₦airaland Forum

@ Malik

@Bobbyaf,

You haven't brought anything new, but have kept going round in circles and recasting your ideas in new clichés. It's really simple: if Christ is the one who in Daniel 9:26 "shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary", then you're saying that the same Christ is the one called "the abomination of desolation" that stands in "the holy place" in Matthew 24:15!

Daniel 9:26
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

I am saying nothing of the sort. The text is pretty obvious. It speaks of the Messiah as being cut off, and it also speaks of the other prince whose people would destroy the Jerusalem temple. Besides, I am not concerned about verse 26 as I am concerned about how you see the "he" in verse 27.

Thats my focus. There has never been a qualm between us and verse 26, so why keep referring to it. Lets look agin at verse 27 because that is where the issue lies.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I am saying that both pronouns "he"as seen in "and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" and the "he shall make it desolate is the same Jesus. Although in verse 26 it speaks of the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, in actual reality, it is Jesus who shall make it desolate even until the consummation. What does Jesus have to do with Jerusalem becoming desolate you might ask? Well, it was He who through Daniel had long ago predicted the demise of Jerusalem seeing it is He who sees the future. As long as Jesus is God, and if we are to accept that His word is true, then He is saying in the latter part of verse 27 that any attempt to restore Jerusalem before the end of time would be futile.

Thats why verse 27 says that He(Christ) shall make it desolate, or allow it to remain desolate until the end. This has absolutely nothing to do with Christ being the abomination of desolation, because of allowing the deslation to remain, since as dru already explained that the expression cannot be a person, but a situation.

The word abomination means that situation that is loathsome and disgusting to God or His people, while desolation means a state of emptiness and void.

@ Lordimpaq

@bobby

so what are the comparative differences between the two sets of codes as he mentioned?

I have already made a comparitive difference above.

and what makes the law written by the hand of moses any different written by the hand of God?

Because the ones written by the hand of Moses were meant to be transcient. For example, the laws of ceremonies and rites. Those were written on parchment. These were a shadow of things to come.

On the other hand God wrote His 10 commandments on stone siginifying permanence and endurance. These 10 were the basis of the whole covenant agreement between God and His people.

and if there is one law as u emphasize, then why are there comparative differences in the two codes?

I have always said that there is one law giver, but different codes of laws. The word one in the phrase "one law giver" isn't qualifying the law but the person giving the law. In other words there is only one person whose description and prescription of what is absolute in terms of standards, and that person is God.

@ Malik

Exodus 32 does not end in verse 16!!

Does it matter? The point is already made.

Exo 32:19 >> And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

Exo 34:1 >> And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

What did the text say? "and I will write upon these tables, " who is the I in the sentence? God or Moses? Your guess!

Exo 34:2 >> And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

Pretty straight forward so far!

Exo 34:27 >> And the LORD said unto. Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

What a jump from verse 2 to verse 27, wow! I wonder what happened between verses, and I am led to wonder as to what Moses was instructed to write. Let us see the context Malik. Look at what God said to Moses after He finished writing the 10 commandments again since that was the reason He called him there a second time.

Exudus 34:10-11
10 And he(God) said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

11Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Here after God finished writing the 10 commandments according to verse 1, He then turns to Moses and say in verse 10 "behold I make a covenant, "

What is a covenant? Its an agreement between two or more persons, and in this case it is between God and His people. The core of this covenant was the 10 commandments. Its like a platform on which all the covenant sat. The 10 commandments provided the basis of the agreement.

Exo 34:28 >> And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments

The word he in the latter part of the verse could not have been Moses, since logically the previous verses already confirmed that it was God who re-wrote the 10 commandments. Compare these two verses:

Exodus 34:28 "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

Deut.4:13 "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."

Compare the sentence construction of the latter with the top verse. Who is the he in Deut. 4:13, ? See what I mean? You have to both use common sense and context. If you were to read all the verses that surround verse 13 in Deut 4, would you get the sense that it was Moses who wrote the 10 commandments? Nope!

There are many instances in the bible where you find this apparent contradiction, where in one section it makes a clear statement only to reveal another statement that confuses the whole thing. That is why we must follow the principle of "line upon line"

You would very much like to accept that the "he" is Moses, but that acceptance would not be based on overall truth of God re-writing the 10 commandmnts. I will confess that at first when I saw that text some many years ago it had me thinking for awhile. However, when you study hebrew syntax you walk away with a better understanding, that sometimes certain passages can be difficult, not so much because they contradict truth, but because they were poorly translated.

A case in point would be what Jesus said to the man on the cross beside Him as it relates to being in paradise the same day. A simple misplacing of the comma in that sentence made it look as if the man went to paradise the same day, wehn in truth and in fact, the man is waiting on the resurrection call, and has not really gone to heaven as such.

The commandment written by God's finger was broken; Moses was instructed to write the same words in the second sets of tables. It was written by the hand of Moses.

Not according to this verse: Exo 34:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest."

That is your private interpretation coming out.

This is what happens when people treat verses in isolation to drive their assumptions. That was the reason I left off the argument - you can't make a man see what he does not want to see.

The same can be said about those who read the scriptures without applying common sense.

@ Malik

Dear @Bobbyaf,

You keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

Well, that is easy for you or anyone else to say! But I doubt that.

When carefully considering the whole event of the prophecy in Daniel 9, you'll find that verses 26 through 27 is a whole picture of a sinister individual (no doubt with an army) who wrecks havoc in the holy place.

Lets look at verse 26 again.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Didn't it mention the Messiah also and not only the other prince? Didn't it say that after the 62 weeks, (not including the previous 7 weeks mentioned before about the walls of the temple being restored), that the Messiah would be cut off? That would logically mean that the Messiah would have to be cut off in the 70th week, and to be exact in the midst of the 70th week.

Look at the logics of continuity. If you interpret the cutting off of the Messiah as having taken place in AD31, to which history has alluded, then how is it that you'd readily desire us to believe that the he in verse 27 is some future Anti-Christ that will exist beyond the 21st century. There cannot be a 70 weeks or 490 years determination upon the jews if the period isn't continuous. Logics alone makes that fact un-disputed. In other words, if the 70th week is cut off from the 69th and separated as you would want us to believe, then Daniel could not in his right mind say that 70 weeks were determined upon God's people. Logic also requires that the 70th week follow immediately after the 69th week. If it doesn’t, then it cannot properly be called the 70th week!

It is illogical to insert a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th week. No hint of a gap is found in the prophecy itself. There is no gap between the first seven weeks and the following sixty-two weeks, so why insert one between the 69th and 70th week?

This is like saying "son be in bed in 70 minutes" What if after the 69th minutes he slides out of bed and said "Dad the 70th minute hasn't started as yet."


Besides, Daniel 9:27 says nothing about a seven-year period of “tribulation,” a “rebuilt” Jewish temple, or any “antichrist.” You people are reading into the scriptures so as to suit a teaching. The stated focus of this prophecy is the Messiah, not the antichrist.

As a matter of fact Daniel 9 is a continuation of Daniel 8, which makes mention of a longer time prophecy of 2300 days from which the 70 weeks were cut off from. That is what the word determined means. It means cut off from, and in this case the 2300 days.

BC457, AD1844 = 2300 years from this longer period was to be

Bc457<, Temple restoration, >BC408<, 3 score & 2 weeks, >AD27<, Confirmation of New Covenant, >AD34
<-------49 yrs-------------> <--------434 yrs----------> <------------------7 yrs.------------------>

After 49+62 weeks up to AD27 Christ was baptised and annointed from whence He commenced His ministry. In the middle of the last week being AD 31 He "was cut off" leaving the remaining 31/2 years for the finishing by His disciples of the New Covenant confirmation. Chrsit started it, and His disciples finished it. During this period the covenant was to appeal to the house of Israel specifically until AD34 where the probationary period allotted to Israel would be complete. Is it strange that after Stephen became the first martyr of the church in AD34, the very end of the period allotted, that Paul being a witness of such became the missionary to the gentiles?

