Theou’- “The Rest of God”; not Jesus Christ the ‘Katapausis tou Theou’- “The Rest of God” on the ‘Sabbatismos tohi Laohi tou Theou’- "a Sabbath Day of Rest of God for the People".

There is a HUGE difference – an immeasurable impasse – between ‘Sabbatismos tohi Laohi tou Theou’- "a Sabbath Day of Rest OF GOD, for the People”, and any <<"rest" received by Israel through receiving the land>> that in any case never happened.

 

[Darrell C]

Hebrews in 4:9,10 in no manner states <<one enters into the Rest>>.

Sure it does:

http://www.baptistboard.com/bible/hebrews/4/
Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)

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

10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

God is clearly distinguished from the one entering into His Rest.

It states "JESUS having entered into His own Rest as God in his own gave the People of God Rest" -- THROUGH HAVING RAISED FROM THE DEAD.

You understand that Jesus, the Son of God, is the One Who Created the World, right?

In your zeal to teach Sabbath Keeping, you overlook some very basic points made by the Writer in Chs.3-4.

Here is one:


Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)

1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


The entire point he is making is that the unbelievers did not enter into rest because their hearing of God's will was not mixed with faith (and by implication obedience).

Now consider v.10 in relation to what he states in v.6:


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

Again the contrast is between those entering now, and those who did not enter in the Provocation. The "therefore" makes the point that there are still those who need to enter in, the implication being...some already have.


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

10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.


While the concept of "God resting from His Creative Works" is used here, I think it a mistake to equate the rest itself with Christ "resting from His Works." I see this as simply making the point that those who have entered into rest have ceased from Works as God did, and that is precisely what the Writer is exhorting his Hebrew brethren to do:


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


The text maintains a contrast between those in the Wilderness and those hearing the teaching of the Writer. Rest was secured by some of those back then, those who were not unbelievers, and had faith, and the warning is to his brethren of that day not to be unbelieving.

And there is simply nothing, not an iota, lol, of a proof-text for Sabbath Keeping. That stands in direct contradiction to the Gospel itself.

There is no <<completion of "works">> of any <one> audacious braggart in Hebrews 4:9 or in the whole of the Letter for that matter.

There is:


Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


And entering into that rest is likened, not to keeping the Sabbath, but To God resting when His Creative Works were finished.

Hebrews 4:4 on the contrary states that "GOD, from all HIS works rested the day The Seventh Day".

Now apply that to how it is used in the chapter, lol: that is what we do...rest from all our works. And we keep in mind that this pertains to faith and belief, that is the context of the chapter. This does not mean that we are free from good works, which are the result of being in Christ, not the cause.

Who are those who claim <<God loves them>>, as they are <<entered into rest>> and <<ceased from own works>> and <<love God and their fellow man>> in obedience to Hebrews 4:9?

My friend, not only did God love me as I am...He loved me as I was.

And I do not "work" for salvation. And I can upon the authority of Scripture tell you without controversy you violate the Law of God with this judgment. You want to keep the Sabbath, great, that's your choice. Just don't try to make it a Christian Doctrine, because it is not.

SEEN HERE, Christians!

Yup. Guilty as charged.

I love God because He first loved me.

Christians so called, supposed to be -- the very ones who hate, while saying they love;

What are you talking about?

who hate the Sabbath

What are you talking about?

and, saying they love all, hate whoever "eating and drinking of Sabbaths' Feast of Christ, holding to the Head receiving Nourishment ministered."

You cannot address the Scripture or points so you...slander?

Can you tell me who exactly this...

Who are those who claim <<God loves them>>, as they are <<entered into rest>> and <<ceased from own works>> and <<love God and their fellow man>> in obedience to Hebrews 4:9? SEEN HERE, Christians! Christians so called, supposed to be -- the very ones who hate, while saying they love; who hate the Sabbath and, saying they love all, hate whoever "eating and drinking of Sabbaths' Feast of Christ, holding to the Head receiving Nourishment ministered."

...speaks of? Not myself. I could care less if someone erroneously thinks they have to keep the Sabbath.

However, those who try to teach it, as the Judaizers of Paul's day, as Christian Doctrine, those, well, very glad to point out their error.

