₦airaland Forum

@davidylan,

davidylan:

nuru link=topic=26946.msg875445#msg875445 date=1171002312:
TODAY IS THE DAY YOU SHOULD ACCEPT ISLAM. TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE.

More plagiarised tales by moon[b]light[/b]

I missed that! How come these fellows are now finding Christian cliches so palatable? A sign that they're coming home afterall? I pray they hurry up!

@babs787,

babs787:
@shahan,

you seemed to be their saviour, the most knowlegeable of them all, so am addressing you since the questions were posed at you, thereby ignoring them (your friends) especially the loud-mouthed gbade & barikade that are having the curse on them for their failure in responding to my four questions posed at them.

Hehehehe . . . he's at it again, screaming they are thereby "IGNORING" his questions. Your curses are really doing overtime on you, blabs787.

shahan:
@bari_kade,

I admire your courage to reason with blabs787. Obviously he has problems straightening out his English and that is why he supposes that any answers to his questions are to be taken as "ignoring" him. Let him be: he has problems understanding himself.

Precisely. I heed thee.

@nuru,

nuru:
Some one should be decent enough to read the Hadith very well and not let your hatred for Islam blindfold you. If you insinuate that the captives mentioned in the Hadith were raped, the onus is on you to provide the proof. You know very well that the central theme of that Hadith is to teach that God is capable of doing whatever He wishes. If a child has been decreed by Him to come into the world through man A and woman B, even if they use all the protections of the world put together when mating, the child destined between them will still be conceived. And that should not suprise you. Even Jesus, alaehi Salam was conceived without a father. That is the theme of that Hadith and it behoves you to open your heart and not be prejudiced. Afterall you are supposed to be educated and truth seeking.

TODAY IS THE DAY YOU SHOULD ACCEPT ISLAM. TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE.

Where is your evidence for the consent that Muhammad's companions obtained before they had coitus interruptus with their booties? Are you not supposed to be educated?



@belloti,

belloti:
Finally Shahan is back.

I am geting sick of these sex stories and i don't know what makes you feel like some kind of women liberators or how in reality an average christian can claim more accolades than muslim in treatment of women folks. Sometimes you guys tend to mixed up arab cultures and extremism with the real islam, citing some extreme situations while you are always quick to distance christianity with entertainers or guys like Timothy Mcveigh or Hitler.

Its so funny

I am also sick of these sex stories in the Hadiths and the Qur'an. All we want is simply nuru's educated evidence for the consent for coitus interruptus by Muhammad's companions.

Now, can we also have your educated evidence that Timothy Mcveigh or Hitler wrote or obeyed the Bible in the same way that Muhammad crafted the Qur'an and solicited your obedience?

I will soon award this tournament over to your opponent. Remember, I'm still the umpire!

@combatant,

combatant:
Do you call it justice when a party is allowed to respond to questions and not being insulted while another party is being insulted for same?

Do you call it justice in which a party feel free to re-ask questions he deemed fit to ask a party when sufficent answers are not provided and instead of giving reasons or explaining more, the former party is being attacked verbally raining all sorts of insults on him while if same happens to the latter party, checkmating is not done?

Do you call that justice when questions are asked, a party avoided the questions claiming that have been 'ferreted' from the internet or whatever but the latter does not face similar.

You can imaging the level of injustice and hypocrisy?

I hope your Islamic polarization is not going to seal your lips very early on the Forum. I could not imagine the level of hypocrisy you're magically trumping up when clearly your blabber has more than insulted others. . . and even helped to curse himself - did you miss all that, mr. 1 post?

Meanwhile, I guess you took for granted that answers have been provided already to many of his questions (nevermind that they're not his, but those he got from skeptic websites). What has been his response? He has severally noised that his questions were "IGNORED" - another one of his lies. Sorry, but your 'rescue mission' hasn't helped him much.

combatant:
Why do you have self-hatred for this guy's thread? Why not give him breathing space. From his post here, he never said anything on the gospel of barnabas but used it at the start of his thread on the notion that some people believed in the gospel whereas the questions he asked has been avoided pretending not to see them but giving audience to the opinion of KAG.

Tsk! (Does this guy understand what he's saying?) If anyone has self-hatred it could be none other than the one who hated himself so much as to curse himself. If your problem is the 'Gospel or Barnabas', let us remind you that even MUSLIMS themselves consider it "pseudepigraphical" (immaterial, because false). When, on the other hand we make reference to the Hadiths, your brothers claim that they are "false hadiths" while still referring to them in their various posts.

combatant:
You have always claimed that you have been answering this guy/man's posts but looking closely at all his posts, most of your answers have been going in opposite direction but whenever he tries re-explaining and calling you back, you flare up and starts raining insults on him and calling him names.

Proves you haven't read through the answers yourself. Should we "ignore" you as well?

combatant:
why hiding under the cloak of KAG?

No one's hiding under KAG, whose post was simply pointing out what babs787 missed. Maybe at the right moment we shall reference some of Ali Dashti's works in querying Islam, yes?

combatant:
Here, KAG said he never believed in the gospel simply (maybe) it was not included as part of the bible, but you don't have to use his own response to attack him, thereby avoiding the thread. If you don't have answers to his questions, it will be better for you to leave the thread and let him be rather than making untenable excuses about KAG.

You miss the point - MUSLIMS also do not take the Gospel of Barnabas seriously because it is "pseudepigraphical".

@belloti,

belloti:
I have always wondered what blinded christians to call Jesus God and Mary Mother of God. How can the Almighty creator have a mother, who is suppose to be his creation too. You ve got to accept the fact that God can never have a mother

Christians are not blind to call Jesus God - the problem was with Muhammad who was so blind as not to have seen the Old Testament prophesies about Christ who in Isaiah 9:6 is called "the mighty God!" Muhammad had an agenda to deny the true Person of Jesus Christ, and that is why he did not make any reference to the prophet Isaiah at all.

