Sabbath "Remains" for the People of God Heb 4

I answered all of that suff before, and you all rehash the same claims like I never said anything. (GE; I thought you changed your position before).

1) No one is calling the "word of God" or even "the Law" bondage, slavery, “The weak and elemental things of this World”, or “worthless” and “pertaining to that “which by nature is not God”. It was the Jews' condemned state trying to justify themselves by the works of the Law (without Christ) that was the bondage and the rest of those things.

2) "observe days and months and seasons and years" is NOT the same as "observe times" in Lev. Two totally different words in two totally different languages. And "observe" in Rom. is altogether different from those. You can't just pair things up like that without making sure it is the same thing.

3) the fact that "observe" in Gal. is “...to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously). Where "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful", is the biggest proof of all, because it is the SAME WORD used for when the JEWS tried to "trap" both Jesus and Paul! There is NOTHING in the Greek AT ALL about "astrology"! Now are you saying the Jews used astrology to trap Jesus and Paul? Or was it the LAW they used?
Likewise, their WATCHing the NT Christians and juding them for not keeping OT laws was the same thing, as is those who continue to do it today!

4) Your schalars are only a handful, and do not make the majority.

5) Nobody says there were only Jewish influences in the NT church. However, people do seem to think there were only pagan influences, and have underestimated the Jewish pressure and even persecution of Christians.

I no longer have the time to argue this stuff anymore. If you all think you are sucessfully convicting us as idolaters and satanic doctrines, (which is the charge constantly being thrown out) then go ahead, but remember that we have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and we'll see if all these lies (which are a violation of the Law!) will pass! (Once again, what you are doing is the "watching with evil intent" discussed in the passage).

 

Ah, Eric b, You're tiresome!
I changed my position - or more clearly took standpoint - ON GAL.4;3. Not on 4:7-11 at all! And if you think I'm double-talking, go have a look at my standpoint as published in 1994 already, 'The Lord's Day in the Covenenant of Grace', volume 4, "Paul", Paragrapgh 8.3.3, Galatians.

You haven't presented a single argument of substance otherwise that could have influenced me to "change position"! On the contrary, your every argument I have in the meantime analised and answered throughly since we have last corresponded.
Find our debate - and more - from my page, http://www.biblestudents.co.za, the latest addition "The Origin of Sunday Sacredness - Galtians 4".

 

If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls. It all goes together. All were lost in bondage, and for any to return to their former way (whether pagan or Judastic) would be a "return" to bondage.

I do not see a page on your site called "The Origin of Sunday Sacredness - Galtians 4". I see mostly a bunch of stuff disputing the SDA's, particularly, Bacchiocchi on the time of the resurrection. And you do seem to have a bit of a point on "Today since these things the third day". As for Calvin and Servetus, whether what Servetus did was against the civil law or not, still the point is that it is not our job as Christians to make correct doctrine the civil law and torture and kill people over it. If he could not tell the difference between Servetus and the Muhammadans, he had no business being a church leader. Servetus' position actually was not that far off from the original truth. He was a bit more adoptionistic in the beginning (which did compromise the deity of Christ), but then modified it to say clearly that the Word was Christ. This made his position identical to the pre-Nicene fathers such as Tertullian and Hyppolytus, but Calvin still tried him for not saying "eternal Son of God", rather than "Son of the eternal God". The former is not in the Bible, but the latter is closer, yet Servetus was condemned over the unbiblical phrase.
This is the fruit of the union of church and state, and that is more a Romish tool of the endtimes than Sunday is! (And didn't Calvin also enforce Sunday as the sabbath and not the 7th day?) This was completely contrary to the gospel of Grace.

The points I presented above are of substance, you did not answer, at least not here, but both of you would simply go back to answering your own straw men and other tangents.

 

None of us at the moment stick to the thread's theme: Hebrews 3-4!
And once again EricB takes the lead taking everybody with him off another "rabit chase" as Bob Ryan once remarked!

 

actually, it was you and Bob who took the discussion off Heb.3-4, when you commented on Gal., and then Bob jumped in with his non-sequitur points.

I am not trying to take you down any rabbit rail. (still in accusatory mode, I see). I have been trying to wind down the discussions, because of time. But that could not go unanswered.

 

Say you, Eric,
"If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls."

How do I understand you now? Do you admit 7-11 is 'talking about' the Gentiles then? Then we have nothing to debate - then the 'days' are 'pagan' and idolatrous; then 'days' "known" by their pagan names, are implied; then Sunday is there, first and foremost!

