1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Sunday Sermons

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by jacob62, May 7, 2005.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And of course Isaiah 66 points to the New Earth of Rev 21 saying that IN That NEW Earth - ALL MANKIND comes before God to Worship - FROM SABBATH TO SABBATH.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the Contrary - the book of Revelation relies heavily on "scripture" which as Christ said "Can not be broken" to tell its story.

    Isaiah 66 and Rev 21 are BOTH addressing the "NEW EARTH" and God's Word here - "can not be broken".

    Your attempt to trash Isaiah 66 is certainly a "must do" for you view of "Get rid of Christ the Creator's Sabbath at all costs" -- but I don't think it is helping your argument.

    Why not just accept the Bible?

    The Sabbath was "MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27

    It is FIRST made a Holy Day by Christ the Creator in Gen 2:3.

    From this ALONE we see that the SCOPE of the Sabbath was ALL MANKIND.

    It is VERY consistent then to find that "FROM SABBATH to SABBATH ALL MANKIND" is to come before God and "WORSHIP" in the NEW EARTH according to Isaiah 66.

    This is nothing more than the SAME SCOPE for Christ the Creator's memorial of Creation that was ALREADY true for Adam in Gen 2:3!

    This part is really very easy.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Although D.L. Moody does not put it together as I just did above in as short a space --- I see him making pretty much the same point.

    Don't you?

    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  3. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    That has nothing to do with the annual days versus the weekly sabbath. If this means you can't judge someone for breaking an annual day, then it would mean you couldn't judge anyone for breaking the weekly sabbath either. The weekly day points back to the old Creation, which is a shadow of the new Creation.
    If you love God, you will not take His name in vain. If you love your fellow man, you will honor your mother and father. That's how it works, Bob. Those are universal, and all included in the Two commands, so they can be reiterated from the 10. Likewise, if we love God, we will also rest and trust in Him. This was what the sabbath was about.
    No they are not, exactly. Isaiah is still looking at it under the old covenant, with its priests and Levites. Revelation is after Christ, when the final plan has been revealed, and there is "no more Temple", and the "holy nation" is now spiritual. There, we do not see sabbaths mentioned.
    You cannot find anywhere that says that it was to be universally "observed" by all of man of ALL TIME, by ceasing from work. You earlier mentioned something about "inference and innuendo", and that is clearly what you are using here. Find somewhere where God commands others beside Israel in THIS world to keep the sabbath, or condemns them for breaking the sabbath. (The closes you can find is Zech.14, with Egypt, but oh, that's talking about the Feast of Tabernacles! Doesn't that mean this is still in effect now?) If not, then let us just do what God tells us for THIS time period, and not try to jmp other things over to us.
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your attempt to trash Isaiah 66 is certainly a "must do" for you view of "Get rid of Christ the Creator's Sabbath at all costs" -- but I don't think it is helping your argument.

    Why not just accept the Bible?

    The Sabbath was "MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27

    It is FIRST made a Holy Day by Christ the Creator in Gen 2:3.

    From this ALONE we see that the SCOPE of the Sabbath was ALL MANKIND.

    It is VERY consistent then to find that "FROM SABBATH to SABBATH ALL MANKIND" is to come before God and "WORSHIP" in the NEW EARTH according to Isaiah 66.

    This is nothing more than the SAME SCOPE for Christ the Creator's memorial of Creation that was ALREADY true for Adam in Gen 2:3!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As D.L. Moody points out in Gen 2:3 "ALL MANKIND" observed that FIRST Holy Day -- on the SEVENTH-day of Creation week and every week following for ALL mankind was merely "Adam" and "Eve".

    Mark 2:27 shows - Christ the Creator "thinks" that HIS Holy Day was MADE "FOR MANKIND".

    In Isaiah 66 - Christ the Creator tells us that from "Sabbath TO Sabbath ALL MANKIND will come before Me to WORSHIP IN the NEW Earth".

    The doctrine on the New Earth is explicitly addressed in Rev 21!

    This is just too easy to get -

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    How you are able to get "All MANKIND" to mean "Just OT Israel" is impossible to grasp!!
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    None of your lists is "Quoted by Paul" in his quote of the 5th commandment. (But it is interesting that you would go to PRE-CROSS LISTS as in the case of John 13 and John 15 don't you think?)

    ALL translators/scholars SEE clearly that Eph 6 is quoting from the Ten Commandments - your "need" to avoid the obvious is certainly apparent but your results are conflicted at best.

    Paul says IT IS THE FIRST in that list WITH a promise. Did you think that Christ was BREAKING the Commandments up in the Gospels "pre-cross" with a NEW LIST that excluded the "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND"??

    Where is the commandment about taking God's name in vain?

    Your anything-but-Christ-the-Creator's-Sabbath approach is getting you into all kinds of self-conflicted statements.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paul said the Fith commandment is the FIRST ONE in the list with a promise.

    This is NOT true of the books of Genesis and Exodus. We find promises BEFORE Exodus 20 vs 12.

    The only way for his statement to be TRUE is to have an actual ordered LIST in which the FIFTH commandment is the FIRST one where a promise is found.

    Again - this is so obvious that all attempts to squirm out of it are totally impossible.

