@TV01,

I just wish that we should come back and tidy this thread; because I'm a bit concerned now that the main characters are being pushed further to the background. Could we just rather do as Heb. 7:4 says: "Now consider how great this man was", and help other readers to not lose the gist about Melchizedek?

Thank you for your brotherly love and challenge; and in due course, I'll share my concerns of the tithing issue in the appropriate thread. God bless you, everyone else who've visited this thread. . . and myself! 


@TayoD,

Lol, thanks bro for your encouragements. I'll see what I can share on tithing in the appropriate thread. Oh yes, I'll also be considering the issue from the actions of our blessed patriarch Abraham. Blessings.  


@donnie,

Don't be discouraged. Let's read more from you; as I'm also interested in reading your persuasions about the points you raised. Regards.

@ALL,
God bless everyone of you. We can rejoice that whether or not we understand the mystery of this great man Melchizedek, our blessed Lord Jesus Christ has such an efficacious priesthood far richer than any man's ability to fathom. Bless all.

I truly thank God for these gracious and carefully chosen words to add to my understanding of His Word. Both enquirers and answers have enriched me - and God bless una well-well.

@yemo,

Thanks for making the added points. However, there's a little fine-tunning I'd like you to consider in yours:

yemo:

thus an unbeliever or baby Christian cannot sin against the Holy Spirit because they are yet to know who He is.

From the various verses in the Bible delineating the various sins against the Holy Spirit, it is quite possible that even believers can sin against Him - whether or not such believers are baby Christians or otherwise.
The need to carefully distinguish between the various sins cannot be over-emphasized. Following the question raised again by saints_1, here are a few of those sins against the Spirit of God:

Paul's warning in Eph. 4:30 to not grieve the Holy Spirit is for all believers, rather than merely to baby Christians.

When believers yield to the lust flesh and walk contrary to the Holy Spirit, they are sinning against Him (Gal. 5:16-21). Infact, reading the verses inbetween reveals other sins that are serious enough against the Holy Spirit:

adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,
wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders,
drunkenness, revellings, . . . and such like.

Believers (baby or mature) can also resist the Holy Spirit when they on occasions when they do not yield to His leading (Acts 7:51).

All of these various sins do not compare to that which is called the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Mark 3:29). It is this very sin that the Lord Jesus warned against with the serious appendage that there is no forgiveness in this regard.

I hope by now we would try to not mix them up; for as long as people fail to carefully delineate issues, the confusion will go on endlessly.

@simmy,

My posts and debate with Muslims are not about just this one issue. If you're confused, bemused and amused all at once about that, please carefully go through the various debates on either side and satisfy your curiosity.

If you believe we Christians (if that exposes you as a non-Christian) have done far worse, thank you. At least, you'd still be sitting comfortably in an airplane beside a Christian anytime you travel; no one would harrass you at the airports for simply being Christian; and no, Christians will not appeal to Qisas when a Muslim woman is murdered.

Worse yet is the "fact" that we very, very bad Christians are the ones calling for the annihilation of Israel; we Christians are the ones going on rampage whenever Muhammad or Jesus is being cartooned; and we should have sought to slice a film producer like Muslims did in the case of Van Gogh while chanting Allahu Akbar!

I'm not done yet. Further to your archives of "factology", we Christians have done "worse" by comparison of the mistreatment of women in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; plus, Christians are the very same people who threaten everyone and lie through the teeth with al-Taqiyya.

Thank you for your revisionist theories, simmy. But your comedy is long over-spent.

charka:

all u do is just to be quoting the place convinient for u. i would av loved to explain that but many people wont understand moreover it would take a whole day and would provoke a lot of things.

Oh dear me! If an explanation is going to take a whole day and provoke a lot of things, we can then understand why we're safer in the simplicity of the Word.

@Aproko,

Aproko:

thanks for the simple english, i actually feel much better.

God bless you.