Ever wondered why soon after Christ died that the temple was destoyed there after? In fact 39 years after Christ died, and went back to His father, the temple was destroyed. This is more likely to fit the prophecy mentioned in verse 26 referring to the people of the prince coming to destroy. Look at what Jesus said about Jerusalem even before He died.

Matthew 23:
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

This is the desolation of which Christ spoke that was already predicted by Daniel 9:27.

The problem with some interpretations is that in Daniel 9:27 they see Christ; but when in Matt. 24:15 Christ Himself made reference to the same Daniel's prophecy, they no longer see Christ there.

That doesn't apply to my argument at all, because I have no problem seeing that the He in verse 27, is the Christ in matthew 24 causing the desolation by allowing the Romans to destroy the temple. God has ultimate control, and it is He who determines the course of history. Thats why Jesus implied a condition in Matthew 23. In other words if the Jewish people had fulfiled their God-given task of obeying the voice of the prophets that were sent by God through the ages, all this would not have befallen them.

Secondly, you're reading things into it that are not there, and it's only understandable because you're being carried along by the word 'covenant'. Why do you think that the 'New Covenant' is in that text when it actually is not? The new covenant is ratified as an everlasting covenant (Heb. 13:20), so it could not be the same as you're reading in Daniel 9:27 which is only for one week!

If it were everlasting then why is it new?

If you keep reading "Christ" into Daniel 9:27, you'll continue to have the same problems with Matt. 24:15. Take your eyes off commentaries for a moment and prayerfully read the whole texts in their contexts, and you'll see that Christ is neither the figure in Daniel 9:27 nor in Matt. 24:15.

I have been doing that but thanks for the advice anyway.

It is not the Messiah who wrecks the havoc in Dan. 9, nor is He the one who does so in Matt. 24. You can't see Him in one text and refuse to see Him in the other text that makes reference to the same thing. And because it is clear that Christ is not the figure called "the abomination of desolation" in Matt. 24, it equally does not apply to Him at all in Dan. 9.

But He allowed it! He caused it! He could have prayed to His Father and stop it, but His praying wouldn't change anything you see. It was time for action. Remember what happend to Jerusalem of old? Wasn't it the same God who allowed the babylonians to plunder it?

@ Malik

Ok I could have made a quoting error when I used verse 27 for the people of the prince. Sorry about that! It wasn't done for the reasons you have quoted.

Just to make it clear let me quote Daniel 9:25-27


25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

There can be no doubt who that prince is, right?

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

In this verse as was said before, the people of the prince represents the Roman attempt in destroying the temple in AD66, and its final success in so doing in AD70.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I am saying that the he here in verse 27 is Christ, and not the prince used in the second half of verse 26, which grammatically cannot be correct when it is seen as the same he in verse 27. The people in verse 26 is the subject. It is they who do the work of the prince or that person who is in command, or who issued the order for the temple dstruction.

There are different commenteries about who is the prince in the latter half of verse 26. Some say it was the Roman general Titus, and some say it could have been a sub-ruler to Caesar. In either case such a prince had no power to confirm the covenant, which no doubt was the New Covenant.

Only the real Prince of peace could have confirmed(strengthened), seeing that is what the word means, with His blood, the New Covenant.

Another point I'd like to raise is about another function that would be performed by the Messiah, and which is:

he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

This means that Christ through His death abolished the ceremonial sacrifices. Christ also shall cause the demise of the temple, and since He is in control of the affairs of history, no power on earth would have been able to prevent such a demise, or attempt to reverse it. Thats why the text went on to say that through the overspreading of abominations, the temple would not only be destroyed, but remain that way until the end of the world.

@ Syrup

Don't go beyond what is written so you can be on safe grounds. God didn't give the Sabbath law to Adam, and nowhere do we read of a Sabbath law for Adam.

So are you saying that Adam wasn't a man? Wasn't he the first man? If Jesus said that the sabbath was made for man who are you to not include the first man as desering of the benefits of such a noble institution?

I am certain if Jesus had said that marriage was made for man you wouldn't have had a problem associating Adam with such an institution, would you?

In fact both the institutions of the sabbath and marriage were made before sin manifested itself, and as I said before, the creation sabbath cannot be attached or pinned to a Jewish set of laws, confined only to them. Thats why I made it clear that the other sabbaths that were instituted during the time of Moses are what Paul refers to as a "shadow of things to come"

What is stated is that after God finished His work, He rested (in the sense of 'hallow' that day). Second, you're mixing up issues because on the one hand you pedantically made reference to the 10 commandments (which included the Sabbath), and now you're slacking off by saying "This sabbath must not be confused with the others that were created for special convocations specifically applied to the Jews."

, this doesn't even make sense. You're arguing the wrong issues. Common sense besides logic is what is needed to see that God's law being eternal, and which includes the creation sabbath, is different from Moses's laws which were meant to be transcient.

In time you will see that.

Why then quote the 10 commandments for others if you don't want it to be confused with the special convocations specifically applied to the Jews?

You missed the train again it seems! I was comparing the creation sabbath with the specially-instituted sabbaths just to clarify what was said in Paul's writing about the latter being a shadow of things to come. Surely the creation sabbath cannot be seen as a shadow since it began before sin began.

All things being referred to as shadows, must have come about when Moses was instructed to introduce them to the Jews, or Israelites.

@Bobbyaf,

You've left me more confused than when you first began. Your reply was ambiguous and not succinct enough to convey a clear sense of your arguments.

I believe I have done justice to the topic, but I believe your confusion is somewhat confusing to me when you stop to think of how detailed I explained what you needed to understand. Eyes they have but cannot see, and ears they have but cannot hear.

>> (a) In other words, there are two Laws and two lawgivers in the OT - one by Moses and the other by God?

I will repeat for emphasis. There is one law giver who is God, but different codes of laws for different purposes.

Pardon me, Bob, but you're not making any sense at all. God gave both the 10 commandments and the Law directly in communication to His people through Moses.

Since you're not enlightened about this topic I will facilitate you. I'd rather listen to what the bible has to say than your assumptions, because its obvious you love to assume. Let us see if you can continue to deny the word:

Exudus 31:18
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Clear as day! The 10 commandments were written by God Himself, and not by Moses. Here is yet another reference that is clear as day Syrup, , although I am not so sure you'll be sweet after this one:

Exudus 32:15,16
15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.

As far as divine inspiration is concerned, the Bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Tim. 3:16), in which case there's nothing you read in God's Word that was not given by inspiration of God.

Its obvious again you do not know what the process of inspiration involves. Let me repeat again for emphasis. Since the 10 comandments were written by God directly, as already confirmed by the passages I cited, they could not have come about by inspiration, whether or not they are found in the bible. It would be safer to say that the account about how the 10 commandments came into being is a result of inspiration.

The scriptures were put together by scribes. As the prophets spoke the scribes wrote. Which is quite a different matter. As for the laws that were written by Moses:

Moses' law was the temporary, ceremonial law of the Old Testament. It regulated the priesthood, sacrifices, rituals, meat and drink offerings, etc., all of which foreshadowed the cross. This law was added "till the seed should come," and that seed was Christ (Galatians 3:16, 19). The ritual and ceremony of Moses' law pointed forward to Christ's sacrifice. When He died, this law came to an end, but the Ten Commandments (God's law) "stand fast for ever and ever." Psalms 111:8. That there are two laws is made crystal clear in Daniel 9:10, 11.