How am I doing?




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

WHERE do you <read> "The "rest" received by Israel through receiving the land" in Hebrews? YES, NOWHERE! And the very fact <<It has nothing to do with keeping the Sabbath>> proves it's NOWHERE in Hebrews where it is written <<The "rest" received by Israel through receiving the land was a picture of the Rest we have in Christ>>!

Well, if you can't see it, you can't see it.

Of course, if you give attention to the Scripture itself you might see it.

Its not my burden to prove what I have already shown you in both Old Testament as well as in Hebrews, its your burden to show what it has to do with Sabbath Keeping.

There is only one "Rest" written in Hebrews, GOD'S Rest, 'katapausis TOU THEOU'. NO <<"rest" received by Israel through receiving the land>> which <<was a picture of the Rest we have in Christ>>!

There is only One Salvation in Scripture, God's Salvation.

Now you want to discuss whether or not it means God was saved?

WHAT BLASPHEMOUS FICKLENESS to base GOD'S Promises and Assurances and Oath and Covenant <<of the Rest we have in Christ>> on!

Not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

I don't base "GOD'S Promises and Assurances and Oath and Covenant <<of the Rest we have in Christ>> on..."

...anything but what Scripture teaches, lol.

‘Sabbatismos tohi Laohi tou Theou’- "a Sabbath Day of Rest of God for the People" is based on Jesus Christ the ‘Katapausis tou Theou’- “The Rest of God”; not Jesus Christ the ‘Katapausis tou Theou’- “The Rest of God” on the ‘Sabbatismos tohi Laohi tou Theou’- "a Sabbath Day of Rest of God for the People".

Gerhard, you are seeing that "for the people" you keep putting in there, right?

And I am not impressed with quotation of Greek. Perhaps if you speak English and just try to make your point without the arrows, it might make it a little easier to understand you. If you want me to consult the original language, just point it out, and I will.

There is a HUGE difference – an immeasurable impasse – between ‘Sabbatismos tohi Laohi tou Theou’- "a Sabbath Day of Rest OF GOD, for the People”, and any <<"rest" received by Israel through receiving the land>> that in any case never happened.

You don't see the conflict you raise?

"a Sabbath Day of Rest OF GOD, for the People”,


Which is it?

Truly it is of GOd, and truly it was for the people.

Not sure why you are having a hard time with that, nor why you would deny God promised, and delivered (no pun intended) Rest to the people of Israel. It is basically a simple chapter (both, really), in which the Writer exhorts his Hebrew brethren to enter into rest, which is shown not to occur if one is unbelieving, and without faith. That is the warning, "Don't be unbelieving and faithless, strive to enter into His Rest."

But it those he writes to that are going to enter in...or not.


God bless.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Because the Sabbath is not what God Promised. In view is a resting from works, not being brought under bondage to the Law again.

And again, as pointed out earlier, you violate a pretty clear teaching:

Never alleged Hebrews teaches <<the Sabbath is ... what God Promised.>>


Never alleged in view in Hebrews <<is a resting from works>>--especially from man's works. Have all along said in view in Hebrews is both GOD'S Works and Rest through and in Jesus Christ.


Never alleged Hebrews has in view <<being brought under bondage to the Law again>> or that <<the Sabbath is what God Promised.>> Have always maintained Hebrews has in view The Gospel of Jesus Christ's RESURRECTION from the dead and that “therefore—He having thus entered into his own Rest as God in his own, because Jesus thus gave them Rest— keeping of God’s Sabbath Rest Day for the People of God is at present validated.”

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Its not my burden to prove what I have already shown you in both Old Testament as well as in Hebrews, its your burden to show what it has to do with Sabbath Keeping.

It is none of my business to prove what you allegedly have already shown me in both Old Testament as well as in Hebrews goodness knows when, is my burden to show what it has to do with Sabbath Keeping. It's far above my head that sort of thing!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

I don't base "GOD'S Promises and Assurances and Oath and Covenant <<of the Rest we have in Christ>> on..."

...anything but what Scripture teaches, lol.

LOL!

 

[Darrell C]

And I will drop out of this discussion until such time as we can actually look at the Scripture being provided.


God bless.