Aproko:

now i have another question. is there anybody that has been found guilty of blasphemy in the bible? and if blasphemy is pronouncing the holy spirit as unclean, is it really possible to blasphem?

To both questions, I would point to Mark 3:22-30, quoted here in relevant verses:

           (22) And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said,
           He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth
           he out devils.

           (23) And he called them unto him, and said unto them in
           parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? (24) And if a
           kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot
           stand.

           (28 ) Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto
           the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall
           blaspheme:

           (29) But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath
           never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

           (30) Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

From this narrative, tow things would come to mind:

     (a) it is arguable whether or not these people had sealed their doom. The reason I say so is because a lot of people argue back and forth on the subject. But my persuasion is this: this very set of scribes, having carefully studied the Word, came to the conclusion that the Spirit by which Jesus wrought miracles was not the Holy Spirit, but an unclean spirit! For me, in the context of Jesus warning, they had committed this grievious sin. (But please not: not all the scribes were guilty of this: just this group which came down from Jerusalem).

    (b) what exactly did they pronounce to have fallen into this very serious sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? Let's look at them again: they had called the Holy Spirit names such as "Beelzebub" and "the prince of the devils" (vs. 22)! It was this very unfortunate sin that that occasioned the warning the Lord gave in the subsequent verses. That they had fallen so grievously is indicated in vs. 30: "Because they said. . ." - that's it: it was because this was what they did that the specific case of blasphemy sealed their case. How could a "scribe" (who was supposed to know the Word) come away pronouncing the Holy Spirit as an unclean spirit?

But does one really need to know the Bible before they blaspheme against the Holy Ghost? I don't think so. The NT was not even written when Jesus made the statement we read in the Gospels in this case. However, if something about God's Spirit has been demonstrated before someone, and he comes away pronouncing that demonstration as the work of "demons", "an unclean spirit" or even of "the prince of demons", they are actually falling into this grievous sin. I hope this also answers the question of if it is possible to blaspheme? I pray not one of us falls into that sin!

It only would be a warning to all to be careful what they say!

Aproko:

you havent answered my question. is heaven only for those that have come across the bible? are you implying that those in remote areas that can barely read are doomed?

Would Romans 2:12 help here? "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law."

What then? Romans 2:7-10 --

   "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory
   and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are
   contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness,
   indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of
   man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But
   glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the
   Jew first, and also to the Gentile."

@mekoyo,

mekoyo:

The death of JESUS CHRIST on the cross of calvary has broken all these laws, we are now free, free from the law.

Lol. I would rather say that His death fulfilled the Law on our behalf so we could be justified in Him. Acts 13:39. Bless up.

TV01:

The discussion continues,

Amen. Let's read from you, bro!

@simmy,

simmy:

ok, maybe not millions, maybe a feww hundred thousands, myabe not even a few hundred thousands, mayb tens of thousands, does it matter??

It matters. Accusing others of being crazy is not making a saint out of you by making frantic (and often dramatic) capers. A few hundred thousands . . a few thousands . . maybe tens of thousands: my dear simmy, I hope all is well - are you that desperate? Which is which?

I have stated the case earlier that the wars on either side were [b]un[/b]justified (IMHO). That does not mean that we should pretend the Islamic threat of JIHAD is non-existent. They won't tell you what exactly it means. . . until another incident like the Gombe murder occurs (God forbid). And then what? You'll come back to apologise that Christians are as bad or crazy as the Jihadists for not seeking to murder a Muslim woman, NO?

We won't need any statistics for that; so you can keep up the melodramatic gambols as much as makes you happy. My fingers are still crossed for you, dear simmy.

@TV01,

TV01:

I'll start at the end, and probably won't need to go any further  .

If the case helps it so.

TV01:

First ~ The discussion on tithing was always based around whether it was mandatory, that is an obligation for NT Christians. In as much as you obviously don't subscribe to that, we are agreed up to that point.