Anyhow,
someone referred to Ignatius. Ignatius doesn't have an idea of Sunday; he thinks of the Sabbath - "sabbatidzontes" - "according to the life (or day) of the Lord" - "kata kuriakehn dzohntes" OR NOT AT ALL ("MEHKETI") which simply argues for TRUE, and CHRISTIAN, SABBATH-KEEPING. What the issue is about I really can't see - it (again) is something blown up by the Sundaydarians. As Ignatius says in 4,1, "We should be REALLY Christians, and not merely have the name!" "The unbelievers, bear the stamp of this world", says he in 5,2. So does its 'Day' - 'Sun's-Day' and "the Lord Sun's Day"!
See "Second Century" http://www.biblestudents.co.za

Sorry Eric, my son got "Origin of Sunday" on the net late. It is there now, I hope.

 

I don't see how you figure I "admit" any such thing. You are the one who "admitted" 4:3. I pointed out then that that proves that 7-11 are not necessarily talking about "pagan" "bondage". And the whole context of the chapter (v.21ff, ch.5, etc.) shows they are not.

 

Eric, you have just supplied yet another example of your confused reasoning. Just read your two statements together - can't you see?
And your insistent hammering on the whole context is bluff merely.

 

My two statements together:
1)v.7-11 are NOT necessarily talking about "pagan"...
That means that they at the most COULD refer to paganism; but MAYBE NOT!
2)the whole context of the chapter shows they are not.
This is the deciding factor. In #1, it was maybe or maybe not. #2 shows it was not. No contradiction. One builds upon the choice left by the other.

So it is not my "confused reasoning", but rather your confused perception! Just like:

It's like my father used to say: I wish we could take a screwdriver, open up your head, and see what is going on in there. Nobody has said that God's Word is paganism, but you keep seeing that somewhere. You talk so much about "the commandments", do you really thingk God accepts this lying? Break one commandment to try to prove another! But then you HAVE TO do something, because your whole basis for self-righteous judging of non-sabbath Christians falls on chapters like this. Anything but admit that 'I am no more obedient than anyone else, and by judging, I am the one who is actually not a "doer" of the Law!' (the spiritual Law, that is)

 

It's like my father used to say: I wish we could take a screwdriver, open up your head, and see what is going on in there. Nobody has said that God's Word is paganism, but you keep seeing that somewhere. You talk so much about "the commandments", do you really thingk God accepts this lying? Break one commandment to try to prove another! But then you HAVE TO do something, because your whole basis for self-righteous judging of non-sabbath Christians falls on chapters like this. Anything but admit that 'I am no more obedient than anyone else, and by judging, I am the one who is actually not a "doer" of the Law!' (the spiritual Law, that is) </font>[/QUOTE]You even contradict yourself. First you say: "If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls" - which says 7-11 speaks about GEBTILES. In your next post you reverted to your old stance it speaks of Jews (only).

Next, you quote Bob in your last post - not me, nowhere! In any case what Bob says is true; or is it not - for you?

You supply anyone with that screwdriver that fits the screws to the lid of your mind's interior. Only the screwdriver of the Word can open the Word though.
But go read some statistics on the context of Galatians about it being Jewish or Gentile, from the latest addition on http://www.biblestudents.co.za. It is there now.

 

But it being Sabbath morning here in South Africa now, let's get something positive from Hebrews 3-4. Bob's theme was the Sabbath "REMAINS" for God's People. "Apoleipetai" - it mweans, "remains obligatory / true / valid / a given", for "God's PEOPLE", His Christian Congregation - not for 'the world'; not for UNbelievers; but for believers in HIM who 'HAD GIVEN THEM REST" - for believers in HIM who "HAD ENETERED INTO HIS OWN REST AS GOD (from His own works)". Jesus Christ had "FINISHED THE WORKS THE FATHER HAD GIVEN HIM"! Alleluiah! He had risen from the dead "the third day according to the Scriptures" - the 'third day' of GOD'S 'Passover' - of His Salvation by 'the exceeding geatness of His power when He raised Christ from the dead" ... "IN SABBATH'S-TIME'S FULNESS"! In the Fulness of God's "REST" that is, He, "rested", and "finished", and "perfected", and "revived", and "sanctified", and "blessed" - THIS IS THE DAY OF GOD'S TRIUMPH THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD! Let us raise the Sopng of Moses and of the Lamb - it the Song of Resurrection; it is a Sabbath's Song!

 

You still don't get it. You still are reading what you want to read. Look again: "If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls". This you say "which says 7-11 speaks about GENTILES". How do you figure that? The whole argument that 7-11 could NOT be talking about Jews FALLS. The whole idea that TAKING IT THIS WAY (as applying to the Jews) calls God's Word "paganism" FALLS. That means it still COULD possibly be refering to the Gentiles, but NOT NECESSARILY, as we see that the Jews are NOT EXCLUDED. Then, the remaining context is the clincher, showing that it is in fact about those pushing "the Law". So no "reversion", only the same truth I was building up to all along.
You are just throwing out a bunch of charges without even reading thoroughly what you are responding to.
The screwdriver analogy was about checking to see what makes you two think the way you do, not really about fixing it. Only the Word [of CHRIST] can remove the blinders (2 Cor.3:14) that cause you to distort the teaching that refutes your position.