    D.L.Moody's approach is the only sane one here.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't follow Moody, and he didn't teach us to keep the 7th day. You are quoting him more than the Bible now, and I think it is a clear sign that you are out of arguments.
    The way you're taking it, we were made for it. Man was made to worship God, and if worshipping God was all about the sabbth, then man was made for the sabbath.
    The concept of the New Earth has changed since the Old Tesament prophecies. Once again, new moons, priests and Levites are mentioned there, and Egypt is condemned if they do not keep one of the annual feasts. You once before tried to say "well maybe those days will be kept again", but then that could be said of the weelky sabbath, and this this is not proof of what is to be kept today.
    "observing" the day by ceasing from work. That was the "sign" for Israel, and only they. Spiritual rest is for all, by spiritual rest is not confined to a day.
    No one is denying that it was an ordered list. Everyone was familiar with it, so it could be quoted from. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing. For Christ's magnification of it into such spiritual sins as lust and hatred are not in the Ten, and if your philosophy of "only the Ten; no more, no less" is right, those must be excluded as well. That is why in the NT, we are pointed to the TWO. The ten can be used to highlight the finer points of the two, but clearlyl the two is the new "list" for th eNT.
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mark 2:27 shows - Christ the Creator "thinks" that HIS Holy Day was MADE "FOR MANKIND".
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You argue that if we are not free to abolish and ignore Christ the Creator's OWN Holy Day then it must not really be FOR US.

    It is like arguing that if we are not REALLY allowed to abolish MARRIAGE then MARRIAGE was not really made FOR US.

    You argue that IF Marriage has bounds and a binding relationship then it must not really be "a blessing".

    This is how you are arguing against Christ the Creator's Holy Day where HE CLAIMS it is MADE FOR MANKIND (speaking of the MAKING of BOTH mankind AND His own Holy Day).

    Surely you can not be satisfied with such an approach.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Isaiah 66 - Christ the Creator tells us that from "Sabbath TO Sabbath ALL MANKIND will come before Me to WORSHIP IN the NEW Earth".

    The doctrine on the New Earth is explicitly addressed in Rev 21!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is nothing in the PRE-CROSS statements of Christ OR THE POST-Cross statements of the Jewish authors of scripture to indicate that they did not take SCRIPTURE as an AUTHORITATIVE source OR that they considered the prophecies of scripture to be "void".

    In the case of the NEW EARTH of Isaiah 66 - show me even one place in the NT where it is argued that the NEW EARTH of SCRIPTURE (the NT used the OT as SCRIPTURE) was no longer valid!!

    It is not there!

    So "you make it up".

    I understand your "need" to do it. But that does not make it an compelling argument. I would need to ALREADY have rejected Christ the Creator's own Holy day to even consider such a desperate line of reasoning.

    Agreed?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul said the Fifth commandment is the FIRST ONE in the list with a promise. (Eph 6:1-3)

    This is NOT true of the books of Genesis and Exodus. We find promises BEFORE Exodus 20 vs 12.

    The only way for his statement to be TRUE is to have an actual ordered LIST in which the FIFTH commandment is the FIRST one where a promise is found.

    Again - this is so obvious that all attempts to squirm out of it are totally impossible.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I believe we are finally getting to another obvious point that you will admit to.

    Frankly - I am happy to be here.

    If Paul is admittedly quoting FROM the TEN and arguing that this 5th commandment IS binding on Christians today - AND ALSO pointing out that WITHIN THE TEN this is the FIRST one with a promise - then he IS using the TEN as an authorotative document.

    It would be silly to say "The Easter Bunny has TEN rules and THIS one rule is the one with the most cabbage involved so we have every possible motivation to honor it". Obviously "EASTER BUNNY" rules have no weight at all - and the fact that this one has "more cabbage" attributes does nothing to overcome the more basic problem that easter bunny rules are not taken as binding!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The "spirit of the LAW" ALWAYS magnifies and EXPANDS the scope of the written text. This rule applies in all cases.

    You have said repeatedly that your position is about ABOLISHING and IGNORING the Sabbath commandment.

    Are you suggesting you would like to find a NT means of EXPANDING and HONORING Christ the Creator's Holy Day??

    Are you now going with D.L.Moody's idea of CONTINUED honor and obedience to God's Ten Commandments???

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    A person can be not married at all. Jews took marriage being made "For mankind" to mean that every single person was almost obligated to get married, or else, something was wrong with them. But that is not the case. "for" does not imply "obligation", Bob.
    The "New Earth" was not void, but certain DETAILS about it in that scenario were. Once again, you do not keep new moons, the feat of tabernacles, or the temple services with priests and levites. You make up your criteria for what is still in effect, and it is not even consistent.
    He is using it as a familiar doument that has universal laws that are still authoritative.
    No; but you are insisting now that is is only what is in the Ten. That would rule out any "magnification". So your line of reasoning changes again!
    Uh, yes, Bob. That's what I've been saying all along! It ewxpands to EVERY day, and is not about ceasing from physical work on ONE day anymore. YOU think that is "abolishing", because you are fixated upon the physical letter of the Law, and have missed its intent completely. With all this talk of "Christ's holy day" it is more about proving yourself more obedient to God (a better Christian) than others, than it is about Christ, anyway.
     
Loading...