Not just tithes/tithing. Infact, nothing in this regard is mandatory! The question is as nebulous as asking: should Christains give at all? And then the answers equally come back in form and spirit to say, "Well, just simply give without a mandate!"

TV01:

Second ~ If one chooses to tithe (pay a tenth - or to use it more loosely, a fixed percentage), that is between them & God, and does not engender some kind of blessing over and above one who simply gives. Not to mention that another believer could easily give more than this tithe (or the others combined giving types   ), without feeling the need to label it.

Beyond what anybody "feels", I'm looking for a concrete recourse to the divine prerogative for any type of giving. Is there any blessing connected to giving - any type of giving at all? Well, this is what Jesus said:

Luke 6:38 - "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."

For those who simply give and do not see the blessing in that connection, good for them. However, that is not to say that they inability to see it applies to other givers.

TV01:

Third ~ Do I need to add that giving is a grace, a choice and should be mindful of circumstances, especially noting that there are priorities for NT Christians in applying their means, and giving (outside the immediate family) is not first.

Ol' boy, you make me laugh!    The "grace" you're campaigning for is not a question of setting "priorities". Abraham was not mindful of priorities for family before giving tithes to Melchizedek. Paul commended the Macedonians for giving even beyond their power - and that at a time of great affliction (II Cor. 8:1-4). Remember the widow's mite - of whom it was said by the Lord that she gave all of her living?

A "grace" that is first self-satisfying (human priorities) is not a NT response in worship, sorry. And arguing in this strain is yet another weakness, rather than a strenghth, to your point.

TV01:

Fourth ~ Yes a worship response aptly titles all our actions as Christians to do the glory of God, by His grace working through us. But the whole basis of your submission is made mute by saying NT Christians tithe but there is no rigid code? which just takes us back to my second point above.

The question is quite straightforward: is any type of giving mandatory? No. If anyone is looking for a "rigid code" anytime tithing is mentioned, they're taking their eyes off the example of Abraham in Genesis and looking for a non-existent stringent fire-brigade approach for tithing.

TV01:

Fifth ~ Also adopting the "types of giving and associated blessings" approach shows clearly that you believe that the act of tithing engenders some sort of reward.

Correct.

TV01:

Sir, that is not a response, that is an act, a work. You turn the chain on it's head, You actually want God to respond to you.

My dear sir, even though I'm not holding God to ransom when I give tithes, He of Himself chooses so to predicate a blessing on any type of my giving - as long as I do so willingly, and cheerfully.

You may argue that tithing is an act, a work; rather than a response. Cough. Please go back and see that Abraham gave tithes - both as a response; and by which act, he demonstrated his faith by what he did (works)! Lol.

The heart of the believer who understands Abraham's actions and response does not read a "work" that is limp. Show me your faith by what you do is often my watch word.

TV01:

Sixth ~  You did'nt actually respond to my "Practical outworking & application" poser. For discussions sake, I say "okay lets introduce a tithe", what does the assembly do with it? How is it utilised?

I'm not asking that a tithe be "introduced" - Melchizedek did not ask Abraham shi-shi! The blessed patriarch spontaneously responded by what he did. Now, if believers give tithes, they are used in just the same way that we find in principle in the NT.

If you don't know what to do with any type of your giving; send it to me - and I'll make sure that your talent is not buried!  

Okay, seriously. . . what you give is used in the wisdom offered us in the NT about giving. I don't think that Abraham was quite bothered with HOW Melchizedek would use his tithes.

TV01:

Seventh ~ I often wonder why people would spend time and resource trying to justify or legislate the tithe.

Beats me. I don't even understand why others would spend even more resources and time legislating against it!

TV01:

I'd refer them to the "all things in common" approach of primitive Christianity and ask how you'd fit the notion of tithing in there? I'd go on to ask why Peter clearly told Ananias that his possessions where his to do with as he pleased, if Ananias was either obligated or better served by a voluntary tithe.