Please note that God's law has existed at least as long as sin has existed. The Bible says, "Where no law is, there is no transgression [or sin]." Romans 4:15. So God's Ten Commandment law existed from the beginning. Men broke that law (sinned--1 John 3:4). Because of sin (or breaking God's law), Moses' law was given (or "added"--Galatians 3:16, 19) till Christ should come and die. Two separate laws are involved: God's law and Moses' law.

And if there's only one Lawgiver, why are you snapping about a distinction between the one law He has given? You're making it sound like God's laws are different from Moses' Law.

The scriptures make that abundantly clear!

>> (b) And what in essence are you saying in the application of the Law - that Christians are saved by grace but still need to keep the Law?

Would you commit adultery? Do you practise stealing? Are people free to murder? If your answers are no, then it means that the law of 10 commandments are very much alive and well. Unless of course you hav totally ignored what Paul said in Romans 7:7

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Since we are a people that like to rationalise sin, and refuse to call it by its right name, God's law serves to remind us when we fail to see sin for what it really is.

When God saves by grace, He nowhere turns us back to a rigid system of keeping the Law. The 10 commandments are codified in the Law, and why would God turn people back again to laws by which we could not be justified in the first place (Acts 13:39)?

Well, only someone like you would choose to see it that way. The motivation to obey is love. If we love God being obedient to Him will be no problem. Our obedience is never robotic, but natural.

Then I highly recommend you take a second look at your list and realise that you only copied and pasted your ideas from a concordance without carefully understanding what is what. I don't mean to be crude, but your list suggests that you were pitting Moses' Law against God's Law - to make it sound like there actually were two lawgivers and two sets of laws! Let me quote you again:

I didn't take it from a concordance. I took it from a study site, and I fully understand everything I posted. I can't help if you failed to see the imort of the comparison. The list of comparison isn't pitting anything against anything. There is one law giver, but the laws were given under different conditions and had different purposes as I said above.

What you should understand here is that, just as m4malik said, Moses' law was God's law because God gave them through Moses to His people, and therefore there was only one Law, and no distinction that suggests a difference in what God has given. This is underscored a number of times in the OT - "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Exo. 12:49); . . . 'Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.' (Lev 24:22); . . . "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. (Num. 15:16). All that Moses passed on to them were actually God's Law and commandments.

And I doubt if you understand the context of what was said in these passages anyway. I suggest you go read the fine prints before commenting. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Don't confuse civic laws with the 10 commandments. Every race is subject to God's law of ten commandments.

I will leave your other posts on hold since I have already dealt with them before. In essence it is clear that God wrote His 10 command ments law, and Moses wrote another set of codes.

@ Jagunlabi

Aren't we getting offtopic?Catholicism,pagan or christian?Let's get back to the issue.
I say once again that any christian of whatever  variation,who  accuses catholism of paganism,is automatically calling him or herself a pagan.

What do you think, that God won't be coming back for a pure and spotless church that would have freed itself from such pagan entrapments?

The RCC just didn't up and existed. It arose because gradually the pure church that Jesus started became currupt over time. So in every generation God has to remove a remnant that He knows will preserve the truth at all cost to start afresh.

there u go again, u guys are just not agreeing with each other,

the title of the thread is the sabbath what day is it, ?

its a simple question that needs a simple answer,

so far all what everyone's posted is an expantiation of the fact that it is cannot be necessarily saturday that it can be anyday.

and also an expantiation of the differing between the old covenant and the new convenant,

and what i see most glaringly is whether the new convenant replaces the old one or it completely overrides it,

God help us all,

So how would you explain Paul reasoning and debating with the greeks on Mars Hill. Thats how it is my friend. There are some threads that bear that characteristic. They easily go off course, but its all a learning experience anyway you look at it.

@ Tayod

1 Thessalonians: 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I think the misunderstanding comes in when we muddle up several events together. This scripture clearly talks about the rapture, and if you notice Jesus is not even going to step on the earth at this coming. He is going to be in the air where the dead in christ will rise forst to meet Him, then the rest of the Christians who are alive will join them up there.

If this is the case then how comes the advocates of the secret rapture teach that only the christians will know when Jesus comes? They argue that the other people would come to realize that all the christians simply vanished. You and I know that the above passage doesn't even come close to saying that. In fact the passage said that Jesus' return will be audible. However if we read Matthew 24:38-39 we will notice some degree of commonality with 1 Thes. 4:15-17

Matthew 24:30,31.
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Take notice of what the text is saying:

1. A sign in heaven shall proceed the coming of Jesus, in other words before He and His angels burst that eastern sky, the cosmos will give a sign.

2. The tribes(all races of people) of the earth will mourn, since they weren't ready for His coming. They shall also see Him coming with power and great glory.

3. And as Thes 4: already said, coupled with what this is now saying, there will be trumpet sounds from the angels who will gather up the elect including the resurrected saints.

In all of this there is nothing that comes close to what is being taught by the advocates of the so-called secret rapture.

His coming where the whole world shall see Him as mentioned in the Book of Acts is different from the one here in Thessalonians. If we can distinguish between both events, then we will begin to dispel some of the confusion that seems prevalent.

No where in the Pauline writngs will you find two separate reports of Jesus' coming. The OT refers to it as the day of the Lord, while the NT refers to it as the parousia, or simply, coming. listen to Paul writing to the same troubled christians at Thessallonica:

2 Thes. 1:6-10
6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe in that day.

Notice the commonality again in all the passages? Jesus comes with His angels and His coming is awesome and powerful. The wicked will be smitten by His glory and brightness. This corresponds with his first letter in 1 Thes 4 where Paul uses this phrase:

", Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds"

In other words when Jesus comes the only ones who will remain alive will be the ones who were not smitten by the brightness of Christ's glory and power, that is the living saints. No wicked person will remain. Their bodies will lay on the earth like dung according to Jeremiah with no one to mourne or bury them. The earth itself will be broken up and all the cities will fall.

Take it from me Tayod this notion about a secret rapture is coming straight from the pit of hell, and is designed by Satan to decieve people into tinking that if they miss the train this time round they can catch the next one.

Well I grew out mine, but I rememebr I used to faint easily after extreme exertions. One of the best things for asthmas is to use O-3 supplements. The O-3 somehow plays a role in reducing the body's over production of mucous, which triggers the problem.

I am a health and lifestyle consultant , and have seen my friends put their asthmatic children on O-3 supplements, and believe me after awhile the asthma just disappeared. Its really amazing what nutrition can do.

@ Dru

Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel, is when God kept the Jews out of Israel.

Just wanted to share this point with you from another angle. let us vew the text again:

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Notice what Jesus said to those who were in his hearing by the expression "when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, "

Have you ever wondered why Jesus would expect anyone to actually see "the abomination of desolation"? From all indications it was meant to be a sign of salvation to warn them against something worse that was to arrive. Listen to what Jesus said to those who would see the "abomination of desolation"

"Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains"

"Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house"

"Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes."

"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!"

"But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day"

History verifies what exactly was this abomination of desolation. Before AD70 when the actual destruction came upon the temple by the Roman army, there was a previous attempt by the same Roman army to destroy the temple, which took place in AD66. This activity was seen by the Jewish people as an abomination because of the presence of a pagan army with their banners approaching the temple walls. In fact these soldiers were actually driven off by the Jewish zealots at the time.

It was this sign that Jesus referred to that when noticed by those who understood the prophecy of Daniel would be a clue for the those who believed Him to flee for the mountains. Jesus in His mercy gave them a sign. Those who overlooked the sign were either slain or suffered immensely because of the seige that took place around the temple. There was immense hunger within which witnessed parents eating their own children.

Of course the desolation came 4 years after when the entire temple was completely destroyed leaving no stone upon the other as Jesus predicted.

The reference "the people of the prince" as seen in Daniel 9:27 represents the general and soldiers who represented the Roman emperor. It was they who destroyed the sanctuary and killed thousands of people in the city of Jerusalem itself.

