Y do U believe what U believe, and do U have good reasons 4 those beliefs? - let's find out.

[farouk]

Without God, the Sabbath can be profaned, consumption of garbage is condoned, enslaving oneself to debt becomes pervasive, divorce and adultery are ubiquitous and legitimated.

It's interesting also that the law was changed (Hebrews 7.12) and what we now have is better than the law (Hebrews 7.19); so the whole matter of sabbath-keeping no longer applies as under the law.

 

[Nancy]

The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 are not people, they are "the Law" (symbolized in Moses) and "the testimony" (symbolized in Elijah). This has already taken place in the French Revolution (more detail as needed). For instance, see:

Rom_3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;​

I have a lot more detail on this as needful. It is already past. Most do not realize that we are far nearer the end of all things than they desire to be. This world is almost over. See - Prophetic Chart from beginning unto the ending, Prophetic studies

"Saturday" did not yet exist (and is again not the same timeframe that God uses (evening followed by morning), but is pagan Roman time (midnight to midnight)), as this world, it's moon, it's local Sol system (planets/stars) had not yet existed. Notice:

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:​

We do know that God keeps track of time from even before Genesis (but that is another matter), but beginning from Genesis, God keeps track of the time, even unto Exodus, and knows the days of the week (even as many people did), 1-7. See Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11; Mark 2:27-28, and so on.

Sort of true. Yet, that is all really beside the matter, as God simply numbered the days 1-7 (6th being the preparation, and the 7th being His Sabbath).

Not sure what you are asking here. It is work the 6 days, and rest the (definite article) 7th day, as God did. Are you referring to picking and choosing the 6 days to work and "a" 7th to rest? If so, that is counter to the commandment itself. God's rest is a specific day, and no other. It is set in the block chain of time and cannot be altered. Mankind is to worship God 24/7/365. The 4th commandment encompasses the whole frame of time, and the whole frame of creation.

Actually no. Jesus was taken down from the cross and then laid in the tomb, after He said that. Jesus didn't sit down on the right hand of the Father until Pentecost, when He was anointed in Heaven as the Great High Priest (Psalms 133:1-3; Acts 2:1-3,33; Revelation 5:6) and began the ministration therein the Holy Place.

This is a misunderstanding of Genesis and Peter's statement (which is a citation from Psalms). The Father, Son and Holy Spirit rested in Genesis. JEHOVAH Elohiym. Peter's statement deals with the greater cosmic days "with the LORD", thus the last 6,000 years and the final millennium (7th 1,000 year, the great Sabbath; the Day of the LORD) to come.

Yes, "is" (present tense), and hasn't ceased to be. See Luke 23; Acts; Hebrews 4 and Revelation 1:10, 10:6, 14:6-12, etc.

This is a misunderstanding of what it mean for Jesus to "sit". Jesus is also seen "standing" (Acts 7) and "walking" (Revelation 1). Each means something (more detail as needful). The "finished" deals with the Courtyard Service, the Sacrifice, not the ministration. It deals with the laying of the "foundation" (Himself the chief corner stone), not the finalizing of the walls and structure (Temple - us).

There is not a single text in scripture which states this, and very many which are contrary to it (Jesus is sinless, always keeps the commandments (even now), and prophecy itself states this, Isaiah 42:21, and taught all to keep them and to follow His example (Matthew 5)), though I already know which two texts (John 5:18, 9:16) you might think (erroneously so) say that (they don't when studied prayerfully). Jesus Himself stated:

Joh_15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.​

If Jesus truly broke even one commandment, Jesus could not be the spotless Lamb, nor the innocent blood, and we are all as dead in trespasses and in sins, and hopelessly lost as before.

I will say this as many times as it takes sister Nancy. It doesn't matter what I think, only what scripture itself says. Isaiah 8:20.

As you will. If you want details, you will have to ask the questions that are pertinent to you.

Thank you for the plethora of information, lol...will take me much time to actually look into it. I'm sorry for the SDA thing, I will be more aware of not using the acronym.
Your writings are pretty much over my head, for the most part but, thank you for sharing.
God Bless You and yours

 

[amadeus]

You were responding to @Nancy here but as I read through it trying to understand this part caught my attention. . Does what I write agree precisely with your own position/beliefs/doctrine about God and the things of God?

What is? Jesus? Is that not what we all really want? But.. who knows him already perfectly?

Really the same thing. Yes (anti-type, reality) / No (type, shadow).