Add this to that understanding: if Ananias did not even wish to give in the first place, he was not bound to do so. What was more in focus there was not a question of tithes; rather, Peter challenged Ananias bare-faced lie in the matter (Acts 5:3).

TV01:

I also have recourse to scripture. II Corinthians 8 & 9, should nail it for most.

And an anecdote. The first thing I became bound by as a believer was the notion of the tithe. The first religious thing God loosed me from was that same notion. The scripture above was pivotal.

Incidentally, I was not bound either way - it was just a matter of ignorance on my part. Today, I understand a bit more and have left the childish stuff that once characterized my walk. II Cor. 8 & 9 do not legislate for or against tithes or any other type of giving.

The pointer I'd like to leave for readers is simply this: is your giving a matter of a response in worship; or human priorities and exigencies prevail over that  response?

Blessings.

@Drusilla,

If the work carried out by priests in the Temple on the sabbath was so that the Israelites could pay them some form of salaries, I would see your point. However, that is not the case at all.

The priests did not engaged in any secular jobs on the sabbath that involved earning salaries. Their work was in the Temple; and the allusion that has been made in reference to Jesus' statements did not suggest the idea of economics and commerce.

Please read Nehemiah's protest against people trying to profane the sabbath for any kind of money making venture:

    Nehemiah 13 - "(16)There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which
                            brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on
                            the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in
                            Jerusalem.

                           (17)Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said
                           unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and
                           profane the sabbath day?

                          (18 ) Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God
                          bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? yet ye
                          bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the
                          sabbath.


If anyone is going to "do good" and not run foul of profaning the Sabbath, then the exemptions being offered for making money should be thrown out! (Incidentally, buying and selling also takes the form of working to earn money in the hospitals).

One cannot pretend this issue; because any so-called exemptions to re-arrange the LAW of the Sabbath will also begin to make men excuse the other 9 Laws/Commandments and make exemptions to profane them!

@Drusilla,

Drusilla:

Spiritual body is like the exact opposite of a "flesh body" right?

Perhaps, I'd agree with you that you have a point; but it all depends on what we mean by the terms flesh and body. I'm persuaded at this time that we shall stand in our bodies in the presence of the Lord at the Resurrection.

I remember Job said: "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God" (Job 19:26) - which again would point to how we shall appear on the Day of the Resurrection.

What this would then mean in NT language is what the apostle Paul expounded upon in Phil. 3:21, when speaking of what the Lord Jesus would grant to believers in that Day:

         (21)  Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,
                 according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

When Jesus rose from the dead, He spoke in terms of what He possessed even in His resurrection:

         Luke 24:39 -- "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:
                               handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
                               bones, as ye see me have."

We know that the NT speaks of the Lord's resurrected body in terms of a glorified body. What exactly this means, my small knowledge is unable to fully expound - for it was the apostle John who made this remarkable statement:

        1 John 3:2 -- "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth
                              not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that,
                              when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we
                              shall see him as he is.

Blessings.

@simmy,

Pardon me if you read my inferences as muddled up. I only asked you to produce or adduce evidence for the following statements I read in your rejoinders:

MILLIONS burnt at the stake

the Islamist fundamentalists following the Spanish Inquisition
(since you failed to see where the Crusades came in)

etc.

If you're going to read me your own belief of historical antecedence, be kind enough to be honest and cut out the dramas and wild frantic statements before I can take you seriously.

Thank you.

@Aproko,

Aproko:

i did read your post and my opinion has not changed, we have no way of knowing that he wasn't referring to the holy spirit, there is nothing in the context of those verses that point to the blasphemy against jesus or the holy spirit., he was before a blasphemer i still stand by my words that saying that blasphemy was against jesus is a safe assumption. or that he caused people to blasphem, again he didn't say against who, so that still is a safe assumption to me.

Okay. Then you would have to either explain the contexts of ALL the verses that have been proffered in explaining Paul's testimony; or simply for argument sake pretend they are not there.