@ Malik

To interpret this verse as referring to Jesus seems to me to miss the point altogether.

The grammer shows clearly it has to be Jesus the Messiah, lets take another look at the grammer again,


25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

1. There are two uses of the word prince mentioned overall:

(a) the Messiah the prince

(b) the people of the prince

In (a) the Messiah is the subject, and in (b) people is the subject, and not prince.

The Messiah the prince in verse 25, and the Messiah in verse 26 are the same person being the main clause of the each sentence. The people of the prince becomes the subject of the sub-ordinate clause being used here to introduce the reality of the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem.

The He in verse 27 is a continuation of the main subject, ie the Messiah who was the only person who made the sacrificial system null and void through His death, being the same thing as "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease"

Also in verse 27 the expression "and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation" is confirmed in Matthew by Jesus' own words when he said:

Matthew 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

The "he" is Jesus again telling us that he will make jerusalem desolate even until the end, whih is the same thing as saying shall make it desolate, even until the consummation The word end and consummation mean the same thing, and of course the word end would naturally mean the end of this system of things.

In other words and in keeping with what was said before, is that after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in AD70 it would never be restored again.

Good question Dru! If Jesus didn't say to His disciples why would anyone even attempt to say? And notice that the word kingdom was used here in Acts 1, and not temple. Like Judas the disciples were only interested in seeing the Romans vanish. They desired dominion and control and longed for freedom.

Judas was the only forthright person to actually set up Jesus by betrayal thinking he could force Jesus to free them, and become king, not knowing that his act was ordained.

How many times did the disciples ask as to who will be the greatest in the kingdom, only to be met with disapproval from Jesus.

@ Drusilla

I'll just start with number 1 and we can go from there:

The seventy weeks:

69 weeks:

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

70th week:

Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Notice the bible does not teach that the Messiah was cut off in the 69th week as many Christians are told.

The 70th week has to be past because it was only after the 69th week that the Messiah cut off.

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The next verse shows what Jesus did.

Confirmed the ccovenant

1. Confirmed the covenant.

Cut off in the midst of the week

2. Jesus preached for 3 and half years.

Desolation for the Jews

3. Refers to the Jews loss for not accepting their Messiah

I posted a similar response in my secret raprure thread, but I agree with you on this one.

@ Syrup

Nice having you in the discussion!

@Bobbyaf,

(a) In other words, there are two Laws and two lawgivers in the OT - one by Moses and the other by God?

No! There is only one law giver and that is God. God gave the 10 commandments directly outside of inspiration, and he gave the other laws indirectly through Moses using inspiration. Anyone who writes on God's behalf does it through inspiration.

(b) And what in essence are you saying in the application of the Law - that Christians are saved by grace but still need to keep the Law?

Good question! We are not saved by keeping them, but after we experience salvation by God's grace, we become obliged to do what he commands because we are motivated by love. So the 10 commandments only act as a standard or guide. So the motive is what determines how we keep them.

(and which one - the Law of Moses as distinct and different from the Law of God?)

I gave a comparative list above in a previous post.

(c) How exactly do you understand the ramifications of the Sabbath - that is,

¤ what are the consequences of keeping or not keeping it?

¤ to whom specifically was the Sabbath given - to Jews or Christians?

God in His love gave us the sabbath for our own physical, mental, and spiritual well being, so that is one positive ramification. Like all other commandments among the 10 if you fail to keep one you become guilty of all.

The sabbath was given to mankind from creation. Its typically believed that the sabbath was made for the jews but that is not consistent with Jesus's own words when He said "the sabbth was made for man(mankind)" Mark 2:27 Who was the first man? Adam right? Then it measn that after creation, God instituted the sabbath for him to rest or refresh himself from his work in the garden. That explains why immediately after creation God Himself lead by example, and not becasue He was tired per se, but set aside that specific day for Adam and his descendents. This sabbath must not be confused with the others that were created for special convocations specifically applied to the Jews. Collosians speak of these sabbaths as shadows and types.

(d) what then is your summation about those texts in the NT that state that Christians are not under the Law?

It depends on what law you're talking about firstly, and secondly it depends on how you see the words "under the law"

If we are referring to the 10 commandments then the only ones who are under the law are those who break them. If we say we are christians then we have nothing to worry about since we follow the Lord by faith. In other words Paul assures us that we have nothing to be afraid of when it comes to the harsh expectations of God's perfect law, siince we walk by faith. ( see Romans 7)

@ Dru

Bobby,

Look at this sequence of events, some actually believe.


This present world -- unbelievers can be saved.

Rapture: Christians are taken away by Jesus secretly.

The tribulation --  unbelievers get another chance to be saved. By Jews preaching!

Why would an unbeliever even care about the rapture, since they still got a chance to get saved?

It even goes further than that, next they believe that:

Jesus and all the saints come back in Glorified bodies and rule the earth for 1000 years.

Rule over who exactly?

Then they inform you that there will still be unbelievers on the earth!!!

So this would be like the 3rd chance unbelievers have to be saved!!!

All an unbeliever has to do is, survive, this world, then the tribulation and then God's wrath and Armageddon and make it to the earthly Millenial Kingdom!!!

Sinners in Jesus Kingdom? Unbelievers in Jesus Kingdom?

Glorified saints ruling over Mortal Human beings existing on earth for 1000 years?

It is mind boggling. But most are probably like me and just believed it, without knowing that is the nonsense they believe.

Good points! These are some of the same issues I have always had with the notion of the secret rapture notion and what seems to follow.

While I believe that christians will be raptured in the sense that they will be caught up to meet Christ in the air, I don't believe, and justifiably so, that:

1. unbelievers will be left behind for a second chance because this is unjust on the part of God and will make Him look inconsistent with His own character. If God will give unbelievers a second chance in this age, then He will have to resurrect the ante-deluvians and give them a second chance too. People back then had one chance to listen to Noah's message and either accept or reject. Jesus said as recorded in Matthew that as it was in the days of Noah so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of man.

2. during the 1000 years life will be here on earth because both OT and NT scriptural references point to a devastated earth that would be as it was before formed it. Revelation 20 makes it clear that Satan would be bound for 1000 years, then how is it that people would be able to make a fair choice to accept God over the beast, if there is no real temptation, assuming that these people are going to be here? Is it fair to expect students to pass an exam if they weren't prepared and tested for it prior to the exam?  ,

3. there will be a 7 year-tribulation that begins the 1000 years because the period allotted to this tribulation is not consistent with bible prophecy as recorded in Daniel 9. You cannot attribute to christians what was meant for the Jews . The advocates of the tribulation cannot find a NT text to support their notion, so thay had to conviniently find a prophecy for it in Daniel 9. That 7 year period although mathematically correct has been wrongly placed for the wrong time. Its already been fulfilled and points to the period between AD27 to Ad34 the middle of which being AD31 where Christ the Messiah was cut off by death. It was this prophetic week in which the New Covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ beginnig with Christ's ministry and ending with the death of Stephen in AD34. It is this same week that they have literally stolen and mis-applied to the future.

To show you how deceptive these people are they have refused to comment on the remaining part of daniel 9 which predicted the AD70 destruction of the Jerusalem temple, to which Jesus referred in Matthew 24. Let me give you a portion of what the prophet said:

Daniel 9:25-27

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

7 weeks to rebuild Jerusalem + 62 weeks will lead up to the Messiah ie Christ. This period ended in AD27 where the meaning of Messiah was manifested through Jesus' annointing at John's baptism. The word Messiah as you know Dru means the annointed one.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The word "after" in the expression "after 62 weeks" , would also include the 7 weeks used up to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Some people get confused at this point in the prophecy. In actual fact the period ended at the death of Christ, which would lead us to the middle of the last week being 7 literal years.