Yes (anti-type, reality):

Your use of the expression "anti-type" threw me off at first. If you meant "reality" why did you say "anti-type"? Is there a difference or are they synonyms?

Then again, what you call reality may be a bit different than what I understand by reality. I won't amplify at the moment because your meaning for reality is still fuzzy in my mind... If you could clarify I would appreciate it.

1Co_5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

1Co_5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Heb_13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.​

So then are you agreeing with my understanding that we are to eat now the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood, that is nourishing the new man, rather than continuing to eat the old flesh and the old blood to re-strengthen the old man?

As for the old man, are we not supposed to kill him, that is kill any and all of that beastly nature which remains within us, so that he/it no longer is able to regain his dominion over us?

"She [wisdom] hath killed her beasts..." Prov 9:2

"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph 4:22-24

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." John 6:53-55

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14

So then we are now to eat of the His flesh, for us still dead flesh, the scripture; and drink of His blood, the Holy Spirit, which will then bring his dead flesh to Life within us so that we have something that will never die.

No (type, shadow):

Col 2:16 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:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.​

The body of Christ being a place for the head to rest! When Jesus, the Head of the Body said that, he had no place to lay/rest the Head his head but that has been changing. Once our beastly head has been completely killed, then we will be that place, that Body now being prepared as each part overcomes all of the obstacles as Jesus overcame the obstacles...

"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." Matt 8:20

I (nor Seventh-day Adventists) get to choose. God has chosen. They all still remain to be kept in anti-type (not type), in the light of the New Covenant (aka Everlasting and Eternal Covenant, Covenant of Life and Peace, etc). More as needful.

Yes, while we do choose to respond to His call like the little boy, Samuel, it requires more than that. From those who respond to His call He chooses the "faithful" ones...

"... for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." Rev 17:14

I believe that essentially we agree, but I leave that for you to confirm.

Give God the glory!

 

[shnarkle]

It's interesting also that the law was changed (Hebrews 7.12) and what we now have is better than the law (Hebrews 7.19); so the whole matter of sabbath-keeping no longer applies as under the law.

I've already addressed this repeatedly. Your citation refers to the sacrificial system, not the commandments. The phrase "under the law" refers to the penalty or "curse" of the law; not the obligation of the law.

The law was given to the New Testament church. Paul points out that we are grafted into the root, and can be cut off just as easily as the natural scion was due to disobedience.

Luke also affirms this fact: "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles TO GIVE UNTO US: Acts 7:38

To give to who? Luke is writing to the New Testament church; "us" is the new testament church.

 

[brakelite]

It's interesting also that the law was changed (Hebrews 7.12) and what we now have is better than the law (Hebrews 7.19); so the whole matter of sabbath-keeping no longer applies as under the law.

You may not remember, or perhaps you missed it, or maybe you saw it but for somethingme reason disagreed with me, but some time ago I showed you from
KJV Hebrews 7
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
That the reason the law was changed, and this apples only to the ceremonial law, was to allow for a priest to serve, Christ, Who was not born of the tribe of Levi. Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah, and under the law could not be our High Priest so the law for that prurpose was changed. This change did not affect the commandments...only the means by which they are kept...through faith in the power and grace of our Intercessor serving in the heavenly sanctuar before the Father.

 

[shnarkle]

You may not remember, or perhaps you missed it, or maybe you saw it but got dime reason disagreed with me, but some time ago I showed you from
KJV Hebrews 7
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
That the reason the law was changed, and this apples only to the ceremonial law, was to allow for a priest to serve, Christ, Who was not born of the tribe of Levi. Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah, and under the law could not be our High Priest do the law for that prose was changed. This change did not affect the commandments...only the means by which they ate kept...through faith in the power and grace of our Intercessor serving in the heavenly sanctuar before the Father.

It is not an intercessor for sin though. That's what everyone misses out on. Christ is the sacrifice that intercedes on our behalf for sin, but as high priest, he is a priest who intercedes in righteousness. We are conformed to him, and become priests as well; not of sin, but righteousness.

 

[brakelite]

Going regularly back to nothing is what has helped to continue growing toward Him.

Seems you and I have much in common. I also was raised in Catholicism and spent 10 in a backsidden state after having been saved and spending several years in a Pentecostal environment. When I returned to the Lord, at a time of marriage turmoil and conviction regarding my unsaved children, I also "went back to nothing". Confessing distrust in all I had been previously taught and learned,I asked God to take me back to the beginning, for I never wanted to endanger my marriage, or my eternal destiny, again. I also was desperate to make up lost ground with my children. I hadn't read my bible for years, but a scripture immediately came to mind...seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things (healed marriage and saved children) will be added unto you. I became an Adventist ad a direct result of studying the question...what is Christ's righteousness, and why should I seek it on equal status as His kingdom?