Aproko:

maybe i should repeat my question, who is the holy spirit?

and believe me, from all that has been said so far, i still don't understand the concept of blasphemy against the holy spirit, since it is different from a sin against him. please forgive my lack of understanding and kindly put it in simple terms and then bible verses. thanks for the patience.

I do appreciate the questions. In simple terms:

  #1. sins against the Holy Spirit (not same as blasphemy):
                          lying to Him         (Acts 5:3)
                          resisting Him       (Acts 7:51)
                          despising Him     (Heb. 10:29)

  #2. Believers and unbelievers sin against the Holy Spirit - and they can be forgiven when and if they repent; but not in the case of blasphemy.

  #3. Specifically, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is to pronounce Him as an unclean spirit. This is a deliberate act: "Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit" (Mark 3:30).

  #4. Can blasphemers against the Holy Ghost be forgiven at any time? Jesus' warning is a categorical NO!

       Mark 3:29  - "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost
                             hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal
                             damnation."

  #5. Is there a difference between blaspheming Jesus (as Son of Man) and blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Answer: any sin against God is a serious matter: but the blasphemy againt the Son of Man may be forgiven if the guilty one repents:

       Matt. 12:32  --  "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son
                                of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever
                                speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be
                                forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the
                                world to come."

If there are more questions, I'll be glad to consider them, even though I don't know much.

Blessings.  

@simmy,

Please do me one favour: rather than continue the hangover from the stupor of the wild statements, please refer to your history books again. I'm quite certain now that the whole caper is waning, even though you're not wishing to get done with it; like this one again:

simmy:
The spanish inquisition is just one example of the millions of despicable acts commited by xtians in God's name. The ilamist fundamentalists are just following in the xtian brothers footsteps.

So, the Crusades came before the Islamic invasion 460 years earlier, not so? Your history teacher must be really impressed! And thanks all the same; it was a nice try.

richie-x:

Let's just say that the Hol spirit is the soft part of God and HE DOESN'T JOKE WITH IT

Lol, how did you come to that conclusion?

Aproko:

jesus christ said, if ye must pray, pray then like this - the lords prayer. (and thanks for saying it all over again)

The jumping up and down aside, one thing, please: is that the only place where Jesus dealt with the subject of prayer?

@Drusilla,

Drusilla:

That is all your argument.

Obviously not! Please go through my arguments in this and the other thread from where Bobbyaf keeps reharshing already done debates.

Drusilla:

I just read several posts that there are no exemptions for the sabbath.

Did you find any exemptions in the strain of the several posts?

Drusilla:

Being found blameless even if one profanes the sabbath, seemed to me to be a pretty big exemption.

Does that exemption include making money on the Sabbath day and excusing it away? I asked you to please walk me through the entire LAW of the Sabbath and find me just that one verse that excuses EARNING MONEY on the sabbath. Thank you.

Drusilla:

I haven't looked myself but I believe Jesus that this exemption is in the Law.

Until you bring the very verse in the Law where you get the exemption for making money, I'll still be asking that question. Cheers.

Drusilla:

Bobbyaf,

The soul however can be as Ezekiel shows resurrected. i.e. life brought back into the body brings back the soul, right?

A non-existent soul cannot be re-arranged to excuse the idea that Bobbyaf puts across to you. He calls it the "mind" - and I only want to know this: does Ezekiel say that the "mind" is borught back to life?

I think we should be open to the whole picture of whatever the Bible teaches, instead of trying to narrow issues to fit any idea that comes to men's fallible minds.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

@ Barikade

This doesn't prove that the soul isn't an expression used to describe the whole being of man. I am not certain as to why the word soul would be used in this way, but here is my take on it.

If you would only go through the Biblical use of the word soul, you will see why the Bible does not confuse it at any instance in their various connotations. The soul is distinct from the spirit of man; and it is not something that could be narrowed to a particular idea (such as mind) in the bigger context.

"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. " - Heb. 4:12.

