GOD'S SABBATH AND THE REAL TRUTH OF COL 2:14-17 WHO DO WE BELIEVE GOD or MAN?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
incorrect that greek word "diathéké" means "covenant" and asI said they were trying to keep the levitical priesthood, the old veil, they entered the holy place through the literl veil, thise of Yahsua enter through. Him


also if one is truly seekingtruth they will find out what the word "chadash" pre vowel pointing means, but I dont expect anyone to choose truth over tradition.
yes, Covenant is the common translation today

Testament basically the same thing in older English
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,844
13,558
113
yes, Covenant is the common translation today

Testament basically the same thing in older English
Luke 22:20 kjv
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

When He says there is a new, He defines that there is an old. It's that simple :)
 
Last edited:

Shamah

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2018
2,735
692
113
Luke 22:20 kjv
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

When He says there is a new, He defines that there is an old. It's that simple :)
and the One who spoke those words also spoke these"

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Mat 5:18, "I say to you; Unless heaven and earth passes away, one yodh; the smallest of the letters will in no way pass from the Law, until all things are perfected."

Revelation 21:1, "I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away."
[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Mat 12:12, "And how much more valuable is a man than a sheep? Therefore, it is Lawful to do righteousness on the Sabbath."[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Mat 24:20, “But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, nor on the Sabbath Day.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proof this is an end time prophecy is found here, for the Messiah has not yet returned;[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Luke 21:30-33, “As soon as they produce leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is already near. In the same way, when you see these things taking place, you will know that the kingdom of God is near. I tell all of you with certainty, this generation will not disappear until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will never disappear.”[/FONT]



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Mat 24:32-36, “Now learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branches become tender and it produces leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, you will know that the Son of Man is near, right at the door. I tell all of you with certainty, this generation will not disappear until these things happen. Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will never disappear. No one knows when that day or hour will come—not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”[/FONT]
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,844
13,558
113
Not even a single jot or tittle has to pass for a man who has died to be completely free from the power of law.

:)

((re: Romans 6, 7, 8))
 

Shamah

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2018
2,735
692
113
Not even a single jot or tittle has to pass for a man who has died to be completely free from the power of law.

:)

((re: Romans 6, 7, 8))
Romans 6 7 and 8 huh? Dead to sin (transgressing the Law) or dead to YHWH;s Law?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Romans 3:28, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Romans 3:31, “Are we then doing away with the Law* through the faith? By no means! Rather, we establish the Law*!”[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*“Law” is word # G3551 – nomos, Strong's Concordance, nomos: that which is assigned, hence usage, law, Original Word: νόμος, ου, ὁ, Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine, Transliteration: nomos, Phonetic Spelling: (nom'-os), Short Definition: a law, the Mosaic Law, Definition: usage, custom, law; in NT: of, law in general, plur: of divine laws; of a force or influence impelling to action; of the Mosaic law;, metion: of the books which contain the law, the Pentateuch, the Old Testament scriptures in general[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Romans 6:16, "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves servants for obedience, you are servants of the one whom you obey, whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness?"[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Romans, “6:1-2, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin* that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*What is sin, that we may not continue in it and thus have “died to sin”?[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1 John 3:4, "Whoever commits sin, transgresses also the Law; for sin is the transgression of the Law."[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Romans 7:25, “Thanks be to YHWH, I have deliverance through Yahshua Messiah our King! So then, with this same mind, I myself serve the Law of YHWH, while in the flesh that is yet subject to the law of sin.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Romans 8:2, “Because through Yahshua Messiah, the Law of the Spirit has set me free from the law of sin and death.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Romans 6:12-23, “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, to obey it in its desires, neither present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהוה [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהוה[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]. For sin shall not rule over you, for you are not under the law but under favor. (Gen 4:7, “Is it not if you do good, you are to be accepted? And if you do not do good, towards the door is a sin, it is lying and towards you is his desire, and you must rule over it.”) What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Torah but under unmerited mercy? Let it not be! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves servants for obedience, you are servants of the one whom you obey, whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness? But thanks to [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהוה [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]that you were servants of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of teaching to which you were entrusted. And having been set free from sin, you became servants of righteousness. I speak as a man, because of the weakness of your flesh. For even as you did present your members as servants of uncleanness, and of lawlessness resulting in lawlessness, so now present your members as servants of righteousness resulting in set-apartness. For when you were servants of sin, you were free from righteousness. What fruit, therefore, were you having then, over which you are now ashamed? For the end thereof is death. But now, having been set free from sin, and having become servants of [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהוה[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif], you have your fruit resulting in set-apartness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the favorable gift of [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהוה [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]is everlasting life in Messiah [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]our Master.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Romans 7 -[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]7 What? Can anyone therefore say that the Law is sin? No! By no means! But to the contrary, I did not know sin; transgression of the Law, except through the Law, for I did not know lust, unless the Law had said: Do not covet.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]12 Therefore the Law is holy, and the commandments are holy, and just, and righteous.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]13 Did that which is righteous, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through that which was righteous, so that through the commandments, sin might become utterly sinful.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]14 For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I was carnal, sold into the power of sin*.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1 John 3:4, "...for sin is the transgression of the Law."

would you look at that actually reading the verses you said disproves your doctrine of hating and seeking to be free of the Law of the Most High...







