Search results

Wrong typology here : the single sixth day had two days worth of bread so that they would not go out on the Sabbath. This corresponds with the double portion the fields would produce on the sixth year so that the land would rest on the Sabbath year. It DOES NOT correspond with 2,000 years of the...

When you hit "reply", it will give you a "quote" sequence in brackets "[...]" : here, it is QUOTE="Ziggy, post: 1023171, member: 9322" (but with brackets). To quote my statement, you just make sure that sequence is in front of my quote, then go to the end of where you want to quote me, and...

It should be noted that when answers are given to you, you do not respond to them. Why is that? Why are you hiding? Why are you pretending to have something coherent to say when you do not? Why are you deceiving people? Better yet, why are you asking a bunch of non-sequiturious questions? When...

Not interested in the facts of the matter--telling. All right, enjoy your rejection of facts.

Not relevant to the discussion. Again, when God creates, He rests, and the commemoration thereof is called a "Sabbath". You have had a few responses--among them have been: a) "No, the New Creation hasn't arrived" Note : This denial that the New Creation had arrived seemed to have been a...

It would be easier to see what specific point that I've made that you're respond to if you were to quote me and then respond as I have done for you in my responses.

When you say it is "right" then you make it a "sin" to not do it. You can't rely solely on statements from Torah since Christ repudiates Torah in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 for instance saying it isn't really God's will and then brings in a higher Law in its place--in this way He is "a Prophet...

1. "New creation" means there is a new act of creating. 2. What do you mean "all things were created"? How do you know that? I get the impression from Scripture that we are NOT the first thing God ever created. 3. If the Sabbath is just an eternal place of peace where you worship God, then why...

How many times do I have to answer this same question? You ask "what need is there for another Sabbath?" The answer is : there is a need for another sabbath when there is another resting from another creating.

Sorry, your questions sounded rhetorical--I didn't think you wanted an answer (especially because my answer already answered them). The precedent we see in Scripture is that when God creates He then rests from creating. His rest then gets commemorated--called "Sabbath". So, when God creates...

So, you would disagree that there will be a new Sabbath in the New Creation? When God creates anew, He will break with the pattern He set before--NOT rest from His creative work?

(It seems clear why you disagree New Creation has arrived--it implies a New Sabbath.) Do you admit or deny there will be a New Sabbath when the New Creation arrives? You disagree that it has arrived, but when it arrives won't there be a New Sabbath?

1. "Evil to good" : don't sidestep the issue, it's "old creation to new creation". 2. Paul says New Creation has arrived. You come and say Paul says New Creation hasn't. Who should I believe?

Paul says there is a new creation. I go with Paul. Sorry. Now, when there is a new Creation there must be a new Sabbath.

Again, we are in a new creation ("Behold, all the old things have passed away, all things have become new."), thus there has to be a new rest from creating, thus there has to be a new commemoration of that resting (a new Sabbath).

1. So, still no answer. All right. Here's what an answer might look like : "No, there is not a New Creation." It would be wrong of course but it would at least address my argument. 2. "Entering in" of Hebrews is pretty much the opposite of what you're wanting it to mean : Hebrews is in part a...

New Creation, New Rest, New Commemoration (Sabbath)--7th Day Sabbath no longer enforceable.

Show me in the Bible where other religions are called a "faith" rather than "unbelief" or "idolatry" or what ever--they're not "faiths", they're "unbeliefs".

Adam was "given" life (did nothing to earn it) but he lost what was "given" him didn't he?

1. It's Not. That's why you didn't cite it. 2. No response to my argument I see.