I still don't see that new page. The only "new" is "Shavuot-Pentecost (Pinkster)".

And the "sabbath that "remains" is SPIRITUAL. Even you once told me I could do my secular job on it, and both you and Bob go on the Internet on it. That is certainly NOT the sabbath commanded in the Law!

 

Alright Eric, I admit I read and understood your statement wrong. I beg your pardon. I thought it - my own conclusion - strange, that you would indeed have changed your mind. What I have thought then, is of no consequence and in the end turned out to be a waste of words. Sorry.

Then you restate your position, that no real "keeping of the Sabbath (sabbatidzontas) remains for the People of God BECAUSE OF" (ara) the fact "Jesus had given them REST (katapausis/anapausis)", "BECAUSE OF" the fact "He who had entered into His REST (katapausis/anapausis) as God ALSO rested from his own works" - makaing of the TWO things, one.
But, what do YOU say, Ignatius means with his use of "sabbatidontes" - "NO LONGER sabbatidzontes"?
Don't you -like the Sundaydarians- say Ignatius speaks of "no longer keeping THE SABBATH" (Seventh Day)?
And what do you make of the papyri that use the word "sabbatismos/(sabbatidzontes)" "keeping of the Sabbath DAY"?
But most important, what do YOU, make of Hb.4:4-5, that says, "GOD, THUS, concerning the Seventh DAY did speak, And God the Seventh DAY, RESTED"? -No Eric B, your sophistry is transparent, like your whole argument restated above, that you actually DENY your own standpoint that you do not have anything against God's Law, because your whole argument is directed against the "keeping of the Sabbath DAY" commanded in the Fourth Commandment.
I'll never speak another word about this subject WITH YOU!

 

Correction : Hebrews 4:9 uses the word "sabbatismos" -the almost exact equivalent of "sabbatidzontes" used by Ignatius.

 

Dear Bob,
I see things a bit different. The "rest" we are in danger of not entering, is faith in Christ - faith in God's works accomplished in and through Him. The writer refers to some illustrations from Scripture of man's unbelief. I am sure he also had in mind also Adam's failure to believe in God, so that God swore that man would not enter into His rest, and drove Adam and Eve out of paradise. Howbeit, ultimately, man rejected god's Rest - the Rest He entered into in and through Jesus Christ. And having rejected THIS rest of God, God has sworn no one would enter into his rest, because -as this Letter elsewhere states- there is NO "day after". Christ is (was) God's last word to mankind for salvation. Do you enter in; or do you not? is the CRISIS of the AGES! "IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE TODAY!" Therefore: "Harden not your hearts!" for this is the day of salvation. There is NTHER SAVIOUR! Accept Christ or die in your stif-necked sinning! That is the writer's MESSAGE - the Gospel! Nothing more!
Thus the writer has created a firm foundation for precluding Christ's triumph and God's success - He WILL find a People who "has entered"! Rejoice! Worship God for His salvation! A People is born; behold, the Church of God! All because of CHRIST'S DOING - "JESUS who had given them REST"; "HE WHO had entered into His OWN rest as God from His". This is the GRAND CLIMAX, and this is the very BASIS and GROUNDS FOR "a keeping of the Sabbath Day for the People of God".
Now the redemption of Jesus Christ -the redemption IN HIM- has become the NEW motive, the NEW reason, the FINAL FOUNDING, for the People of God's "keeping of their Sabbath" - the Sabbath of the LORD your God. Since of old -as the writer has amply illustrated- God's rest, God's salvation, God's Passover, has been the reason for His Commanding the Sabbath Day to be kept holy; the reason for and the blessing as such of it; the reason for and the sanctification as such of it; the reason for and the rest as such of it; the reason for and the perfecting as such on it; the reson for and the reviving as such in it it - the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God.
Christians believe and keep the Sabbath DAY, for no reason but the redemption of God in Jesus Christ through resurrection from the dead!

 

A keeping of the Sabbath Day THUS has become the Christian's obligation, or not at all! The Gospel - nothing more! What more could there be?

 

I'm not sure. I assumed it mean no longer keeping the Sabbath. But then I have heard how "Lord's Day" is a mistranslation ("lordly", or "the Lord's life"). So who knows. I have never studied the fathers that extensively. What Ignatius said doesn't matter, because he and those after him must be subjected too the Bible.

More attacks! Once again, YOU yourself do not keep the day according to "the Law"! You have spiritualized it away as much as I may have, into something completely different from what the Law commanded. You have even said something like it is a different Law; a Christian one, and not the OT one, or something like that, IIRC. Only difference is you go to church on the day, and thus "recognize" it a bit more. But that is not KEEPing it by RESTing in the literal fashion you all insist. Once again, you even said one could even work their job on it, and you use a computer for debates on it. So don't come with your accusations, because your position is closer to my position on Heb. than to other sabbathkeepers.

Great. This whole argument is fruitless.