Even when the Qur'an affirms and applauds the Psalms of David, we have asked you Muslims to be kind enough to show us what the original Psalms say; but you guys are silent - because you really don't know. However, in Psalm 2:12, the propeht David referred to the Messiah as the divine "Son" in whom people will be blessed if they put their trust in HIM!

Again, you are right - the Almighty God cannot have (and never had) anyone of His creature referred to as "Mother of God". That is a Roman Catholic Church doctrine; and not all Christians believe in such a doctrine - because it is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

Regards.

@Amby,

Amby:
I am astonished that there are people that actually raise this question: “Should one or should one not call the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God”? Because if Our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how could the Virgin who gave birth to Him not be the Mother of God? This is the belief that has been passed down to us by the Holy Apostles, even if they did not use this specific term. This is the teaching that we have received from the Holy Fathers,

Hi Amby. Mary was never called the mother of God by any one of the Holy Apostles, whether they used the specific term or not. Not one line of Scripture suggests that at all. The Church Fathers had ideas that differed greatly from the inspired Word of God; and one may not use their ideas to justify what was never taught by the apostles.

I'll give you an example. St. Ignasius of Antioch (aka Ignatius Theophoros, AD.35-?) severally affirms the deity of Jesus Christ as the apostles taught. For instance, in the introduction of his epistle to the Romans, we read -

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son; the church by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God;. . .Heartiest good wishes for unimpaired joy in Jesus Christ our God, to those who are united in flesh and spirit by every commandment of His; who imperturbably enjoy the full measure of God's grace and have every foreign stain filtered out of them."

Then again, in verse 3 of the same epistle, he says: "Our God Jesus Christ certainly is the more clearly seen now that He is in the Father."

However, it is remarkable that in the NT, the only One called the "Word of God" (the divine Logos) is Jesus Christ (John 1:1 & Rev. 19:13). No other person was called by that title in the entire Bible.

But then, how would you defend Ignatius' use of that term  for himself in the same epistle to the Romans? This is what he said in verse 2 of that epistle - "For, if you quietly ignore me, I am the word of God; but if you fall in love with my human nature, I shall, on the contrary, be a mere sound."

So, when you make reference to the Holy Fathers, please be careful what you are affirming.

Amby:
The Blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of God since she supernaturally gave birth to the Christ, the Savior, who has taken on our flesh and our blood, and who on the human level, comes from the same substance as His Mother and ourselves.

Not one time was Mary called "the Mother of God." The reason why that statement is overblown is because the Spirit of God did not suggest such a notion anywhere in Scripture. Infact, here's a small puzzle for you:

In Mark 3:35 Jesus said: "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Now if Mary the mother of Jesus could be called "Mother of God", could anyone of you chaps in the Catholic Church call yourselves "Sister of God" or "Brother of God" - according to Jesus' statement in that verse?

If none of you could honestly call yourselves by that term, what is the basis of calling Mary what the Scriptures do not state at all?

Regards.

@belloti,

There are still issues to be sorted in Islam. I applaud the efforts of a few Muslim apologists here and beyond; but it seems there are more questions than answers coming from them.

A Friend's Question:

Before I continue, a friend of mine reading my inputs had asked me the salient question:

"Are you saying that people must keep working everyday non-stop and have no rest?"

That is not my inference at all. The thrust of my argument has been that, as Christians we are not under the Sinatic Law of seventh-day sabbatism as a religious duty. Rather, I have stated earlier in one of my entries that God meant the true Sabbath as a rest for the soul by faith in His Son Jesus Christ - the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 11:28-29).

Of course, rest is good - both for the body and the soul. The Lord Jesus even called His disciples away to a desert place for some rest - "And he said unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while: for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat" (Mark 6:31). But when you read the context surrounding that verse, you find that it was not the Sinaitic sabbath that was being observed there.

I have said repeatedly that Christians are not under the Law of a seventh-day sabbath as a religious duty. Keeping the sabbath as a religious observation does not assure anyone of salvation for heaven; and many times people who have no understanding of what they argue have often used their flawed doctrines of the sabbath to condemn others.

Such SDA people reject the testimony of God's Word in the Bible in preference for their prophetess, Ellen G. White. If you ask an SDA member if he or she has the assurance of salvation in his or her heart, some of them will pretend they do; others will excuse themselves on just any excuse. On the whole, they can't provide a clear answer, because they anchor their faith on the heresies of Ellen White who taught that: "Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved". [Christ's Object Lessons, p. 155].

Is that the same thing as what the apostle John wrote in I John 5:13? "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God: that ye may know that ye have eternal life."

Applying the Sabbath Stipulations Today

Now Let me recap for just a moment about the Stipulations of the Sabbath Law according to its revelatory Commandment ~~

(a). The Sabbath was to be kept Holy - Exo. 20:8

(b). No (Servile) Work To Be Done on the Sabbath - Exo. 20:10; 12:16 & Num. 28:25

(c). Anyone Defiling The Sabbath Be Put To Death - Exo. 31:14-15

(d). The Sabbath Meant to Be Perpetual - Exo. 31:16

(e). No Domestic Fires To Be Kindled In The Home - Exo. 35:3

(f). Sabbatarians To Afflict Their Souls Forever or Be Put To Death - Lev. 16:31 & 23:29

(g). Sabbath Was to be Celebrated From Evening to Evening - Lev. 23:32

(h). A Holy Convocation; No Domestic Work At Home - Lev. 23:3

It is by reason of the above stipulations that I have severally requested Bobbyaf to provide answers to my questions. Germane to this concern is the question: On what basis was he arguing the sabbath - (a) on a non-existent Law/commandment in Genesis for Adam; or, (b) on the Sinaitic Law/10 Commandments in Exodus for Israel?