I used to believe that Christ frees us from sin, but now I believe that believing in Christ gives us the ability to have free will just like everyone else already has...

Would it be fair to say that everyone else had free will but are powerless to choose wisely, while the power we are given in Christ allows us to choose what is right? Romans 7 comes to mind, the carnal Paul unable to do what is right even though he wanted to, the Bjorn again Paul able to do right through the power of God

 

[brakelite]

It is not an intercessor for sin though. That's what everyone misses out on. Christ is the sacrifice that intercedes on our behalf for sin, but as high priest, he is a priest who intercedes in righteousness. We are conformed to him, and become priests as well; not of sin, but righteousness.

Yes, excellent point.

 

[shnarkle]

Would it be fair to say that everyone else had free will but are powerless to choose wisely,

I don't think so. Fallen humanity cannot choose to do the right thing for the same reason a fish cannot survive out of water. A fish can jump out of the water, but it can't live if it remains there. No man gives their son a stone when they ask for bread so it isn't like we can't do the right thing. We just have no clue how to actually do it effectively because we're hopelessly depraved. When God reveals the wickedness of one's soul, then they see the truth, and take hold of the gift of repentance like only those who know they're damned can. Until God reveals that fact to someone, they have no choice.

while the power we are given in Christ allows us to choose what is right?

It isn't just the power to choose what is right, but to swim because that's what fish do. The new creation produces fruit unto righteousness because that is what a child of God is created to do.

The fish doesn't swim to prove it is a fish. The fish swims because it is a fish. The new creation doesn't produce good works to prove it is a new creation. The new creation produces good works because that is what it was created to do.

 

[brakelite]

I don't think so. Fallen humanity cannot choose to do the right thing for the same reason a fish cannot survive out of water. A fish can jump out of the water, but it can't live if it remains there. No man gives their son a stone when they ask for bread so it isn't like we can't do the right thing. We just have no clue how to actually do it effectively because we're hopelessly depraved. When God reveals the wickedness of one's soul, then they see the truth, and take hold of the gift of repentance like only those who know they're damned can. Until God reveals that fact to someone, they have no choice.



It isn't just the power to choose what is right, but to swim because that's what fish do. The new creation produces fruit unto righteousness because that is what a child of God is created to do.

The fish doesn't swim to prove it is a fish. The fish swims because it is a fish. The new creation doesn't produce good works to prove it is a new creation. The new creation produces good works because that is what it was created to do.

And the free will comes into play when choosing to live like a fish that can only swim as opposed to a fish that can also fly? Do the choice we have today is choosing between the old carnal nature to resurrect it, or the new nature reborn?

 

[ReChoired]

What's your point?

I wasn't making a point, yet. I was asking what 'you' make of the verse referred to:

Psa_14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.​

 

[ReChoired]

It's interesting also that the law was changed (Hebrews 7.12) and what we now have is better than the law (Hebrews 7.19); so the whole matter of sabbath-keeping no longer applies as under the law.

The entire context of Hebrews 7 is the "law" of making men priests, not God's Law of Ten Commandments, which says nothing about 'priests', but you simply chose to not see that..

Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?​

The Ten Commandments were spoken and written by God before there ever was a Levitical Priesthood, but you simply chose to not see that.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.​

The Ten Commandment Law is entirely "spiritual" (Romans 7:14), but you simply chose to not see that.

Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Heb 7:20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

Heb 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Heb 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Heb 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.​

There is no place in the Ten Commandments which maketh men high priest, but you simply chose to not see that.

 

[ReChoired]

Your use of the expression "anti-type" threw me off at first. If you meant "reality" why did you say "anti-type"? Is there a difference or are they synonyms?

It is the word that the Bible uses, for instance:

Tupos = type, pattern. Strong's G5179 - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=G5179&t=KJB

See Romans 5:14, Adam was the "figure" of Him who was to come.