7 years + 62 weeks = 69 weeks at which point Christ was baptised + the remaining 1 week = 70 weeks

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The last week = 7 years , the Messiah was cut off in the middle of it leading up to AD31, and the remianing of that 7 years would end at AD34. Between AD27 and AD34 Christ as well as His appointed disciples confirmed the NEW COVENANT. The disciples after Christ died in AD31 and ascended to heaven, continued the confirmation when they were empowered by the Holy Spirit, where they confined their message to the Jewish people until the end of the Jewish dispensation being AD34. After AD34 Paul was commissioned to start preaching to the gentiles who would later be grafted into the NT church comprising both jews and gentiles.

So now you know where they got this 7 year period from. Its been mis-applied.

Ditto

@ Malik

Your efforts are appreciated, but you've scarcely added anything to my arguments and only came to acknowledge (albeit indirectly) that your previous assumptions were weak.

Of course its very easy for you to convince yourself of that.  I have given you the word but each time you go around it.

"Under the Law" points to obligation and not condemnation;

Think about it for awhile, how can a law that points out sin not condemn the one who breaks it? Every law I know comes with the potential to punish if its tenets are broken. In the context of salvation if anyone should live contrary to what the law stipulates, it logical that that person will reap the full penalty of sin. There is no getting around that however hard you try.

it is in applying the Law to our lives that something else (sin) brings about a condemnation - yes?

Absolutely not! Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans 7, as I have already explained, that the real problem was sin and not God's holy and just law. Paul himself concluded to which you're blinding your eyes, that the struggle is between self and sin, but the law by reason of its nature makes it very difficult as a means of overcoming sin. It is pwerless to save us from our wretchedness and selfishness. ONLY GRACE CAN DO THAT.

So our goal as christians is to become submissive to God, so that His grace will take hold of our lives, and when we feel that love burning in our hearts, we will become obliged to do His will, and obey His voice.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there's only one Law Giver (see James 4:12). That which Moses wrote down was actually God's Law. So, if Moses' Law was temporal, by inference you'd be saying that God's Law was temporal. God gave the Law through Moses, and that's why Scripture speaks of it in several places as the Law of Moses.

While I agree with you that there is one law giver, your understanding is very much flawed concerning God's 10 commandments law as they relate to the other Mosaic laws. Let me give you some comparitive differences between the two sets of codes:

                                                          
Moses law called "the law of Moses" (Luke 2:22), God's law called "the law of the Lord" (Isaiah 5:24).

Moses law called "law, contained in ordinances" (Eph 2:15), God's law called "the royal law" (James 2:. 

Moses' law written by Moses in a book (2 Chronicles 35:12), God's law written by God on stone (Exodus 31:18; 32:16).

Moses' law placed in the side of the ark (Deuteronomy 31:26), God's law placed inside the ark (Exodus 40:20).

Moses' law ended at the cross (Ephesians 2:15), God's law will stand forever (Luke 16:17).

Moses' law added because of sin (Galatians 3:19), God's law points out sin (Romans 7:7; 3:20).

Moses' law is contrary to us, against us (Colossians 2:14), God's law is not grievous (1 John 5:3).

Moses law can judge no one (Colossians 2:14-16), God's law judges all people (James 2:10-12).

Moses' law is carnal (Hebrews 7:16), God's law is spiritual (Romans 7:14).

Moses's law made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:19), God's law is perfect (Psalms 19:7).

Any reasonable person looking at the biblical comparison can only conlcude that God's law was designed to govern the moral aspects of worship, while the laws that were written by Moses were so done to deal with the services and rituals that related to a particular type of worship. These rites and services all pointed to Christ who became the substance.

Listen as Jeremiah speaks about the basis of the New Covenant:
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Certainly you don't expect for the Lord to put those laws of rites in our hearts do you; or the laws of sacrifice in our hearts do you. So its obvious that the prophet is no doubt talking about God's moral law that determines right from wrong. If these laws were not laws to attract a moral sense of obligation why would God of all persons put them in our hearts/minds? Why even bother to mention them at all?

Who is the house of Israel? We are! The christiasn church is the house of Israel, which is a combination of literal Israel and spirtual Israel. As individual jews they have the freedom now to accept Christ just like us. Paul explained that in Romans 10 and 11, but in Galations 3:26-29 he says:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise

The fact that the first converts to the message of Christ were Jews makes that point very clear. Now that the message was now opened up to the gentiles, and seeing that they were grafted into the natural olive tree, the church of Christ is now a kaledoscope of people from all races, peoples and tongues.

Was Jesus actually asking Christians to keep the Law in this text?

Thats the wrong question. The reason why Jesus said what said was because the Jewish leaders thought that He came to nullify the law. Look how many times Jesus healed on the sabbath, and to them it was considered blasphemy. Matthew 5 was Jesus' way of saying that HIS LAW would still stand despite what they believed.

If that were the case, then it would seem as if Paul's teachings contradicted it.

Thats because you like most others have failed to discern Paul's writings.

However, notice in verse 18 that the Lord Jesus made clear that all things in the Law must be accomplished (or fulfilled) - by who? By none else but Him!

I agree with that, but what do you understand by the meaning "fulfill" It certainly doesn't mean to put an end to, or to abolish, or destroy. It means to carry out or execute the purpose of something. All you married peopel out there when you fulfill your marriage vows do you destroy them or end them, or do you execute them on a daily basis?

Jesus fulfilled the law in two ways. He died in our place, even though we broke the law, so that the law condemned Him instead of us. The wages of sin is death, and what did the bible say sin was? Quoting from 1 John 3:4 it says: "sin is the transgression of the law. Jesus also fulfilled the law by being obedient to its requirements. He kept all of God's commandments perfectly. That is why we have the assurance that God's will can be achieved in our lives only if we allow Christ to take control. He knows our feelings and infirmities.

That is precisely what He stated in verse 17, for He would be the only One to fulfill them, and those who believe in Him would receive the blessing of His accomplishments. That is precisely what He taught after His resurrection - "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning ME" (Luke 24:44).

Sorry to disappoint you Malik, not everyything that were said of Jesus in the writings of the prophets are fulfilled as yet! Jesus' life and death were only a part of those fulfillment. Daniel, John prophesied about his being our High Priest and His role in the judgement in the courts of heaven. That judgement is still going on as we speak. So not everything is fullfilled as yet. In Daniel 7:13,14 this was prophesied

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Here in this passage the prophet goes all the way into the future and relates to the coronation of Jesus Christ which matches up with 1 Corinthians 15.

The reality is that not everything that was spoken about Christ in the book of the prophets are fulfilled already, hence the law still stands. Not one tittle or jot can pass away till all be fulfilled.

This is why Paul's inspired discourse aptly conveys the understanding that it is through Christ's obedience that believers are made righteous - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Rom. 5:19).

I agree with this 100%, but it still has no bearing on whether or not God's law is applicable here and now. I am not saying, although I have said it already, that the law saves. Grace saves, period, but like Paul asks does grace make void God's law?

What do you think the answer is? 

@ Malik

The rapture will include all Christians - both those who have slept in the Lord, and those alive when it occurs. It's a one-time event that will include all, not just a few.

So in other words the rapture but not necessarily the secret rapture. I have no problem with the use of the word rapture, because indeed there is going to be a "caughting up", if there is such a term, lol, of all the saints when Jesus actually comes.

I appreciate what you're saying malik.
_______________________________________

@ Drusilla

Bobby,

I agree.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

You're very much on target with the use of this text Dru which tends to become a thorn in the flesh of those advocates of the secret rapture.

I am yet to find one advocate of the secret rapture that really can bring out a sequence of argument to support this false belief. Its pure conjecture and fiction.

If ever there was a farce, the secret rapture idea is one such thing! For starters thee is no scriptural context for it, and secondly it just doesn't add up!