One cannot be said to be fully obeying God's commandment of the sabbath as in Exodus unless all the stipulations thereto are also practically and absolutely acknowledged and obeyed as well. Failing to recognize that there actually were stipulations for HOW the sabbath was to be observed, Bobbyaf only confirmed that he did not know the implications of what he was arguing in the first place.

Let's even for a moment assume that one bases his arguments on the Sinaitic Law from where he derives some knowledge of the sabbath stipulations. Such people would quickly quote from Exodus to prove an argument for a non-existent Law in Genesis. For example, Exo. 20:8 & 10 is often used as cover for a present-day sabbath observance.

However, the simple question is that, if the sabbath-day in Exodus is to be observed as a present-day religious duty, why not follow all the stipulations connected to the 4th Commandment as outlined above? For instance, in order for someone to keep the sabbath-day as spelt out in Exodus, sabbatarians must afflict their souls forever or be put to death ("by a statute for ever" - Lev. 16:31 & 23:29)! The SDA cannot claim to be keeping the sabbath-day by picking and choosing a few stipulations and disregarding the rest of the perpetual statutes. That would be hypocrisy - and Bobbyaf earlier confirmed that in stating ~~

Bobbyaf:
Its the same principle of obeying and live, and disobeying and die as was layed out in the agreement. The blessings and cursings that God pronounced then has not changed because His Son has died.

This simply means that, since it is the same "disobeying and die" and the "blessings and cursings that God pronounced then has not changed"; then SDA seventh-day sabbatrians should not be hypocritical with the pronouncements in Lev. 16:31 & 23:29 as it is required of keepers of the sabbath to "afflict their souls forever or be put to death" as the Law says!

I'm sure they know better than that - and we can now begin to appreciate the grace of Jesus Christ in John 1:17 - "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

@lafile,

lafile:
@ Bari_kade
You need to write a complete treatise on THE SABBATH. I have learnt a whole lot from you. I'm even tempted to do "copy and paste" of all your posts and read. Stay really, truly blessed.

Lol, maybe someday I'll take up your challenge. If you find the previous ones of any help, please feel free to copy them for your use. May God bless you more in His love.

@shahan,

shahan:
@bari_kade,

Needless to say, I have enjoyed your treatise on the Sabbath, especially on the stipulations thereto. Indeed, anyone who seeks to be justified by a sabbatical Law based on the Old Testament and OC is missing the point of God's New Covenant in Jesus Christ.

I'm glad to know the entries on the subject have been of some help to you. A few more will follow to expound the subject a bit more so that we can all see why the SDA promoter cannot use a Law he does not understand to condemn other Christians on the Forum.

shahan:
Meanwhile, I know you started out calmly offering a good exchange of ideas with Bobbyaf; but your recent rejoinders sound like a no-nonsense approach towards him. This, perhaps, is due to the fact that he was "launching" attacks on you instead of stating his points.

Precisely. And my no-nonsense approach will continue as long as he refuses to grow up.

shahan:
Could I offer that you keep your calm and share the good insight on the subject that God has blessed you with? It will both help your readers appreciate your valid points and praise God for His grace upon you.

I'll do my best to take that on board. And God bless you on that.

shahan:
On the whole, solid arguments in yours - and please keep up the approach of highlighting your inputs with Biblical references.
Cheers.

Will continue the approach. Blessings.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
As long as you continue to mis-represent God's truth about the sabbath, and push Sunday as the Lord's day, when it is not, then you are in babylon. By so doing you pay homage to the anti-Christ, rather than Christ. In time you will see that reality.

I told you before - the SDA knows nothing more than accusing the brethren when their superstitions have been punctured. I asked that you check the historical antecedence if you were in doubt about Sunday; and more than 7 replies later you still have been blind to that request.

Bobbyaf:
Who are you to encounter? A god perhaps? Hahahaha, , you're making me crack up Bari_kade.

Keep crying - your inflated ego and confused hoo-ha will be continually exposed on the Forum.

Bobbyaf:
Questions that flooded the thread you mean with your repeated dribblings. You keep raising the same old issues we had argued about before.

Not one time have you answered one out of the 15 questions - and you even had to admit in two of them that you had no Genesis verse for and you were not aware of what stipulations exist for the sabbath. Nice try at evading issues, but it's not working.

Bobbyaf:
I dealt with that Genesis issue ages ago. I have made my point and that is it. There is nothing more to discuss about the Genesis issue. I have been a witness to you on that, so i will leave you to discover the truth in time.

The weak defence you put up for the Genesis issue was that you had no verse! Doesn't that speak volumes about your supersitions? Well done - the SDA cult hasn't helped you much.

Bobbyaf:
The covenant has been re-newed. Its the same agreement. The only thing that is different is the terms of the agreement and how it has been ratified. So even though the bible uses the term "new" its really the terms under which the renewal takes place is new.

Question #17: Where in the Bible did you read of the Covenant RE-established or RE-newed?

Question #18: What are the specific terms of of the Old and New Covenants?

Bobbyaf:
Originally it was the people of Israel who promised God to obey even though they were not ready to obey. Its the same principle of obeying and live, and disobeying and die as was layed out in the agreement. The blessings and cursings that God pronounced then has not changed because His Son has died. This time around God has promised to place His law in our minds, and to give us the enabling power to obey. This power is recieved when we accept Jesus as our supreme sacrifice who will give us His Spirit.

