Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Sanctuary > Deep Waters
Facebook

Notices

Deep Waters 'Deep Calleth Unto Deep ' -The place to go for Ministry discussions. Please keep it civil. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #541  
Old 11-09-2017, 05:45 AM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

I spent time writing these above posts last night before I retired. It is now morning for me, but I want just for a moment to go off topic to say something to Mike. Forgive me if it is a divergence.

Before I fell asleep last night I decided to google your name, Mike. It was bothering me that I was having this long protracted conversation with someone, even a kind of argument, that I could not see. I had known that apparently you had written a book, but I wanted to see a picture of you so that I could finally match a face to the written voice on my laptop. Well, I guess you know I found a lot more than a single picture. And I learned you had written more than just a single book. I lay in my bed last night listening to some of your teachings on YouTube. I am STILL listening to the interview you gave at New Day. And I read up on your bio, and your church ministry, etc.

I feel much better about having this conversation with you now, because I don't think of you as so much a stranger any longer. Brother, you and I have far, far more in common I think than where we may differ. You preach and teach Kingdom almost exactly like I do. I listened to several of your Kingdom messages, and I said to myself, Man, this brother believes in Kingdom the same way I do. I mean, the Dominion of the Believer and the influence of the Kingdom Now in and through the Believer. I don't know for sure your particular Millennialism position, but your Kingdom-here-and-now, your present inaugurated Kingdom beliefs are so similar to my own. I was very impressed.

Many years ago I was a Dispensational Pre-Millennialist, as I have said before. I didn't believe in the Kingdom here and now. It was a Messianic Jewish teacher named Daniel Juster, who may be familiar to some members of this forum, who introduced me to the concepts of Inaugurated, Proleptic Eschatology and the concept of the Kingdom of God NOW. This effectively started my departure with Dispensationalism. I studied George Ladd and others, and moved on eventually to Marcellis Kik, and in 1997, after a failed Rapture prediction the previous September, I converted my position to Post-Millennialism and began to study Theonomics from the very prolific writings of the Christian Reconstructionist crowd. I got involved in the Kingdom Now Movement, which basically got me exited from my local church, and I began teaching an Apostolic Pentecostal version of Post-Mill Kingdom-Now Reconstructionism, complete with the idea that Dominionism meant the eventual Christian takeover of the world's governments through political involvement . . . you know that story. Some years later, I began to modify some of my positions, seeing the influence of the Kingdom more as a spiritual influence in the world, and not so much a political takeover. But during those days, I increasingly began to form the belief, based on my NEW Testament studies, that Gods' Law was more relevant to the Believer within the Kingdom than I had ever previously allowed myself to believe back when I was a Dispensationalist. The more I studied, the more I could see the significance of God's Law in the government of His Kingdom. The farther along the Kingdom path I traveled, the more I began to hunger and desire for His Law in my life and in my culture around me. I have to say, it was largely my path into Kingdom theology that led me to accept the Theology of Torah I have today, and even my acceptance of the Sabbath as an integral part of New Covenant Faith.

So, if you'll forgive the testimonial for a moment, I just wanted to let you know that I really feel kinship with you and your Kingdom views. I very much enjoyed listening to your teachings, and anticipate listening to even more. I liked you before, but now I have to say I like you even more so now. But I just would that we could talk more about places where you and I could agree, rather than be at odds with each other over the question of the Sabbath. Given your Kingdom, your Realized Eschatology, AND especially your Apostolic Pentecostal understanding of Continuity, I must say I am surprised that you yourself have not accepted a literal Sabbath-keeping position. It almost seems logical to the framework you stand on.

Peace
Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 11-09-2017, 06:39 AM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffi View Post
Commentators have noted that the quotation in Hebrews 10:5-7 is a reference to Psalm 40:6-9 (which I discussed above), but does not correctly quote either the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint. Most commentators just presume that the writer of Hebrews is not dictating but is instead paraphrasing his OWN understanding of Psalm 40:6-9, or that the writer of Hebrews himself supposes the words to be spoken by the Messiah as he enters the world as Savior. This sounds to me to be identical to the traditional Rabbinic method of interpretation known as Midrash, where one derives a deeper meaning than what is written in the plain text. Given the intense Jewish flavor of Hebrews, I do not think this is an unreasonable possibility. It is may not be exactly relevant to this topic, however.

Concerning this Passage in Hebrews I noticed that according to the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

"thou hast no pleasure -- as if these could in themselves atone for sin: God had pleasure in . . . them, in so far as they were an act of obedience to His positive command . . . but not as having an intrinsic efficacy such as Christ's sacrifice had."

However, if we are in any way intent to argue that God had no pleasure EVER in these offerings, we can easily see that it was because of their intrinsic impotency and inadequacy to make the worshiper perfect and impart to them a clean conscience. Thus, the content of this Verse underscores and confirms the conclusion of Hebrews 10:4, the fact that the blood of animals could NEVER take away sin. Sacrifices as an external formality without internal change are not pleasing to God. Even in The Old Testament, God called for an internal "circumcision" of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4). God has in EVERY AGE desired of men obedience from a heart motivated by love NOT legalism. But this contradicts YOUR position.

WHOLEHEARTED OBEDIENCE is the quality that God requires and is looking for in the old rituals of sacrifice. He makes that point MANY times throughout The Old Testament:
(1 Samuel 15:22; Isaiah 1:11-14; Amos 5:21-22)

Even in The O.T., God took no delight in the routine performance of ritual sacrifices if it was done empty of a heart of faith (i.e., a circumcised heart). Faithlessness nullified the point of the sacrifice, and as such rendered the sacrifice itself a nauseating stench in the nostrils of God. THAT is why God had no pleasure in the sacrifices of a wayward, backsliding Israel.

So, what is the testimony of The Old Testament to this point? Are there Verses to back up my point?

"And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." -- 1 Samuel 15:22

Here we see that God takes delight not in empty sacrifices, but in a heart of obedience. God knows that sacrifices could do NOTHING to change the heart.

See also: Psalm 40:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-13; Isaiah 66:3-4; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; and Micah 6:6-8

"The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that HOPE IN HIS MERCY." -- Psalm 147:11

When David sought for forgiveness in regard to his sin with Bathsheba, he prayed:

"For Thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: Thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite HEART, O God, Thou wilt not despise." -- Psalm 51:16-17

God is not pleased with mere sacrifices and that being the end of it. No. God wants the heart of man to be in it or it is NOTHING to Him. He is looking for obedient faith.

You see, so for me even in The O.T., Salvation, the Mercy of God, the Forgiveness of sins was a matter of the heart and of faith, NOT a matter of ritual exactitude, legalistic ordinances, or animal sacrifices. It has always been a matter of heart-faith and God's Divine Mercy. The Law, with It's Ordinances and It's Sabbaths was given ALONGSIDE faith, not as a means of Salvation, but as a means of instruction in righteousness to those who love God and have a heart of true faith toward Him.

Faith comes first, but as I stated at the very beginning of this Sabbath discussion months ago, true faith, when it is Saving Faith, always expresses itself in willing and joyful obedience to God's stated Law (John 14:15, 21, 23; 1 John 2:3; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 1:6). I believe that includes His original Law along with It's Sabbaths because I can find no explicit New Testament instruction that abrogates or sets aside God's original Law of Righteousness, or replaces It with some new law that was not already present in that original Law which was from the very beginning. To the contrary, I can find MANY places that enforces and confirms an Apostolic testimony to the continuity of The Law and of God's Sabbath Day. I keep the Sabbath because Jesus (Yeshua) kept it and he is my example, and because Peter, James, John, and Paul continued to keep it (unless, as the Ultra-Dispies claim, Paul ceased keeping it when he received the revelation of the Mystery after Acts 28). I keep the Sabbath because I believe that Hebrews 4:1-11 and Hebrews 10:25 is an explicit NEW Testament command to keep the 7th Day Sabbath. I keep the Sabbath because I believe it is God's intended external Sign of our faithfulness to His Eternal Covenant to be kept by His Set-Apart People for all generations forever.

Peace
Excellent post.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 11-09-2017, 01:47 PM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Esaias, I have also been listening to some of your YouTube preaching posts and singing on your Apostolic HouseChurch channel. I like it. I am currently listening to a lesson concerning secrets in the Passover and the fifty days of the Omer till Shabu'ot. Is the speaker you or another elder of your congregation?
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 11-09-2017, 04:19 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffi View Post
Esaias, I have also been listening to some of your YouTube preaching posts and singing on your Apostolic HouseChurch channel. I like it. I am currently listening to a lesson concerning secrets in the Passover and the fifty days of the Omer till Shabu'ot. Is the speaker you or another elder of your congregation?
That would be me. You guys should start a YouTube channel or something, even if its just audio.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf


Last edited by Esaias; 11-09-2017 at 05:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 11-09-2017, 05:06 PM
mfblume's Avatar
mfblume mfblume is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portage la Prairie, MB CANADA
Posts: 38,154
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffi View Post
Mike, my brother,
I delayed in my response for a couple of reasons. One, I don't see what you see here in Hebrews, and I didn't want to offend you by coming straight out and not get some other input so as to give your position the benefit of a doubt. To me, you see too much inference that seems to flatly contradict certain places such as Hebrews 10:4.

So I have busied myself with additional tasks, one of which was to go about asking others how they interpret the system of O.T. sacrifices, especially in relation to Hebrews 10. I have asked laymen as well as ordained ministers from Apostolic, AG, Southern Baptist, and Methodist persuasions and NONE of them tell me they see what you say you see. All of them point to Hebrews 10:4 and insist that animal sacrifices could not remove or remit sins, and that they were intended to point forward to Messiah. In that purpose the sacrifices were successful, accomplishing exactly what they were purposed to do.
I always maintained I agree with those ideas, but stated plainly that that was not all they did in purpose. It seems you keep missing that point I made. Yes, they pointed to Christ, and were types.

Quote:
I got bold and went on Facebook and asked my questions there, and got the same responses. I went online and searched every combination of phrases I could think of to try to find where you were getting your interpretation of Hebrews 10, and accept for a couple of Hyper- and Ultra-Dispensationalist sites, I could find NO argument in favor of the one that claims that the O.T. Sacrificial System was purposed by God or thought by the priests to take sins away, or that the priests failed to complete their work because they could not bring about an expiation of sins.
I get your point. However, I showed where God had no pleasure in those sacrifices. Maybe you address this in a later post, as I am answering while I read, and so far you have not responded to that point I made. How can he have no pleasure in them if their purpose was to merely be types. That would give Him great pleasure in them. i will see what you say later if you respond or not.

Quote:
So I have to ask you, who can you suggest I read to better understand your argument? Perhaps some book or online ministry that I could not locate can help me see where you are coming from on this. Because to me it just sounds like you are arguing in favor of Hyper/Ultra-Dispensationalism.
Of all people on this forum, I am likely more against dispensationalism, let alone hyper-dispensationalism, more than anyone. I think it's really a doctrine from the pit. So have no fear of that with me! lol

Quote:
As it is, all I can find are ministers who INSIST that the O.T. sacrifice system were not capable of or even intended to provide for Salvation from sin. Such as Phil Newton:

"After explaining that the repetition of the sacrificial system demonstrated its impotency and reinforcing this by explaining that the bloody sacrifices could never take away sins, he (the writer of Hebrews) sets forth the whole rationale for Jesus Christ entering the world to be our redeemer . . . He (the writer of Hebrews) was not coming up with a new idea of religion but simply amplifying what the prophets before him had spoken many times over. The sacrificial system was NOT (emphasis mine) the end-all for a right relationship with God."
I see no note in your quote here of this man being against the idea of the intent.

Quote:
John Gill, commenting on Hebrews 10:4, stated that these sacrifices could not:

". . . satisfy his justice, appease his anger, or expiate sin."
Again, I see no refutation in that quote either about intent.

Quote:
Now I see, Mike, that you are now also admitting that those sacrifices could NOT remit sins. In past posts you argued that that WAS their purpose.
No, you are not following my reasoning. I never changed my position at all. I agree they could not remit sins, but my point is that God established them knowing they could not remit sins but yet pointing out their failure. We would not read of Christ's offering being "better" if there was no comparison as though the old ones were mere types and Christ's remitted sin.
Hebrews 9:23 KJV It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
God knew they could not remit sins. But yet he said he had no pleasure in them as though they were put forward with an effort to do that very thing.

You are repeating yourself but failing to address my specific points such as why God said he had no pleasure ion them, and why the new are better than the old. If the new sacrifices were BETTER than the old, that means the old were INFERIOR. INFERIOR by very definition is the contrast from what is BETTER.

Quote:

I disagreed with you, and that is STILL my position. No part of The Law was given for the purpose of expiating, remitting, or removing sin from the People. That is an old doctrine taught ignorantly by some Dispensationalist teachers decades ago, and has since been corrected.
Again I so far removed from dispensationalists that it would do you good to go through the eschatology section and note my aversion to dispensationalism to really grasp how much I am against it. So there really is not need to keep bringing that into the discussion.

What do dispensationalists says about those sacrifices being types, and how they cannot remit sins, if their doctrine was they were meant to remit sins and we read they could not? I am not following your reasoning since I am unaware of that teaching among dispensationalists. And how does that view fit dispensationalism anyway?

Quote:
So, as I argue, those sacrifices (and The Law as a whole) was NOT weak, imperfect, or inadequate for the argument that they failed to accomplish expiation, because expiation of sin was NEVER the goal, intent, or purpose of those sacrifices. And so, the "inadequacy" of the priestly ministry had nothing at all to do with their supposed failure at expiating sin in the people. The Priestly/Sacrificial System (just like ALL of God's Law, Ps. 19:7) was PERFECT when It functioned as God designed. Period. God does not make junk, as the old adage goes. He made a perfect system and only became angered when the PEOPLE perverted that system.
So, again, why did God take no pleasure in the sacrifices under law? When you say law was perfect, I see the bible says God took no pleasure in its sacrifices, and I read where New Covenant sacrifice is BETTER than the old. It seems you are grasping fore straws to maintain your position that law is meant to be kept today, when the Word said it was the ministration of death engraved on stones.

Quote:
Also, you admit now that your reading of "their work was never done" was something that you simply see that is IMPLIED by the text, and not explicitly stated. You say, we "get the SENSE" of inadequacy. No. YOU get the sense of inadequacy, my brother, but I do not.
Sorry, I cannot agree with you because God had no pleasure in their sacrifices, when if he intended them to be ONLY types (for they most certainly were types), he would have perfect pleasure in them in serving a typical purpose. And to say new sacrifices were BETTER than the old speaks of inadequacy. I am remiss as to how you cannot see that in those statements?

Hebrews 9:23 KJV It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Hebrews 10:6 KJV In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

And it was like they were NOT HIS WILL in one sense, because of the way we read Hebrews.

When Psalms read that God "WOULDEST" not in regard to sacrifices and offering,s the term is used as past tense for "TO WILL".

Hebrews 10:5-8 KJV Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (6) In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. (7) Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. (8) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

When Jesus said HE CAME to do THY WILL, we are reading that was in response to God NOT WILLING for sacrifices and burnt offerings that can never take away sins. Why would he say that if God HAD pleasure in them as types, which surely would be the case if they were only for types?


GILL:" sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; or didst not desire and delight in, as the word חפץ, used in Psa_40:6 signifies; meaning not the sacrifices of wicked men, or such as were offered up without faith in Christ; but the ceremonial sacrifices God himself had instituted, and which were offered in the best manner; and that not merely in a comparative sense, as in Hos_6:6 but the meaning is, that God would not have these continue any longer, they being only imposed for a time, and this time being come; nor would he accept of them, as terms, conditions, and causes of righteousness, pardon, peace, and reconciliation; but he willed that his Son should offer himself an offering, and a sacrifice for a sweet smelting savour to him."

Quote:
Only when one tries to force The Law to do something It wasn't designed for can one say The Law is inadequate.
No. the term BETTER in reference to the New covenant simply shows us the concept of inferiority of the old. BETTER is not BETTER if it is not being compared to something inferior. how do you explain the use of BETTER?

Quote:
A permanent marker functions just fine when it is used to write on a surface for which it was designed. But a permanent marker is "inadequate" to write on a black-board. You wouldn't use black-board chalk to write on a dry-erase board. Hebrews does NOT say that the Sacrificial System "was inferior because the priests' work was never finished", as you say.
There is not other sense to properly consider the comparison after Hebrews stated the law had a fault, despite the fact it was the people. God still said the LAW had a fault. Even when the people were the reason, why did he STILL say the LAW had a fault.

It's like you are straining to insist on your view that also says it was not the Law of Moses that was called HAGAR. You asked me what reference I had to show my view is held by other scholarly sources. Let me ask you what sources you have to show HAGAR is not the Law of Moses but rather the law of sin. I doubt you can supply any.

Quote:
It DOES teach that Messiah's PRIESTHOOD was "SUPERIOR" to Aaron's (Heb. 5:1-4). But that is because Messiah was "without sin" (Heb. 4:15). Thus, Messiah's office and priestly work is infinitely higher than the Levites'. But it was not because the Levites failed at taking away sin with their many sacrifices.

Try as I might, I could not find the word "inferior" in my KJV Bible anywhere in Hebrews.
It is the opposite of BETTER. We do not need to read the word inferior in reference to covenant, promises and sacrifices if the word BETTER was already used, before we can rightly state the old was inferior. Otherwise words have no meaning if BETTER is not used to substantiate the right for us to say the old was inferior.
__________________
...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.

"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 11-09-2017, 05:09 PM
mfblume's Avatar
mfblume mfblume is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portage la Prairie, MB CANADA
Posts: 38,154
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Raffi, you dealt in a later post about why the Lord had no pleasure in those sacrifices. Like I said, I was responding while I was reading them in chronological order. So, I have not read the whole post you wrote about this yet, and will do so later as time permits.

Thanks again.
__________________
...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.

"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 11-11-2017, 09:59 AM
mfblume's Avatar
mfblume mfblume is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portage la Prairie, MB CANADA
Posts: 38,154
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Just a note to say I'm really enjoying this discussion, Raffi.

I look forward to eventually explaining why I believe God instituted Law while knowing it would fail.
__________________
...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.

"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."

Last edited by mfblume; 11-11-2017 at 10:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 11-11-2017, 05:22 PM
mfblume's Avatar
mfblume mfblume is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portage la Prairie, MB CANADA
Posts: 38,154
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Catching up...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffi View Post
Like so many people I have talked to before, you approach this with a concept that Law and Grace are mutually opposed (or incompatible) to each other. Whereas, people of my persuasion see Law and Grace as not just merely compatible, but as complementary parts of a single whole.
Paul said they were compatible. He noted that Grace established the law because law was correct in what sin was, and law demanded sacrifice for it which is exactly what Grace pointed to the cross for.

And that point, by the way, confirms my proposition that Law;s sacrifices were for more than being types, but were inadequate in actually remitting sin. If Grace establishes law by the fact that it has a sacrifice for sins like Law demanded sacrifice, then law's sacrifices must be compared to the cross or else there is no way to say grace establishes law in the sense Romans proposes.

Law and grace were not enemies. It's just that law's methodology did not work while Grace's did.

Quote:

So for you, it is easier to think in terms of what Grace CAN DO and what Law COULD NOT DO, while people like myself see that GRACE ENABLES The Law IN us. So it is not a narrative of how we failed to keep The Law, so therefore we throw ourselves in utter miserable defeat upon His Grace to find mercy. Rather, we see that we turn to GRACE to enable us to do with The Law what we could not do merely by flesh effort alone. So you see, we cannot say that Law is or even ever was "inferior" to Grace. But that Law apart from Grace is INCAPABLE.
\

If you are talking about grace enabling us to avoid the sins that law also tried but failed to get us to avoid, then I agree. But when you get into the rituals and shadows like sabbaths, etc., then you are in error. In fact, what is ironic is that while you claim the sacrifices for sin under law were ONLY shadows, in reality the sabbaths and other feasts you hold today were the shadows, and ONLY shadows not meant to be kept today.

Quote:
I do not believe that God was trying on purpose to lead Israel toward a perfection by Law alone. And to say that He was doing so KNOWING that He was leading them toward a goal that was bound for failure, to me paints the wrong picture of the kind of God I worship.
I believe that is the common reaction to anything that differs from what we've been ingrained with. So that is more of a knee-jerk reaction, to be honest with you than allows me to seriously respond to that. It is SCRIPTURE we need to respond to.

Quote:
You claim that God Himself deliberately "led man to use law as though IT WOULD perfect him", is patently wrong, because it completely misunderstands the purpose for which our Creator gave us His marvelous Law to begin with. Not to mention, it mis-characterizes God entirely and misrepresents His Nature.
No. The point you did not think about is that man needed to learn a lesson. I will jump into what I eventually wanted to elaborate on later for just a moment now. The woman sincerely thought she would benefit herself by eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. This was put into our blood, so to speak, when she did eat along with Adam.

So, God had to ensure mankind not maintain that severely mistaken understanding. LAW was partly ordained for this reason. Paul speaks to that end in Romans. Eve thought she make herself become like God through merely knowing good (what to do) and evil (what not to do). By making herself do what is good and avoid what is evil, she would become like God. Salvation by works.

Had God brought salvation through Christ immediately, without having millennia take place ,including LAW, BEFORE Christ would come, man would realize after experiencing law that we cannot make ourselves righteous,. WE NEED GRACE!

More of that later.
Quote:
So let us explore then, why Hebrews 10:5-10 says God had no pleasure in the sacrifices.

You ask me why I believe God had no pleasure in the sacrifices. You say,

"If their only purpose was to show a constant reminder of how sinful we are, and always pointed to Christ, why did God say He had no pleasure in them? If they were serving the purpose of showing man's sin and how much we need Christ, would not God be pleased with them instead of having no pleasure in them?"

Well, first of all, I never meant to imply to you, Mike,
I know. So no need to elaborate on that point.

Quote:
that the priests along with their sacrifices "ONLY" pointed the way to the Messiah as if to say that such was their singular purpose. I used the word "only" in the sense of "merely", as opposed to your argument that the sacrifices were actually expiatory in the Old Testament Age. The sacrifices WERE intended as a constant reminder of sin, that is true, but I think we can also see in them other levels of meaning as well. However, my point is that the "taking away of sin" was NOT one of them.

God ordained the Sacrificial System. And as such, He was pleased with the System (Exodus 29:17-18; Exodus 29:25; Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 3:16; Leviticus 4:31; Leviticus 8:21). Because He was pleased that it had some innate power to expiate the sins of Israel? No! God was pleased with the System only so far as the purpose of the System functioned according to His design (But sin-expiation was NOT in that purpose). However, God will and DID lose His pleasure in the System when the people (and I have argued this point CONSISTENTLY) began to misuse the System in that they did one or more of several things: trusted wrongly in the sacrifice ITSELF to forgive sins; abandoned heart-faith for empty mechanical obedience and ritualistic motions; mixed the system with pagan/heathen influences; or continued to offer the sacrifices hypocritically with sin in their hearts.
That is absolutely assumption, Raffi. Seriously. No where does the New Testament use those statements about God hating sacrifices because PEOPLE abused them. That is an imagined fabrication I have commonly seen among legalists. I recall them saying that about Gal 3's reference to being under the curse if one is under law, as though it was a twisted version of Law rather than actual Mosaic and Law of God. You noted the bible did not say inadequate in reference to law and it sacrifices, even though these were LESS BETTER in explicit terms which implies inadequacy of them. But now you are the one adding to the word, and saying things the texts themselves do not say. We do not read God had no pleasure in those sacrifices because the people's hearts weren't in them.

Quote:
In every one of these cases we have examples from The Old Testament, and we read therein of God's displeasure with their sacrifices and offerings. Law MUST go hand-in-hand with Grace or God will reject it. Both must come together.

In The Bible, especially in The Psalms, animal sacrifices are constantly being contrasted with obedience to the Will of God FROM THE HEART.
But NOT where the issue is quoted in Hebrews.

If you were correct, we would read that the remedy for God's displeasure for sacrifices and burnt offerings would be people honestly seeking from their hearts to serve God in offering them. But what do we read? We read Jesus came instead to do His will... And what did He do? Offer Himself. the remedy is not at all what you require for your case to work.

Quote:
So, even of ritual sacrifice, if it is offered without faith and without an obedient heart motivated by love, God finds such unpleasurable and hateful, and He will reject it.
That's not what Hebrews stated.

Hebrews 10 clearly stated the sacrifices could not take away sin. It could not make the offerers PERFECT. And IN THAT CONTEXT, quoted the Psalm saying God had no pleasure in them. And then we read Jesus single sacrifice caused the believer to be PERFECT. That's nothing to do with whether or not the offerers were sincere and doing it from the heart The ACCOMPLISHMENT of whether the offerings made the comers thereunto perfect or not was the issue. And that was the contrast in Hebrews 10.

If your hypothesis were correct, Hebrews 10 would be speaking about dishonest or honest offerers, not offerers perfected or not.

Quote:

Isaiah 1:11-15 gives us the explanation. The offerings were being offered hypocritically, for the hearts of the worshipers were not right with God first, thus the offerings from their hands were not acceptable sacrifices to Him. We see the exact same thing in Jeremiah 6:20 and Amos 5:21-22.
So, this explains why Psalm 40:6-9 has God rejecting their sacrifices.
That is not what Hebrews 10 says about the issue at all. Isaiah 1 was not dealing with what Psalm 40 was dealing with. Correct, dishonest offerers were wasting their time. But that is not at all the context of Hebrews 10 and its use of the Psalm.

Quote:
The obedience to the Divine Will, which the Psalmist contrasts with sacrifices, consists in the recognition that bulls and goats had no consciences and so therefore were not capable of walking in obedience to fulfill The Law vicariously. Thus, they could not ever satisfy Divine Justice because they could never qualify as morally responsible human beings. Thus, only Messiah could do this. So, as I and others see this, Psalm 40 is the explanation for why the sacrifices had to keep being repeated, while Messiah had only to do it "once for all", and then sit down.
Are you saying the book of Hebrews' reference the CONSCIENCE is in contrast to the beasts not having conscience? If not, it's odd you use that term when the context of Hebrews 10 uses conscience as a reference.

Please clarify your point.
__________________
...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.

"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 11-13-2017, 01:34 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffi View Post
Esaias, I have also been listening to some of your YouTube preaching posts and singing on your Apostolic HouseChurch channel. I like it. I am currently listening to a lesson concerning secrets in the Passover and the fifty days of the Omer till Shabu'ot. Is the speaker you or another elder of your congregation?
By the way, it would be great if you could maybe start a thread sharing what you all have learned concerning the omer, and the relationship between Pascha and Pentecost. (hint, hint...)
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 11-14-2017, 02:53 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,408
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

And I wonder if Raffi and MfBlume could summarize their Sabbath stances in relatively short declarations. A short statement that would include their covenant understandings, how you see certain verses like Isaiah 66:23, how sabbath interlinks with the sacrificial system, whether the blood of Messiah needed to land on the mercy seat for the change of covenant.

That being said, let me ask about one verse.

Luke 23:56 (AV)
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments;
and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.


Luke wrote this c. 41 AD I believe (you may be later) to the most excellent high priest Theophilus (YMMV-yourmileagemayvary.)

Note the present tense.
Do you believe there was an implied (former) or (at that time) in the verse?

according to the (former) commandment
according to the (at that time) commandment

And, if there was a change of the sabbath, when did it occur?
The blood of Jesus had been shed at the time of the spices, and had (I believe) landed on the mercy seat. So was there a commandment at that time? Allowing that you have placed (at that time) into the sentence.

Thanks!

Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-14-2017 at 02:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Our Sabbath Rest is only in Jesus Christ Iron_Bladder Sunday School 6 05-03-2007 03:28 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.