Line up your scriptures and come and defend it, if you can!

@ M4malik

I beg to disagree with your reasoning here because it's not supported by Scripture. "Not under the law" does not speak of condemnation but obligation

The expression "not under the law is more than likely referring to its condemnation rather than obligation. Here is why I say that. Listen to Paul's opening statement in Romans 7:1

1 Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?

St. Paul goes on to use marriage as a perfect illustration. In summary if a woman should marry another man while her husband is alive she is an adulturess. In this instance is she obligated to obey the law? Yes she is very obligated or she risks being called an adulturess. Common sense alone dictates that.

so that where the text appears as such, it rather means that Christians are not under obligation to keep the Law as the means to gaining perfection or any grace from God.

We are obligated to keep God's law, but not for the reasons you conviniently seem to want to attribute to me. I have repeatedly said that the law cannot save anyone, but somehow you have this notion that I am saying that. Well, let it be known that I am not saying that.

Romans 7:7-13
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law.

What is ths saying? The law of 10 commandments has a purpose and that purpose is to point out sin. Are we obligated to kow this fact? Very much so! We as christiasn are obliged to know whats right from wrong, so that there can be no confusion. If I marry and take my vows, am I obliged to obey the law or not? Of course I am obliged!!!

For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet.

See above!

" 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.

Here we have two sets of principles in operation. The law of sin and the perfect law of God. In our weakness and sinful nature we are naturally inclined to resist God's law, so sin capitalises on that weakness. It makes the law seem as if it is acting against us, when in truth it is for own good. Paul in the latter part of the statement said that if there was no law then there would never be a thing called sin. I other words there would have been no obligation to have to obey. We would not be accountable, and hence free to do what we desire to do.

9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

As was said before life is naturally proned to do as it pleases. Its selfish. Its the only thing we know. It makes us feel good. Now comes along that commandment that bids us do good, and so we find it a struggle, because that commandment is showing up how sinful we really are, and the only way we can overcome is when we eventually die to sin.

10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

What death is Paul talking about? I wonder! A death to self perhaps? Paul explains in verse 11 below:

11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

So it becomes obvious that all along sin was the problem and not the commandments. Paul finally concludes that:

12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

The idea that 'under the law' indicates 'condemnation' wuld make me wonder if that is precisely what God meant when He sent His Son under the law - "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal. 4:4). So, did God send His Son under condemnation? God forbid the very thought.

That wouldn't be the same thing since Christ's mission was to save men from that condemnation. Under the law as used in your reference would carry a different and wider context of the entire Jewish system. As I have said before not in all cases does the word law mean the same thing.

In one instance it can mean the 10 commandments, and in another it can mean the overall Jewish torah.
___________________________________________________________

"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." - Gal 3:23-26.

The purpose of Paul's letter and the situation that demanded it is enough to qualify what legal code Paul addressed. This broad use of the term law covered the ceremonial law, among others, and including circumcision that some were trying to impose on others, to the detriment of faith that was needed for a relationship with Christ. This has nothing to do with God's moral law to which every person is obligated.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." - Col. 2:14-17

Same set of ceremonial laws are included in the above. Why do I say that? If in one breath David can say that the Law of the Lord is perfect, and Paul can say that the law is holy, just and good, then it becomes obvious that the only set of laws that can be contrary to us must be the same ceremonial laws that Jesus nailed to the crosss. When Jesus hung on the cross and died the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom, and in that way He Christ made a shew of them openly.

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." - Heb 7:18-19.

I am not sure what context you pulled this one from, but the latter part of the text is sufficient enough to reveal that it spoke of the cereminial law that involved sacrifices. In fact the context of that chapter makes a comparison between Christ's sacrifice, and those of the rams and lambs. So there is agreement here.

There is an abundance of texts in Scripture consistently arguing the same thing - that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law nor justified by it.

God's 10 commandment law is not and can never in all honesty be called a Mosaic law. The Mosaic laws were written by Moses, and were meant to be temporal. God's law is eternal.

That is why I offer that when God saved us by grace, He did not seek to turn us back to the Law which He Himself was setting aside. Not that we are a lawless people under His grace; but we are not under obligation to the Law to be justified thereby.

Same old same old accusation. I am sorry it carries no weight!

Listen to what Jesus is saying to you:

Matthew 5:17-19
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I cannot speak any clearer!

@ David

@ bobbyaf,

to thy tents o Isreal. Obviously you have decided what to believe.

Hhhmmnn! No comment! 

One only wonders what we are still doing here on earth if all the events of Dan 7 and Rev 13 were fulfilled in the dark ages.

You tell me! I was never of the belief that those events were supposed to have ended the age! 

Then what about the events in Rev 14, 15, 16, 17? Do they tie up to occuring in the dark ages too because by careful scrutiny you'd realise they are events that would take place around the same time as the events in Rev 13?

Not from a historical standpoint. While the chapters in the book were placed in a set order, it doesn't mean that the historical order has to be the same. John certainly didn't put commas and punctuation in his writings. Its the bible compilers who did what they did.

About your 1260 days being 1260 years, that is absolutely not true.

All bible scholars agree on this use of a day to represent a literal year. I am not sure where your scholarship lies?

Agreed the bible talks about a day meaning a thousand but that doesn not automatically tie every day to be a thousand years.

So far you're the only one who is saying that! I didn't apply that text as far as my memory serves me!

Some are left as they are, days!

Not when it comes to symbolic language. Its just that you're not familiar with the decoding principle. Every symbol has to be decoded, other wise the nothing would make any sense. The book of revelation possesses both lock and key. For every code there is a decoder.

Those 42 months are symbolic and are mentioned several times in the bible.

So what! They still have to mean something! And I say they mean 1260 literal years.

Read some parts of revelation, u'd see a time, times and half a time - 3.5 years = 42 months = 1260 days.

And they all point to one period in history , papal rule for 1260 years.

The bible will not mention something several times and in several ways if it had no symbolic meaning.

Listen to yourself!  , and I am saying that all those symbolisms have a meaning. Its your job to ask for the keys and God will supply.

Note that Rev 17 ties the same beast with 7 heads and ten horns with the woman, the same beast as mentioned in Rev 13.

But it supplies even more details. Thats a given.

You have to read through to the end of chapt 13, the same beast is connected with the issuing of the mark of the beast WHICH WILL ONLY OCCUR AT THE LAST 3.5 YRS OF THE TRIBULATION AFTER THE RAPTURE!

No such thing! The notion that surrounds the tribulation as understood by you, is that the church in heaven will escape it, right? Listen to what Revelation says about those who are in heaven.

Revelation 7:9-11
9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice:  "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." 11All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,

These people are logically in heaven worshipping God at His throne. Now listen to what is said about these people who are in heaven:

Revelation 7:13,14
13Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?"  14 I answered, "Sir, you know."  And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

The last thing that these people encountered was the great tribulation before going to heaven, that Jesus said would happen just before His second return in Matthew 24. How strange that you are teaching that the church will escape the great tribulation, when the bible clearly states otherwise.

Also notice Revelation 15:2 and how it mentioned about those overcoming having harps:
And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

Notice the connection between those who were mentioned as being in heaven in chapter 7, and who it is said came out of great tribulation, and the ones mentioned in Rev. 15:2 as having gotten the victory over the beast, and his name and image. Notice where they are, and that they have harps just like the ones mentioned in chapter 7?

Hhhmmnn! Interesting isn't it?

It is impossible that the same chapter is talking about events in the dark ages and the end of the age in the same breath.

Funny how you're the one concluding that!  [quote][/quote]

@ M4Malik

I see we are going back and forth here. Do you mind if we use scripture alone to verify how Sunday keeping started.

Do me a favour can you submitt all those texts in the NT that show how the transition took place from sabbath worship to the official gathering on the first day of the week?