Refer to the two questions above (#17 & #18).

Bobbyaf:
The NC has never been about God abolishing His law. Its been about changing the terms and conditions under which this NC would have been established and ratified. That is why Jesus made it clear to the jewish leaders who thought that He came to somehow radicalise the system, that in actual fact He came not to "destroy the laws or the prophets" He came to fulfill, and by fulfill He meant to broaden the scope of the spirituality of the law. The word fulfill as used in Matthew 5 simply meant to fully utilise or to fill to the full. The law had lost its true meaning under the jewish leaders, and especially the sabbath, and Jesus made sure to teach the people that true purpose, by the way he lived, and through His death.

Again, the two questions above.

Bobbyaf:
I am glad I am sharing a lot with you though. Keep praying and studying and you will see the truth. Whether or not we see eye to eye on interpretation, the fact is the truth is out there. Its only a matter of time.

Bless.

Your problem is that you are sweating out SDA superstition while thinking it is "the truth" - and you're glad? Whenever those superstitions are punctured by God's precious Word, then your mask falls off to reveal who you really are. It's only a matter of time: dress warm and keep reading the expositions they're hiding from you in SDA.

Regards.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Now verse 10 unequivocally shows that God's law is better served when it is internalised, when it is planted in our minds, when true conversion takes place by God's Holy Spirit. Listen to Paul as he continues:

Heb. 8:10, For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

To enable people to internalize His law, to love it and obey it eagerly and willingly, God makes this promise: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them" (Ezekiel 36:26-27). God's Spirit enables His people to obey His laws!.

You haven't stated the basis of your argument as yet, and I'm not sure why you're evading the question.

Bobbyaf:
There is one moral law and that is the 10 commandments. There is one covenant that is built around the law. It is this law that will be placed in our hearts when the NC begins between us and God.

Please don't dribble around the question asked earlier. Kindly state the basis of your argument for the "Law" and "Covenant" - is it the non-existent one you could not find in Genesis; or is it the Sinaitic Law/Covenant you keep mixing up in Exodus?

And your last clause "when the NC begins" is confusing issues for you because you don't seem to know that the New Covenant has already begun!

Bobbyaf:
I have always based my arguments on the moral law of 10 commandments which you insist have been abolished. Jesus said in matthew 5 that you'll will be regarded as the least from a heavenly point of view. It is you who continue to mis-represent God.

Again, you are not my Judge; so using Scripture to pretend such attacks on me is hillarious. Until you state the basis of your argument (Genesis or Exodus), you will continue to miss the point.

Bobbyaf:
I am afraid its you who don't know anything about the subject. Its always you who use out-of-context passages to continue a lie.

My questions are yet unanswered, besides the fact that your lack of contextual reading has forced you to admit you have no verse in Genesis for your argument. Keep slobbering.

Bobbyaf:
A case in point is this very text. Being dead to the law doesn't mean that the law is abolished. What it means is that we can never be affected by the law as long as we remain in Christ. s long as we are alive in sin the law will always condemn us, bu tif we are dead to sin it cannot condemn us, because we are alive in Christ. Jesus said "if you love me keep my commandments"

The Scripture is clear, but you are sweating to confuse your head about it. Rom. 7:4 - "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

When Scripture says that we are dead to the Law, it does not contradict itself by suggesting we are alive to it! We are not married to the Law; rather, we are married to another - even to Him who is raised from the dead! "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4).

Bobbyaf:
You see the way you apply scripture is with the motive to discount God's law, when Paul was not necessarily writing with that purpose in mind. Paul simply pointed out the reality of the struggle between sin, faith, and the law. You have taken that to mean what you want it to mean, so as to continue your anti-law agenda.

I'm not anti-Law. My entries are clearly stating the distinction between Law and grace. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). If you lack an understanding between the two, your slabber and accusations are hardly surprising.

Bobbyaf:
God's law of 10 commandments is eternal and belongs to both the OT and the NT. That is why I quoted Psalms 111:7,8 to show you that His law is eternal. They are done in truth and righteousness. Hence my constantly reminding you of the necessity to make a difference betwen the various codes of laws.

Again, don't dribble round the question. Please find me a verse for your Genesis argument; or otherwise provide the stipulations of the 4th commandment. Since you evaded that question and screamed that you were not aware, scroll up and see where I provided them for you.

Bobbyaf:
So I am not surprised when you quote one section of the bible to contradict another, just so that you can continue in a lie.

Bobbyaf, don't sweat it if you have no text in Genesis for your drivel. I'm used to your accusations, and indeed keep up your forte of being the accuser of the brethren.

Bobbyaf:
This is a perfect example of someone who doesn't understand this passage in question. Paul wasn't using this passage to show that the creation sabbath was a shadow. How could he when the creation sabbath was made before sin manifested. He was referring to those other sabbaths that were institutionalised during the time of Moses, under the Old Covenant, which included the feast days, and which served as shadows pointing to Christ who was the sunstance. Different days meant different things to some jews who often argued which of those ceremonial days was more significant.

I would like you to state clearly how the 4th of the 10 commandments was different from "the creation sabbath" - especially HOW the 4th commandment was to be observed with its stipulations. This shadow boxing of yours round Col. 2:16 is not helping your denials.

@Bobbyaf

Bobbyaf:
Now verse 10 unequivocally shows that God's law is better served when it is internalised, when it is planted in our minds, when true conversion takes place by God's Holy Spirit. Listen to Paul as he continues:

Heb. 8:10, For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

To enable people to internalize His law, to love it and obey it eagerly and willingly, God makes this promise: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them" (Ezekiel 36:26-27). God's Spirit enables His people to obey His laws!