See 1 Corinthians 10:6,11 "ensample/s" is the tupos, of that which we are to learn from, the "pattern".​

Skia = shadow, not the substance. Strong's G4639 - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=G4639&t=KJB

See Colossians 2:17, shadow of the types, see Hebrews 10:1

See Hebrews 8:5, earthly priests and High Priests, but a type pointing to Christ Jesus own Priesthood and High Priesthood

See Hebrews 10:1, shadow of the types, see Colossians 2:17​

AntiTupos = antitype, reality which is greater than the type/shadow. Strong's G499 - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...ngs=G499&t=KJB

See Hebrews 9:24: “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:"

see also 1 Peter 3:21.
​

The word 'reality' (anti-type) can be used, so long as it is connected with the understanding to the previous word "shadow" or "type", which was the model of the true or actual thing. For instance, the tabernacle of the wilderness was but the model of the plan of redemption, and merely a small version of the real one in Heaven (texts upon request).

 

[ReChoired]

So then are you agreeing with my understanding that we are to eat now the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood, that is nourishing the new man, rather than continuing to eat the old flesh and the old blood to re-strengthen the old man?

Depends on what you mean now, and especially when you say, "eat the old flesh", and "eat ... the old blood" (explain what you mean please by example).

Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
​

Roman Catholicism turns John 6 into an abomination, as the words that Jesus was speaking are 'spirit' are 'life', as the 'flesh profiteth nothing'.

The flesh and blood of Jesus are his life and faith.

 

[ReChoired]

So then we are now to eat of the His flesh, for us still dead flesh, the scripture

I disagree. The word of God isn't dead, but rather very much alive, living, just as the Holy Ghost is living:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.​

 

[ReChoired]

The body of Christ being a place for the head to rest! When Jesus, the Head of the Body said that, he had no place to lay/rest the Head his head but that has been changing. Once our beastly head has been completely killed, then we will be that place, that Body now being prepared as each part overcomes all of the obstacles as Jesus overcame the obstacles...

"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." Matt 8:20

Interesting thought, and I'll roll that one around a bit more. I see where you are going there. I would also like to suggest to you, that we are the Temple/House of the Lord, from which He had been evicted (and in Laodicea, still is), and once He enters the human heart/mind, He is back in His house, at rest in His Temple/House, the human hearth where there is now perfect communion and companionship between Creator and created.

 

[ReChoired]

Give God the glory!

What do you understand this phrase to mean as defined scripturally?

 

[ReChoired]

Thank you for the plethora of information, lol...will take me much time to actually look into it. I'm sorry for the SDA thing, I will be more aware of not using the acronym.
Your writings are pretty much over my head, for the most part but, thank you for sharing.
God Bless You and yours

If I may make a suggestion to you then, to make it easier for me to address your responses? Ask one specific thing at a time, and not all at once, and stay with a single subject and not all over the place, until you understand the responses on the single subject, and then move to another. I know the end is near, but there is still yet time to address your concerns.

 

[amadeus]

It is the word that the Bible uses, for instance:

Tupos = type, pattern. Strong's G5179 - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=G5179&t=KJB

See Romans 5:14, Adam was the "figure" of Him who was to come.

See 1 Corinthians 10:6,11 "ensample/s" is the tupos, of that which we are to learn from, the "pattern".​

Skia = shadow, not the substance. Strong's G4639 - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=G4639&t=KJB

See Colossians 2:17, shadow of the types, see Hebrews 10:1

See Hebrews 8:5, earthly priests and High Priests, but a type pointing to Christ Jesus own Priesthood and High Priesthood

See Hebrews 10:1, shadow of the types, see Colossians 2:17​

AntiTupos = antitype, reality which is greater than the type/shadow. Strong's G499 - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...ngs=G499&t=KJB

See Hebrews 9:24: “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:"

see also 1 Peter 3:21.
​

The word 'reality' (anti-type) can be used, so long as it is connected with the understanding to the previous word "shadow" or "type", which was the model of the true or actual thing. For instance, the tabernacle of the wilderness was but the model of the plan of redemption, and merely a small version of the real one in Heaven (texts upon request).

Thanks! While I do sometimes look at the original words, it is not that often. What I am familiar with in the Bible versions I read regular could easily go over my head in the original as in this case. Usually when I have identified a problem or doubt or some such thing in the KJV that I mostly read in English, I usually check it against either my Luther or Valera translations. When there is a real difference in meaning among those three, which certainly does happen, that is when I am likely to check the original, but by that I mean the possible literal translations into English. Since I know little of Koine Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, the original word would be of little use to me. I might have to trust some "expert" on it. If it is verb it can be a good thing to know the actual tense used, especially when the Spanish or German or English tenses are not the same.

 

[ReChoired]

Usually when I have identified a problem or doubt or some such thing in the KJV

I know of no such issues with the King James Bible.