I'd appreciate it!

@ M4Malik

I'm not sure what you were driving at, but to quote certain texts without considering their import in the full scheme of God's economy is to miss the point.

But I certainly didn't do any such thing. Besides, Paul speaks in clear language.

Paul wasn't asking that Christians keep the Law - not at all. In fact, he underscores the practical impossibility of any man to do so -

Not true friend! Paul said no such thing. Paul said "I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me"

God said to Abraham "Be ye holy as I am Holy"

While I will agree with you that Paul wasn't making a big issue of the law in Romans 7, and neithr am I, but one thing is sure He set out to clarify something, otherwise he would not have said what he said about the law. Besides, Paul never had to ask christians to keep the law of 10 commandments since christians are usually obedient naturally. If you profess Christ you aught to follow His instructions. Jesus said in:

John 14:15
If you love me keep my commandments

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them, - Gal. 3:11-12.

The question is what aspect of law was Paul talking about here in Galations? This is where the confusion steps in all the time. In Galations Paul qualifies the situation, by saying that circumcision cannot save anyone. The issue was never about the sabbath. It was something else.

Now that you mention being justified by the law its funny how Paul says something totally different in another section of his writings. Read:

Romans 2:12,13
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

Is Paul contradicting himself? Obviously not! It all depends on the context of what he talks about. Here Paul uses the word law in one context, and in Galations he uses it in another context. Hence it behooves us to seek out exactly what he is talking about.

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. - Rom. 6:14.

Notice it said sin shall not have dominion over you becasue true christians are obedient to God's instructions and really have nothing to worry about. Hence God's law cannot judge us when we are obedient. In fact when it says "not under the law" it means not being under the[b] condemnation [/b] of the law.

Let me ask you a question. Who is more likely to be under the law? The one who steals another man's wife, or the one who desists from yielding to temptation to do the same? Each time you set out to steal something what comes to mind? Isn't it "thou shall not steal"?

I am not saying that we are saved by the law? We are saved by grace, but the ridiculous notion that God's law somehow has taken a back seat, and is no longer applicable to christians, is a deception, or a gross mis-understanding.

Listen to David as he describes the law of 10 commandments:

Psalms 19:7
"the law of the Lord is perfect, "

Psalms 37:31
The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, . . . - I Tim. 1:9.

Hhhhmmmnnn, are you a sinner? Are you yet perfect? If the answer is no then the law applies to you. You might not be out there killing anyone, or living an adulterous life, but you're not perfect as yet, are you? Listen to what Paul says about what sin is:

1 John 3:4
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

From these and some other texts, it is obvious that Paul was not arguing that Christians keep the Law, for the Law made nothing perfect.

For the nth time no one is saying that!

Just out of curiosity name one of the 10 commandments you find to be a problem?

@ David

I would really love to have your own view of Dan 7 and Rev 13. Please read both chapters carefully, the 4th beast in Dan 7 and the beast in Rev 13 are one and the same.

Logically speaking that cannot be, at least not if you really understand what Revelation 13 is all about. The 4th beast of daniel 7 is pagan Rome, logically.

The little horn that grew out of the 10 horns, and up-rooted three horns from the 4th beast represent Papal Rome or the RCC. History verifies that when the kingdoms of the Heruli, vandals, and the Ostrogoths disputed with the the RCC about the nature of Christ, the RCC organised a crusade against those kingdoms and completely removed them from the face of the earth.

The 10 horns being the 10 original kingdoms of europe obviously grew out of the demise of Pagan Rome which came to an end in AD476. In AD538 the RCC became took control of the seat of Rome dealing with religious as well as political matters. This church in pretense is indeed the little horn of Daniel 7, as well as the beast in Revelation 13. Both descriptions by two prophets, describe the same entity that carries out the same blasphemous activities. Both prophets describe the time period that this religious power would have reigned for before recieving its deadly wound.

Daniel 7:23 speaking of Rome says:
The fourth beast shall be A fourth kingdom on earth, Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,  And shall devour the whole earth, Trample it and break it in pieces.

Daniel 7:24 says speaking of the 10 european kingdoms arising from Rome's demise says:
24 The ten horns are ten kings Who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; He shall be different from the first ones,  And shall subdue three kings.

So its clear that the little horn is a separate power functioning on its own. This entity is the RCC. Ever wondered why it calls itself Roman Catholic? LOL, think about that!

Daniel 7:25 talks about the this entity and what it intends to do:
25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,  Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time.

The time, times, and 1/2 time mentioned here tells you how long this entity would have persecuted God's holy people for, and to verify its role as Anti-Christ. The 31/2 symbolic years represents 1260 literal years which fits into history so smoothly ( Praise be to the MOST HIGH GOD) in that there is only one religious power that I know of that ruled Europe between AD538 to AD1798, during which three of the original kingdoms of 10, were completely anhilated from the map, all because of religious intolerance by the RCC.

Notice how Revelation describes the beast in chapter 13:
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.

Among the many things said about the beast, which can be very confusing to many, bears striking resemblance to what was said about the little horn in Daniel 7:25

The 42 months = 3 1/2 years = 1260 days = 1260 literal years.

42 months X 30 days = 1260 symbolic days       30 days were always used by bible scholars to calculate a prophetic month.

So here we go. The historical as well as the symbolic proof is there.

Note they both have 10 horns. That in Rev 13 is probably a more explicit version. The little horn mentioned in both is the Devil himself coming to the earth in form of a man.

Yes the power in Revelation 13 has 10 horns, and thats becasue when it started it existed among the 10 original kingdoms of europe, it being a kingdom in its own right. That is why crowns are used to siginify kingdoms. The little horn is none other than the RCC, based on how that power fulfilled biblical prophecies.

Besides, Satan is not a man, at least not yet.  , Right now he is still a powerful angel obviously working behind the scenes, and making full use of the beast. Notice how Revelation 13 describes the dragon, being Satan himself, giving power and authority to the first beast. Revelation 12 verifies that the Dragon is that old serpent called the devil. It was he who pulled a 1/3 of God's angels with him from heaven.

@ Aykay

the whole point of spirituality and religion is your supposed to have faith. u cannot understand things about God and stuff with human thinking. if u do alot of things won't make sense.but thats the beauty of religion, we have faith and we believe in whatever or whoever we want to believe in.

, true words.

@ David

I absolutely agree with you, but it is obvious John saw the fuller details of what was shown to Daniel.

Yes, but it all depends on what you mean by fuller details, There are some details that John mentioned about the beas power that involved more details, but the fact still remains Daniel addressed 4 kingdoms in his book. John mentioned 1 beast having 7 heads, and 10 crowns.

Two different situations here.

Note also that Daniel 2 makes mention of 4 kngdoms using the metallic man to illustrate his message. He described to the babylonian king that three kingdoms would follow his kingdom.

Note the striking similarities between John's beast who is the eigth but is OF THE SEVENTH kingdom and Daniel's 4th beast.

There is no similarity here, and the subject matters are totally different. if you study the symbols you will see what I am talking about. Unless you study the symbols you cannot see the message.

Some day I will share my decoding with you.

@ Drusilla

Bobby,

Thank you.

I have asked about that verse before because some Christians teach some type of "rebuilt temple with sacrifices in Jerusalem" but there is no mention of any temple in the end times, unless you include that one.

However those verses calls it God's temple, which contradicts the idea of the 3rd temple they claim because the 3rd temple they talk about is supposed to be built by and for those opposed to God.

Its unfortunate that they look for a kingdom to be built by men, when the bible says that "Abraham looked for a city whose builder and maker is God"

The words temple, city, Jerusalem, are used in context in whatever sections of the bible they are found. What persons tend to do is use a particular word that has a particular context for when it was first spoken to mean something totally different.