And what Law/Commandment/Covenant are you speaking about? Merely quoting verses were the words "Law" or "Commandments" or "Statutes" or "Covenant" appear does not mean you're convey the sense of the verses about them.

Bobbyaf:
Nowhere does Paul or the prophets Jeremiah, and Ezekiel intimate that God would have done away with His law, and hence the galations and other passages you have introduced into the discussion, are your typical out-of-context use of scripture to continue believing a lie. Its people like you and your kind that make it appear that scriptures cantradict themselves.

Thanks for the usual typical SDA slabber. Not one time have I hinted that Scripture contradicts itself, and I've often compared scripture with scripture and answered every line of your convulsions. So far, you are unable to offer answers to my questions nor refute my points. Keep slobbering - I'm used to it.

Bobbyaf:
So because I know better than to believe your mis-conceptions of scripture, I will hold the forte.

Your pride isn't surprising. Only thing is that your "forte" doesn't go beyond the allegations and calling non-SDA Christians "babylon"! You really know better - well done.

Bobbyaf:
You have a responsibility to ensure that whenever Paul speaks about law, you make it your duty to distinguish between he is talking about the law of ceremonies, or the law of 10 commandments. Look at how obvious it is to make such a distinction. I hope you're paying attention.

This is a joke, right? Nice one, but I'm not amused as yet. How many times have I asked you to state clearly as to which Law/Commandments you were basing your arguments - and one and all you evaded any answers thereto? You haven't even the moral spine to quote a Genesis verse of a non-existent commandment for Adam about the Sabbath; and you have the temerity to twaddle about distinguishing between the Law and 10 Commandments!

Bobbyaf:
This is your misuse of a text in galations, Gal. 4:9-11"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

Compare the above with the same Paul who wrote to the Romans concerning the law of 10 commandments:

Romans 7:12-14 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 14vFor we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Any one who is led by God's Spirit could not in their right mind not see that Paul is making a big distinction between the law of ceremonies and the law of 10 commandments. One set is considered as "beggarly elements" and one set is regared as holy, just, good, and spiritual.

However you delineate the Law or 10 Commandments, you still are skipping verses to show Paul's inference about the subject you know nothing of. Here, take it or leave it ~~

Rom. 7:4, 6 - "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. . .But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

It is only as a matter of convenience that the SDA arbitrarily sees some laws of ceremonies and other laws of sabbath and yet other of rituals. On the contrary, the New Testament position does not bring Christians under the Law of the OC - including the seventh-day sabbath! That is why Paul states clearly that, "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. 2:16). You cannot use the seventh-day sabbath (which you do not even understand) to judge other Christians and call them "babylon" - that is the only language the accuser of the brethren understands (Rev. 12:10).

Bobbyaf:
Bari_kade if you build a set of beliefs on lies, whethr kowingly or not, you'll be forced to see the scriptures the way you have been seeing them. You go about the forum quoting from one section to another to prove what? That you're versed? Far from it!!!

Is this the best of your carping because your intellect fails you? As daft as you've made yourself, what have you been trying to prove - that your IQ intimidates you when you encounter bari_kade and the best you can do is attack and slobber about? Sorry, but you'd have to grow up and be schooled.

All I asked were questions - which you evaded perennially. I offered contextual inputs by comparing scripture with scripture - and you had none in Genesis to prove your case. I answered everyline of yours and offered calm exchange of ideas - and the best you could do is drivel about with silly lullabies.

Bobbyaf:
Sooner or later and I hope for your sake sooner, that you will see the truth as it is in Christ Jesus.
Bless!!!

My dear, it is the truth you've been mixing up that I've been offering you. If you could see it sooner, bless your soul.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Its only a pity that with all that long windedness on your part you've still not arrived at the truth re the Lord's sabbath.

The truth you continue to spin will continue to elude you if you fail to put aside your religious goggles and take God's Word as it is.

Bobbyaf:
If only you had a thorough knowledge of what the New Covenant is all about. In fact it has to also do with God's law, among other things. The scriptures reveal that Christ came as a Mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 8:6) The popular belief that the NC has abolished God's law of 10 commandments mis-represents both the OC and the NC. That notion is an insult to God and what He is really trying to reveal to us.

You like making overblown statements like "an insult to God" since you arrogate to yourself positions He never meant. I have asked you again and again to clearly state on what basis you're basing your arguments - on Genesis or Exodus. You can't have it both ways because they're clearly not the same. When you do so, then you'll get a good grasp of the subject.

Bobbyaf:
What our anti-law friends fail to see is that a covenant cannot change, but the terms under which it was first made can. Hebrews 8:6 did not say that God's law was abolished. It said this:
Heb. 8:6, But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Your anti-grace fog is feeding your contradiction. If a covenant cannot change, what is the meaning of Heb 8:13 - "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away"? And what about Heb. 10:9 - "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second"? Clearly the Bible negates what you're arguing.

Bobbyaf:
As you know a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties. Bear that in mind as we discuss the subject of the NC. Paul goes on to say why God had to re-establish the NC on better promises.

Heb. 8:, 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah

Your despearation to force your thoughts into Scripture (eisegesis) is hilarious. Where did Paul ever hint in those verses that God had to re-establish the NC? When did He first establish the NC, suspend/abandon it for the OC, and then come back to re-establish the NC? Do you understand the meaning of the word RE-establish? I'd appreciate it if you could elucidate a bit more with verses clearly showing WHERE and HOW God first established the NC before coming back to RE-establish it! Hebrews 8:7 said simply that God would make a new covenant; and not RE-establish the NC.

Bobbyaf:
In verse 8 Paul qualifies what made the covenant faulty in the first place, and the fault rested squarely with the people with whom God made the covenant. These people who were once in Egypt and who have failed as a whole to continue in God's covenant before they left, found themselves in the wilderness with the same rebellious spirit. Listen as Paul explains in verse 9.

Verse 9, Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

What "covenant" did you suppose Paul was discussingas "faulty" in vs. 8 - the NC or the OC?

Bobbyaf:
Please note that this mount Sinai covenant was not the only one that was introduced to God's people, and it was certainly not the only one to have been this-regared by God's people either.

What other covenants were there? In other words, are you suggesting that there were more than one OC? _{(please note the spelling is "disregard/disregarded" and not "this-regard"}

Bobbyaf:
Under the OC at Sinai God had written the law on stones which was external to their mind set and motives, seeing they were not converted as a whole. Sometime ago in your response you raised the point about Israel crying out to God for deliverance as proof that they somehow were faithful to God.

Nope - that point was to debunk your accusation against the Hebrews that they were "deep in idolatory in Egypt".

Bobbyaf:
This was your rejoinder:

Compare that with what Hebrews 8:9 says: , "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord."

The fact is God did make a previous covenant with their fathers even before they had landed in Egypt, and not even that covenant did they keep, and God allowed them to suffer under the hands of another Pharoh. He regared them not. I will hasten to say that God did indeed hear their cry, and did eventually deliver them in order that His promise to Abraham become effective.

You miss the point, Bobby. What covenant was God speaking of in Heb. 8:9? I'll quote the line again for you - "the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt" Does that prove that God made a covenant with them before they landed in Egypt? Nope, and incase you still missed it, He was referring to the Covenant He made in the day He led them out of Egypt and not before they landed in Egypt!

@nuru,

nuru:
Nuru is living in the Light of Islam and enjoying every bit of it.

With all your "light", could you please provide evidence for your claims as requested earlier above? It is not enough to drivel; your tales by moon[b]light[/b] should also be substantiated.

davidylan:
More stories told under the influence of Islamic blindness! Carry go!

That's the hilarious part of their reasoning. He thinks that by screaming such anthem of his questions being "ignored", anyone would be amused especially when the case proves otherwise.

@mrpataki,

Certainly, babsblabs-787 has over 787 undefined illnesses - the most serious of which is his blabbing. I didn't have my hopes high as his self-inflicted curses are still doing damage to his thinking.



@babs787,

Your problem is perennial, and we all know that. Aside from the typos (everyone makes mistakes), your drivel hasn't said anything - and my response still stands to the point that shahan answered you well. The issue is not whether or not you were satisfied, but your recent bogus lies that your questions were "IGNORED" where clearly they have been addressed. A gentleman would have simply conceded that he used the wrong word; but obviously you're a stranger to manners.

babs787:
from this your last post, i senses that you are really deluded just like your brother up.,. but i will address your post one after the other.

Is this a version of Ijebu English? If it is, they ought to disown you.

babs787:
just like your sister, being fond of writing lenghty irrelevant words in which at the end of the day contradicts sayings of one of you christians

Keep blabbing - your curses are doing overtime on you. How many times have you written pages of verbose nonsense and still have to come screaming you were ignored, even after answers were provided?

babs787:
Thanks for bringing past issues and very comprehensive indeed. It seemed you were with your glasses when reading your sister’s post but lost your glasses when reading mine.

I didn't bring past issues - I simply referred you to those links to debunk your mindless whining on the Forum about your questions being "ignored", which clearly was a lie! If you want to be 'ignored', it won't cost anything to brush your rantings aside and admire you on record for being such a blabber (or more correctly, a twaddler).

As far as anyone can see, every single line of your questions were addressed by shahan with cogent verses thereto. The worst you could have done is disagreed and offer counter arguments. Where you had none, no one was surprised you would come back screaming curses on yourself on the Forum to have meritted the unenvious title of blabber.

babs787:
I asked her a very simple question that if truly jesus died for our sin, there shouldn’t be any curse hanging as regards to the cursing of Adam, even and the serpent. It should have been cleared since he came to die for that sin.  Does her answer fit the question? meditate on that.

The answer was with a Scripture. If you had problems with it, you should have simply asked.

babs787:
I also asked her again,

You asked shahan nothing - she only addressed the 12 questions you posed to babyosisi; and at the end of her response, this was what shahan said:

Babs787, you often accuse us of not answering your questions. I've obliged you your request by taking up every challenge, bit-by-bit. try not escaping through the backdoor when my bros come around to load theirs for your answers. gbade has captured it well:

Quote from: gbade. x on January 09, 2007, 04:36 PM
^ if he answers you, then don't come typing some stupid bullshit that TayoD didn't answer your questions as you have done in other threads.

This has been the problem with your thinking, and that's what you haven't cured yourself of. Whenever people offer answers, you come back screaming that you've been ignored. If you're still in doubt, access those links again and see if your questions have not been addressed, before you come back crying your pathetic anthem.

@mrpataki,

mrpataki:
And where is that story from your quran or hadith? Thought your women are equated to dogs and animals?

Lol, I'm not so sure that women are equated to such in the collective meaning of Islam. Certainly, a few texts exist in both the Qur'an and Hadiths about some questionable perceptions of women, which even the Muslims on the Forum have not been able to enunciate upon. However, a few other verses exist as well that give women some compliments.

@davidylan,

He certainly is still living in utopian fiction.

@mrpataki,

He's just being mischievous. Even Muhammad in the Qur'an wasn't that pixilated when he drummed up his story of Pharoah employing crucifixion as an execution mode ~~

Qur'an 26:49 - "(Pharaoh) said: Ye put your faith in him before I give you leave. Lo! he doubtless is your chief who taught you magic! But verily ye shall come to know. Verily I will cut off your hands and your feet alternately, and verily I will crucify you every one."

John 15:9 - "As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love."

@switosman,

Already answered - read the various posts on the thread.

@mrpataki,

At least he should understand that readers are not kids, and we can see that his excuses of his questions having been "IGNORED" is not true. That is what informs my concern for fellows of his type.

Following on, we now come to ~~

The Force of the Law

The Law of Moses only came into effect after having been ratified by blood. This is doubly made plain in the following texts:

Heb 9:16-20
¹⁶For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. ¹⁷For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. ¹⁸Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. ¹⁹For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, ²⁰Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The above is in allusion to the event recorded in Exodus 24:3, 7 & 8 --

³And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do ⁷And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. . .⁸And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words

While it was being progressively revealed, the people of Israel would not have understood all the implications and ramifications of the Law, especially because no serious retributions were spelt out (until later on) for the various ways that the Sabbath could be profaned. When once the Law was ratified as a covenant of the LORD, any contravention thereof was treated with the most dire consequences - "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses" (Heb 10:28). How this is spelt out will be seen shortly.

Reference for the above could be seen in Num. 15:32-34 ~~ "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him."

Although it had been expressly declared that anyone doing work on the sabbath day should be put to death (Exo. 31:14 & 35:2), the point with the case in Num. 15 above was that the detail and specific interpretation for that action had not been revealed up until that time. It is to be understood that this unfortunate man chanced upon the provision of Exo.12:16 ~~ ". . . no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you." Thereafter, it came to light that he was to be put to death, and he was (Num.15:35-36).

All these concerns were reasons why I requested of Bobbyaf to calm down and search the Scriptures for the specifications of the Sabbath according to the Law.

Stipulations of the Sabbath Law

The collective testimony of the Law shows that the Sabbath involved some detailed stipulations for its observance. We shall look at a few of these. In order to minimise any misconceptions, it would be best to quote the relevant texts in full rather than make the points in soundbites.

(a). The Sabbath to be kept Holy
Exo 20:8 - 'Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.'


(b). No (Servile) Work To Be Done on the Sabbath
Exo. 20:10 - 'But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.'
Exo. 12:16 - 'And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
Num. 28:25 - "And on the seventh day ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work."

(c). Anyone Defiling The Sabbath Be Put To Death
Exo 31:14 - "Ye shall keep  the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people."
Exo 31:15 - "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." (See also Exo. 35:2).

(d). The Sabbath Meant to Be Perpetual
Exo 31:16 - "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath , to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant."

(e). No Domestic Fires To Be Kindled In The Home
Exo 35:3 - "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day."

(f). Sabbatarians To Afflict Their Souls Forever or Be Put To Death
Lev. 16:31 & 23:29 - "It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever. For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people."

(g). Sabbath Was to be Celebrated From Evening to Evening
Lev. 23:32 - "It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath."

(h). A Holy Convocation; No Domestic Work At Home
Lev. 23:3 - "Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings."

There certainly are more than the 8 stipulations given above, and the cogent questions to ask here are:

Q.#1 - If the Sabbatical Law was given to Adam and all the generations in Genesis, did they include or exclude these stipulations?

Q.#2 - Since the Sabbitical Law was enacted under the Old Covenant as a perpetual statute to Israel, are they still in force today for the Christian - with all the stipulations?

Q.#3 - If the Law of the Sabbath as given to Israel still holds true in the Christian life in the New Covenant, are we then not to follow the same stipulations for the Sabbath?

Q.#4 - If the Sabbatical Law does not hold true for the Christian (since one cannot divorce the sabbath from its stipulations), then why are some sabbatarians accusing other Christians of being "babylon" over an issue they themselves do not understand?

Next, we examine the various Sabbaths in the Old Testament, because God clearly meant that they were more than one type of Sabbath ~~ "Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: 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" (Exo. 31:13).

@nuru,

nuru:
The Hadith you quoted did not say coitus was done without the consent of the captives. And if you must know, females too, used to have men captives.

Please could you provide evidence for your claim suggesting that "coitus" was done with the consent of the captives? What consent did Muhammad's companions obtain from their captives before having "coitus interruptus" with them?

@babs787,

babs787:
You have been telling me that all my questions have been answered. i could remember posing the same questions to shahan, rather than answer my questions, she ignored them on the pretext that they were copied, and now instead of you to have followed the step of your knowledgeable sister that couldnt answer the questions thrown at her, you decided to nail and expose the weakness and fraud in your bible

I quietly watched the discussions progress in various threads and had to wonder that you were going round in circles. After your questions were well served with clear answers by some of the discussants, it is surprising that you're here still trying to deny that they have been put to rest under your repeated excuse that they were "ignored". This is why you convince readers that you do more blabbing than face issues, and I trust that if you really have a genuine head to reason, your attitude will change for the better.

Let me remind you that no one "IGNORED" your questions, and several answers have been offered. You could only disagree with the answers at best; and not rather pretend that they were ignored. Here, let me remind you in just a few instances of the fact that your questions have been answered and were not "ignored" by shahan ~~

1. shahan's sound and comprehensive reply to every single one of the 12 questions you posed on Did Jesus For Our Sin? Which Sin?.

2. shahan's sound and comprehensive reply to your question about the authorship of Deuteronomy: The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and in this link.

3. shahan's carefully outlined answer to your allegations and accusations of lies and stealing against Jesus: again in The Second coming of Jesus Christ.

This repeated excuse of your questions having been "ignored" is really a tattered and weathered one and does not help your arguments at all. Please desist from these childish whining and let's have some sense in your inputs.