It is not a mere question of dividing between the "mind" and "life force" - for the Bible explicates these two quite distinctly.

As for Revelation 6:9, if the soul simply ceases to exist beyond death, then the Bible would not have made reference to quite the opposite of your idea.

@Drusilla,

Drusilla:

Bara-kade,

What about the idea that "no flesh can enter the kingdom of God", we must be changed into what Christ is, corruptible must put on incorruptible.

I'm not sure that our flesh body must stand before God.

Glad you asked. Here:

I Corinthians 15:

"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" - vs. 35

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." - vs. 44

"the dead shall be raised incorruptible" - vs. 52.

@Bobbayf,

Please leave the false accusations and slobbers aside. All I ask is a simple question; and if that is not enough, then let me stretch that question for you both:

"Till heaven and earth pas not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled"

Where is it written that people could EARN MONEY on the Sabbath Day according to the LAW or COMMANDMENT of the Sabbath?

That is all I'm asking of both of you, so that the Law itself settles the excuse and exemptions for SDAs to profane the Sabbath. And please, remember to keep the slobbers and attend to the issues here.

Thank you both.

Drusilla:

Actually, there are exemptions in the Sabbath Law. Jesus states it.

Mat 12:5 Or have you not read in the Law that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are blameless?

Even priests profaned the sabbath and the Law says they were blameless.

@Drussilla,

If you believe that the Sabbath Day Law was meant to be profaned, good for you. But can you walk me through the entire LAW of the Sabbath in EXODUS for the "exemptions" you're advancing and let's see how they tessellate with working to earn money on such days as the germane excuse to profane the Sabbath?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

I rest my case bari_kade because you're missing the point and confusing the whole matter with what you have come to accept as sound reasoning. I have grown accustomed to your quoting scripture after scripture that have been taken out of context.

I have not confused any issues; and if you're unable to adduce texts for a Sabbath LAW or COMMANDMENT in Genesis, then your arguments from EXODUS are pointless. I'm quite accustomed to your slobbers; but that does not adversely affect the discussions in anyway. If all that seventh-day adventists can do is make excuses and then accuse others when issues are pointed out, I can see how much of a rigid spirit you have.

Bobbyaf:

One thing we have in common though is that time will either prove you, or I wrong. Keep your Sunday holy if you can, and I will do what the Lord expects and requires.

And by this your self-righteousness should be applauded, NO? I've said it before: everyday ("TODAY" - see my previous rejoinder) is holy for the NT believer in Christ; and if you can't see that, then there's no need for your accusations that Christians who worship on Sunday or any other day for that matter are "babylon".

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

Well it depends on the kind of rest you're referring to, wouldn't it?

The apostle Paul says there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God. The greek construction makes it very clear that that rest was not the spiritual rest, because it is translated as "there remains the keeping of a sabbath"

Now in verse 9 we find the controversial statement as, “there remains therefore a rest for the people of God”. Every other greek word used for rest in Hebres 4 is katapausis, while the one used in verse 9 is "sabbatismos" Its the only NT use of the word for rest. Hence its understanding is crucial to what Paul is talking about when he talks about rest as stated from chapter 3:7

Now what does the noun sabbatismos mean? The writer of Hebrews in 4:3-11 states, and using quotes from Genesis 2:2 and Ps. 95:7, that the promised rest of the sabbath awaits a complete reality for the people of God. Paul explains that God's original plan for that realization failed as a result of Israel's non-belief and lack of faith. What most christians don't seem to realize is that God used the sabbath as a sign to distinguish those who were faithful from those who were un-faithful. Ezekiel also afirmed that the sabbath was meant to be a sign of God sanctifying them.

Jesus in His time demonstrated the true purpose of sabbath keeping to the jewish leaders in general.