[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Romans 8:5-8, "For those who live according to the flesh, set their minds on the things of the flesh; but those who live according to the Spirit, set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against; (bitterly opposed to), YHWH; for it is not subject to the Law of YHWH, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are of the flesh cannot please YHWH."[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT]
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
107
63
Luke 22:20 kjv
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

When He says there is a new, He defines that there is an old. It's that simple :)
I rarely disagree with you - but here I must...

The word translated "testament" in the KJV is " διαθήκη".
It is much better translated as "covenant" because the word is explicitly used to describe a contract - which is what a covenant is.
The problem is that the word "testament" in Modern English is not usually associated with this meaning, although it did originally have this connotation.

Also, our legalistic friends are trying to entangle the conversation in a gigantic spiderweb of misdirection.

Ultimately, the New covenant (the real topic of conversation in Luke 22:20) is the ultimate fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant, and abrogates the Sinaitic covenant....
This is the reason that none of the demands of the Torah (the integral outworking of the Sinaitic covenant) are binding on New covenant believers.
Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the New covenant, does not preside over the Torah and impose it on use because He has fulfilled all of its righteous demands through His shed blood and death on the cross!

Instead a new law, that of the the law of love is the ethic of the New covenant which reaches its highest expression through the fruit of the Spirit: "22 [FONT=&quot]But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[/FONT]
23 [FONT=&quot]Meekness, temperance: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]against such there is no law.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]" Gal 5:22-23
 

gb9

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2011
12,321
6,690
113
incorrect that greek word "diathéké" means "covenant" and asI said they were trying to keep the levitical priesthood, the old veil, they entered the holy place through the literl veil, thise of Yahsua enter through. Him


also if one is truly seekingtruth they will find out what the word "chadash" pre vowel pointing means, but I dont expect anyone to choose truth over tradition.
you told me that strong's definition of diatheke was "wrong ". then you cite strong's definition here ( post # 8585 ). wow, you are one confused dude.

or could it be that you are not confused, and you will use definitions when they suit your Hebrew roots agenda, then reject them when they don't??
 

Shamah

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2018
2,735
692
113
you told me that strong's definition of diatheke was "wrong ". then you cite strong's definition here ( post # 8585 ). wow, you are one confused dude.

or could it be that you are not confused, and you will use definitions when they suit your Hebrew roots agenda, then reject them when they don't??
Ok, show me where I said it means anyhitng but "covenant"

I did not. I said it does not mean testament, some resources say testament, but study in te greek shows testament is a wrong translation, a Marcionite translation if I may...

Ohh yeah, nice try.
 

gb9

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2011
12,321
6,690
113
Ok, show me where I said it means anyhitng but "covenant"

I did not. I said it does not mean testament, some resources say testament, but study in te greek shows testament is a wrong translation, a Marcionite translation if I may...

Ohh yeah, nice try.
o.k., since you don't like the greek- the Hebrew word can be translated into testament, covenant, alliance, pact, treaty . so, another Hebrew roots fail. ( by Hebrew) .
 

Shamah

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2018
2,735
692
113
o.k., since you don't like the greek- the Hebrew word can be translated into testament, covenant, alliance, pact, treaty . so, another Hebrew roots fail. ( by Hebrew) .
the greek word that this conversantion is about is properly translated covenant.

show me where I ever said different.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,844
13,558
113
I rarely disagree with you - but here I must...

The word translated "testament" in the KJV is "διαθήκη".
It is much better translated as "covenant" because the word is explicitly used to describe a contract - which is what a covenant is.
The problem is that the word "testament" in Modern English is not usually associated with this meaning, although it did originally have this connotation.

Also, our legalistic friends are trying to entangle the conversation in a gigantic spiderweb of misdirection.

Ultimately, the New covenant (the real topic of conversation in Luke 22:20) is the ultimate fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant, and abrogates the Sinaitic covenant....
This is the reason that none of the demands of the Torah (the integral outworking of the Sinaitic covenant) are binding on New covenant believers.
Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the New covenant, does not preside over the Torah and impose it on use because He has fulfilled all of its righteous demands through His shed blood and death on the cross!

Instead a new law, that of the the law of love is the ethic of the New covenant which reaches its highest expression through the fruit of the Spirit: "22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." Gal 5:22-23
i like 'covenant' better too, but there seemed to be some question about whether a person is a Marconian heretic if their Bible says old & new 'testament' in the index . . ??

so i found it poignant that the old king James has "testament" here. :)
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
The Jewish calendar states creation began 3761 BC. That is sheer bunkum.

"According to tradition, the Hebrew calendar started at the time of Creation, placed at 3761 BC.[SUP][7][/SUP] The current (2017/2018) Hebrew year is 5778."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_6000
Easy to say pure bunkum. Now all you have to do is prove it!!!

The old earth paradigm fails miserably. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones and C14 in diamonds proves it false. The claim of the lines in the Grand Canyon proving millions of years is hogwash. The lines are straight showing no erosion therefore they were laid down by a large catastrophy like a massive flood.