@nuru,

nuru:
Muslims will not rape a captured slave, but seek his/her hand in marriage. And that is fair.

Besides the rest of your glaring smoke-screen apologetics, are you saying that it was "fair" that Muhammad's companions were having indiscriminate sex while the Qur'an was being revealed? Did they seek the hand of the slaves they got as "war booties" in marriage before having sex with them? What would you call the following? ~~

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 136:
Narrated Jabir:We used to practice coitus interruptus while the Quran was being revealed.
(see Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 135: Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle).

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Also, what do you mean by "his/her hand in marriage"? Is that to suggest that Muslim men who go to war have sex with male captives as well? Is that not homosexuality you're hinting at?

When you make a post, please be careful what you say in public - you never know just what you're thinking.

I Tim. 5:8 ~~ But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

@babs787,

I've been around and alive, and up until now and forever, your curses upon yourself are non-transferrable. It won't cost us anything to remind you of the fact that you cursed yourself - as it is already working on you, only blabbers with 787 lies like yours can resort to curses upon themselves when their questions have been put to rest.

Hi @shahan. It's been a while, but I trust you're doing okay.

shahan:
I'm really impressed by the way you handled the subject, and how you've related issues by comparing scripture with scripture. Thank you for clearly outlining which commandments were given to Adam as distingushed from what is called the Law of Moses. It would be interesting to read some more of your thoughts about the Sabbath, and how this applies to the Christian position.

Hey, I thought you'd share something with us on the subject, lol. Afterall, you have my respects as an erudite expounder of issues.

Well, here are a few of my concerns about the issue of the seventh-day sabbath Law.

The Sabbath

The word 'sabbath' simply means rest, and the first time it was specifically mentioned by that term in Scripture is in Exo. 16:23 where it is called "the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD." The concept traces its origin back to Gen. 2:2-3 which simply declares what God did on the seventh day -

"And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made."

It is important to note that there was no command/law issued to Adam and Eve to observe/keep the seventh day as a sabbath; and there is no record of any such command or law given to any generation up until the emergence of Israel as a called nation in Exodus. Anyone implying that Adam was given such a commandment or Law to keep the sabbath, will only confuse issues for themselves because they will look in vain for a verse in the Bible for that, and only have to admit that there is none.

The Institution of the Sabbath Law

Although the first specific mention of the sabbath was in Exo. 16:23, it was not until the giving of the Mosaic Law in Exodus 20 that we find it mentioned as a direct commandment. Up until chapter 16, Moses had not mentioned any "sabbath" to Israel, although he had hinted about it in chapter 12 vs. 16 when Israel prepared the Passover ~~ "And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.". No one could have taken for granted that it was already being observed before this time, because clearly the historical antecedents of Israel in Egypt negate such an idea.

In Exodus 20, we find the 10 Commandments given to Israel, the 4th of which appertains to the Sabbath and is found in verses 8 to 11 -

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Volumes could be written on just these 4 verses; but for the present concern I'll just highlight the salient points for our study:

(a) six days were designated for work (that would include working on Sunday for sabbatarians)
(b) the seventh day was reserved for the sabbath
(c) no manner of work was to be done on the sabbath
(d) reason for the sabbath was about God's creative acts.

Please note that no specifications were detailed here for HOW the sabbath was to be observed - and we would have to consider other texts for its stipulations. Shortly.

@Bobbyaf,

If only you knew that God's New Covenant is not about a Saturday or Sunday, much less any day ~~

Gal. 4:9-11
"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

Rev. 4:8 - "And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come."

With regards to the "rest" in Heb. 4:9, have you carefully considered why the word sabbatismos [σαββατισμός] occurs only once in the entire NT, besides several mention of 'sabbath' [sabbton - σάββατον] in other verses? 'Sabbath' does not even appear in the book of Hebrews, and this alone should lead us to study the 'rest' in Heb. 4:9 by seeing the surrounding texts, which I quote below:

Heb 3:18-19 ~~ 'And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.' [compare Psa. 95:11 - 'Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest', which was spoken while the Israelites already had a Sabbath that they were keeping!]

Heb 4:4-5 & 7-8 ~~ '⁴For He spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all His works. ⁵And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. . . ⁷Again, 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. ⁸For if Jesus [i.e., Joshua] had given them rest, then would He not afterward have spoken of another day.

From all the highlighted words, you can see that the text in Heb. 4:9 cannot be used as a proof-text for a seventh-day sabbath law/commandment. Why? Simply because the Bible itself said that God limited 'a certain day' (vs.7) and spoke of it as another day (vs. in contra-distinction to the seventh day (vs.4)! The argument of the passage is that God set aside ("limiteth" a certain day even though the Mosaic Law of seventh-day sabbath was still in operation (see again Psa. 95:11) - He names that day by 3 terms:

'a certain day' - vs.7
'another day' - vs.8
'Today' - vs.7

Then it follows through with the core statement - "⁸For if Jesus [i.e., Joshua] had given them rest, then would He not afterward have spoken of another day."

You can now see that the sabbatismos [σαββατισμός] in Heb.4:9 is not pretext for a law/commandment for keeping seventh-day sabbath. This is why when Jesus came, He openly declared: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matt. 11:28-29). The real rest and full import of what God intended in Genesis 2:1-3 can only be realised in Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28)! This "rest" is a matter of the soul and not an outward ceremony for the sake of serving a Law of seventh-day sabbath. And that was what the writer of Hebrews wanted us to understand by the single mention of sabbatismos in Heb.4:9 - the only place where the word appears in the entire NT.

At least, I appreciate your latest attempt to answer question #16. If you only take time and think through the earlier 15 questions, more light will help your understanding as to why Christians are not under a Law of seventh-day sabbath observance.

Regards.