Hebrews 4:9 concludes based on the translation of the word sabbatismos, that the experience of the sabbath rest today highlights that wider rest that is found in being obedient to Jesus' words. They interact. When one becomes a new creature in Christ under the New Covenant, one is empowered to obey God out of sheer love for Him. The love of Christ constrains us, or compells us to trust and obey. In other words the creation-commemaration experience of sabbath-keeping (sabbatismos), is a manifestation of the inner rest. True conversion leads to a natural obedience as against legalism, or having to be exact about sabbath observance, as you're and others are trying to impose.

That is why Isaiah promises that even during the earth made new God's sabbath will still remain a day for worship. Unless of course the word remain carries a different meaning as used by Paul, and intimated by the prophet.

Cheers.

Why are you pretending as if this issue has not been discussed before? Your reharshing a debate from another thread has become tiresome; and until you have fresh points, please don't try shlepping worn-out reposts.

Here is the link where I discussed the case of Hebrews 4:9 and the question of sabbatismos [σαββατισμός]:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-34371.160.html#msg872793

And just so you don't come back with excuses as to not being able to visit that link, I'll reproduce the discuss here:

bari_kade:

@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.

As for the reference to Isaiah, I've asked you to look carefully and see that the elements mentioned there are typically suited to the OT style of worship. If you have problems seeing them, then you can reharsh them yet again and i'll be only too glad to point them out to you.

donduke:

This is delicate, guys. Will you take an offering from a politician? We know most are corrupt. Will you ask people what their source of income is before you receive their offerings? It goes on and on.

Corrupt minds do not like to give willingly or humbly. Humility is not in their dictionaries. When a CM (corrupt mind) - whether he's politician or any other - comes to make a "special donation" or "tithe", he will call for special attention. Then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?

Julez:

Christianity is not only about speaking in tongues, churching, wearing the longest clothes, paying tithes (this are not bad o), but its about walking with Christ, like Christ and living for Christ.

Here - please have a big hug from me!

salsera:

But You know what is said about those who giv sparingly

Lol. . . Maybe I should recommend Psalm 119. Now that's sowing abundantly!!


Anyway, one of these days, I'll be making more inputs from the Psalms. Blessings.

Bobbyaf:

When a person ceases to exist as you're aware, his body returns to the ground, and his "life force" returns to God.

The question that now begs to be asked, what has happened to the soul? Well, it simply doesn't exist anymore. Once there is no union of body and life force, there can be no soul.

Revelation 6:9 - "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held."

@davidylan,

davidylan:

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies

Just so that our friends are cordially reminded of the FACTS they so like to conveniently avoid, this happened in November 1095 when Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade at Clermont in south central France. He was a latecomer to the Muslim "visit" 460 years EARLIER!

I was just waiting for simmy (and his folks) to come round their wild statements and carefully go through history. Particularly, how they see the crusades as preceding the Jihad of Islam.

On both sides, there was no justification for such wars. However, as babyosisi has pointed out, one should look into the books (the Bible) for where Christ instructed that anyone should go kill in His name. But since our friends heard of the Spanish inquisition, they fail to note this subscript whenever they make reference to it:

davidylan:

[size=20pt]More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.[/size]

@goodguy, thanks for that good word! So refreshing to find something on the Forum that adds to my morning devotional read today!

Hi monshege and ganjaih,

monshege:

bari_kade,
first and foremost, i applaud you on your patience in answering the questions being thrown at you even when its obvious some people are seeking for a way to trap you into a religious argument. in any case, to those willing to learn/understand, there is sin against God, against Jesus and against the Holy spirit. some of the fears you have as sin may just be sin against God and Jesus which is recorded as forgivable. to understand the blasphemy against the Holy spirit, you have to first go back to the basic and understand who the Holy spirit is, as someone already asked. you should be worried about those kind of sins and how you can fall into them instead of trying to find a way to turn the words written in the bible

I deeply appreciate your balanced insight and good pointers with the call for us to try and rediscover who the Holy Spirit is in Himself. I believe this will help progress this discussion and provide concrete answers to so many other questions some might have on this topic.

God's blessings.