Prove this wrong with evidence.
 

PS

Senior Member
Jan 11, 2013
5,399
695
113
Easy to say pure bunkum. Now all you have to do is prove it!!!

The old earth paradigm fails miserably. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones and C14 in diamonds proves it false. The claim of the lines in the Grand Canyon proving millions of years is hogwash. The lines are straight showing no erosion therefore they were laid down by a large catastrophy like a massive flood.

Prove this wrong with evidence.
The canyon is the result of water erosion that takes billions of years, proof indeed of an old earth.

"The major geologic exposures in the Grand Canyon range in age from the 2-billion-year-old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230-million-year-old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. There is a gap of about a billion years between the 500-million-year-old stratum and the level below it, which dates to about 1.5 billion years ago. This large unconformity indicates a long period for which no deposits are present."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon
 

Gabriel2020

Senior Member
May 6, 2017
1,099
41
48
OLD BUT NOT YET PUT IN PLACE. the earth was not solid ,round and perfect when God separated it from within the waters. Sure the water and rain he put on the earth ran through them.
 

PS

Senior Member
Jan 11, 2013
5,399
695
113
OLD BUT NOT YET PUT IN PLACE. the earth was not solid ,round and perfect when God separated it from within the waters. Sure the water and rain he put on the earth ran through them.
Give it up.
 

Gabriel2020

Senior Member
May 6, 2017
1,099
41
48
People do like to imagine things with no proof that there was an old earth before the one that is. Now that is an imagination.
 

Gabriel2020

Senior Member
May 6, 2017
1,099
41
48
The earth grew out of the water, it did not grow in the open universe that it is in now. besides if it did it would have been much smaller than it is now. it would have had to start from a grain of sand to get to the size it is now. It was water that caused it to grow and form in the vast universe. God pulled it out of the water. Islands come into existence the same way, first forming under water, and then appearing out of nowhere,.
 

PS

Senior Member
Jan 11, 2013
5,399
695
113
People do like to imagine things with no proof that there was an old earth before the one that is. Now that is an imagination.
Long before the start of creation that occurred, according to Judaism, in 3761 BC, people were already settled and farming before 12,000 BC.

"The earliest signs of a process leading to sedentary culture can be seen in the Levant to as early as 12,000 BC, when the Natufian culture became sedentary; it evolved into an agricultural society by 10,000 BC. The importance of water to safeguard an abundant and stable food supply, due to favourable conditions for hunting, fishing and gathering resources including cereals, provided an initial wide spectrum economy that triggered the creation of permanent villages."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization
 
Last edited:

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
Luke 22:20 kjv
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

When He says there is a new, He defines that there is an old. It's that simple :)
yes, it's simple


the claims were made earlier on this thread that:

the word "Old Testament" is just another catholic creation

and

the phrase "Old Testament" is an invention of a catholic man named Marcion




"Old Testament" and "New Testament" of course are simply biblical phrases, found in older English translations


as an aside, Wycliffe uses "Old Testament" here

But the wits of them be astonished; for [till] into this day the same veil in [the] reading of the old testament dwelleth not showed [dwelleth unshowed], for it is voided in Christ

you gotta love that phrase

But the wits of them be astonished

:D
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
The canyon is the result of water erosion that takes billions of years, proof indeed of an old earth.

"The major geologic exposures in the Grand Canyon range in age from the 2-billion-year-old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230-million-year-old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. There is a gap of about a billion years between the 500-million-year-old stratum and the level below it, which dates to about 1.5 billion years ago. This large unconformity indicates a long period for which no deposits are present."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon
Your reference is secular ignoring the word of God. This is a Christian site and the word of God is paramount. There are flaws in the atheist paradigm of old earth. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones and Carbon-14 in diamonds for 2 examples. Here are links to out of place artifacts destroying the atheist paradigm of old earth.

OOPARTS (out of place artifacts) & ANCIENT HIGH TECHNOLOGY
s8int.com

Things found in coal etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hammer

Bell Found in Coal | Genesis Park

Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True


You ignore the fact that the layers in the Grand Canyon show absolutely no erosion. Second you ignore the scripture of Noah and the flood covering the entire earth. We have an example of how the Grand Canyon was created in modern times. Mt. St. Helens blew its top and created a dam across the river flowing nearby. The river created a lake that rose until it topped the dam. Within a day after reaching the top and starting to overflow the dam the water washed away a channel recreating the route to the ocean. It is today called the mini grand canyon. It shows the same lines that are flat that the Grand Canyon has. When the flood occurred it created deposits of earth showing flat lines without erosion that the Grand Canyon shows. Geography of North America has a somewhat bowl shape that the Grand Canyon appears to have let the water empty. Just like the mini grand canyon did in recent history. Flat lines with no erosion in both. This debunks the millions of years to create the lines. No erosion in the layers proves a catastrophic event lasting a relatively short time creating them. Millions of years would have irregular lines caused by erosion. Where is the evidence of any erosion over the millions of years. The proof of a short cataclysmic event is there.