Most of the OT prophetic books, including Zhaccariah, make mention of the restoration of Israel, but as to what Israel it is stressing is quite a different matter. I am of the view that any mentin of a restoration can only take place when Jesus comes and not before. I am saying that to say, that I cannot see the logics or purpose for such a thing, and especially in the light of the NT and what is said about the soon return of Jesus.

Why would Jesus allow men on earth to build a temple in accordance with whatever purpose they are trying to attach to such significance, and see that same temple destroyed at His second coming? The advocates of such a teaching implies that Jesus will rule from that city on earth, in contrast to the one from which He will rule from in heaven where presently His throne is, and where He will be coronated as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords in.

Lets assume this temple is going to be built by men in Jerusalem. At what point will Jesus rule from this earthly city? They say during the millenium, but if you examine the scriptures carefully, it says that during that time Satan will be bound. There will be no human life on earth during that period, so I wonder who is it that will rule who on planet earth.

They totally ignore those OT prophetic passages that say that the 2nd coming of Christ will completly devastate the earth, leaving it in a state of emptiness and chaos. The only beings remaining will be Satan and his hosts of demons who will be forced to remain on earth to contemplate their future punishment.

Look at what Peter says about Jesus' return:

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

Listen to John as he describes the return of Jesus:

Revelation 6:14-17
14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"

If they say that Christ will rule on earth then what this text is saying is that after such a rule Christ would have to have gone back to heaven to return again in power and great glory.

Bear in mind that Jesus is supposed to have secretly taken up the christians in heaven already. For the first 7 years there will be a so-called tribulation upon the earth as part of the wider period of 1000 years. After this tribulation Christ is suppoosed to come back and take up His rightful rule.

My question is at the end of the 1000 years what will happen to that earthly temple from which Christ ruled? How does one explain that John sees the Holy City of God descending form heaven as recorded in Revelation 21?

When God reigns fire and brimstone from heaven on earth where will God's people be, in the descending city that is prepared for His bride, or the earthly temple supposedly made by men on earth?

Do you begin to see the loop holes in such a teaching?

@ David

@ bobbyaf,

Rev 11 is talking about the events of the end time and not the dark ages. It is tempting to equate 1260 days to 1260 years and equate them as the dark ages. but you have taken a few events in isolation. What about the coming of the two witnesses in verse 3? obviously this is the second coming of Elijah and Moses.
Read verses 6These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. . That is clearly Elijah ( power to shut heaven that it rain not on the earth) and Moses ( water to blood, plagues). This did not in any way happen during the dark ages and infact does not happen until the last 3.5 years of the tribulation.
Why?
Look at verse 7And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. The beast is only given power on earth during the tribulation when he unleashes his full wrath on the earth and wages war against God's people.
Verse 2But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months; this is not the dark ages. This occurs at the same time all the other events in Rev 11 is occuring, at the same last 3.5 years of the great tribulation. The gentiles (this will include Russia, China and Arab nations) will thread the temple underfoot 3.5 years - 42 months -- 1260 days.

Chapt 12 of revelation speaks about the fate of the church left behind after the rapture AT THE SAME TIME the events in chapt 11 are unfolding. The same Chapts 11 and 12 continues in chapt 13, here John is shown the true nature of the beast as he rules the world in the last years of the tribulation. From 14 downward still talks about the same tail end of the tribulation, the woes that befall the earth finally ending with the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ with 10000s of His saints to conquer the enemy!

Reading a few verses is enough to build a doctrine, but the bible must be taken in context with others to fully understand the trail of events. None of these events happened in the dark ages!

Sorry David I find it hard keeping up with your posts. You need to stick with the topic. I find that people tend to talk about several sub-topics in an area that requires more specificity.

I would prefer if we discussed the topic of the tribulation in a more logical and orderly manner. A lot of new converts tend to be more confused than ever when they see us going back and forth in disagreement.

@ bobbyaf,
once again i beg to disagree with taking verses in isolation to suit private interpretation.

Dan 7: 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this.
"So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.'

19 "Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

23 "He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. [a]

26 " 'But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.'

I will be very brief here. Actually there are 7 kingdoms that were prophesied in the bible. Reference to the 7 kingdoms is briefly mentioned in Rev 17: 10. Starting with the Egyptian empire in the days of Moses and ending with the Revived Roman empire now present in our time.
The fourth beast in verse 19 is the revived Roman empire. The ten horns refer to the top 10 EU member nations, remember the EU started with 7 before expanding to 10. After that they began to take in smaller EU states.
The little horn that speaks blasphemies is the beast that will be revealed during the tribulation. Look at Rev `17. The scarlet colored beast mentioned is the same as the fourth beast in Dan 7. It has 7 heads and 10 horns, the heads are 7 hills on which the woman seats (note the woman is the roman catholic church sitting on the seven hills on which the vatican sits today).

In Rev 17: the 10 horns (10 kings) give their power to the beast 1hr (7yrs of the tribulation). Rev 17: 12And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

14These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the LovePeddler sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the LovePeddler, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

I don't see how you can fit 7 kingdoms into Daniel's prophecy when it is clear he saw four beasts. LOL

Besides, what John saw is a further development of what Daniel saw, so more than likely the visionary presentations woud have been different.

@ Donnie

Bobbyaf,

A lot of us are aware that sunday might have been declared a day of worship by men.

But for folks like me who go to church, every other day, i do not see the difference between sunday and monday or wednesday.

I remember a time when i was in church everyday. Mondays: prayer services, tuesdays: foundation school, wednesdays: worship service, thursdays: cell leaders' meeting, fridays: cell meeting, saturdays: early morning prayers and sundays: worship service.

I appreciate that! Worship is a beautiful experience. One should do it as often as they can.  , but I am not arguing about worship. Remember what Samuel the prophet said to God's annointed king, called Saul?  "Its better to obey than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams"

Wasn't it typical for the people back then to worship with sacrifice? Wasn't it God who instituted those types of services? Yet when it came to being obedient to God's exact instructions, obedience held a higher esteem above the usual worship format.

Remember what Jesus said to the woman at the well concering how God desires worship? The two elements mentioned by Jesus were:

spirit which means a degree of thoughtfulness or intellect

truth which means that the one who is worshipping must do so without any form of false understanding of what God expects. There can be no room for error where God's words are concerned.

And remeber, if you seek to be justified by the law of Moses, you are a debtor to keep the whlole law,

We are not talking about Moses' law here. Moses didn't write the 10 commanments. All other legal codes, including the civic, ceremonial, and sacrificial were all drafted by the hands of Moses as instructed by God.

and i hope you are aware that that goes beyond the ten commandments. Of course there will be condemnation awaiting such a one.

I am not certain what you're saying in this statement. In either case when a person experiences the grace of Jesus Christ his oe her life will be one of obedience. Listen to Paul as he describes the relationship between born-again christians and God's law of 10 commandments.

Romans 7:14
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.

Notice further what Paul said concerning God's commandments.

Romans 7:12
So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

The time has come when the true worshipers shall worship the father in Spirit and in truth. We should let the law of the Spirit guide us into all truth

I am not sure if there is a thing called law of the spirit, it has to be the other way around. Of course I very much agree with you there, but it doesn't mean that we are not subject to being obedient to God's 10 commandments.

because u see, this law is the only thing that can lift you above sin, the world and the devil.

I am more inclined to think its grace that is able to do that, not the law.

NB, I am not suggesting that in any way that the law can save any one from sin. Only Jesus can do that. The 10 commandments is just a standard of God's justice and government. The apostle James refers to it as a mirrow. Each time we look inside the mirrow we can see how dirty we are, but this law is powerless to clean one's dirty face. Its just a mirrow. The only cleansing stream is the blood of Jesus.

Listen to Paul re-confirming the purpose of the 10 commandments:

Romans 7:7
What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet.