View Single Post
  #70  
Old 03-02-2019, 08:47 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,777
Re: 7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believer

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
Of course he sat down before Paul wrote anything. That is why Paul said THERE WAS a rest to enter into when he wrote Hebrews 4.

No no no.

A child could see the difference in this issue. When I read that, I saw Paul speaking from the perspective of WHEN THOSE THINGS WERE INSTITUTED, not from the time he wrote them, just like Hebrews 8:

Hebrews 8:8-13 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.



Jeremiah wrote there was a new covenant coming. Paul referred to that and FROM THE TIME OF WRITING OF JEREMIAH he said that the old covenant was waxing old. Not from the time Paul wrote about it.. Many preterists think that’s saying law was still hanging around and was gone in AD70. I disagree. Law was gone at the cross. And from the perspective of the time those laws were in effect before the cross, THEY WERE SHADOWS OF THINGS TO COME.




That’s the most weak argument of all of your arguments, when, no insult intended, a child could see the difference.


Wrong. Weak argument.
A child can see that when an apostle says something is (presently) a shadow of (future) coming things, that whatever they are a shadow of cannot have already come. Well, a child who knows basic grammar, at least.
__________________
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