Angels

[bobinfaith]

Hello Michael;

In God's Word Cherub is a high ranking angelic servant and Ram was the sacrifice God provided to Abraham instead of Isaac, thus CherubRam.

CherubRam is an interesting name. Are you a disciple of Judaism Christian belief?

Please review our Biblical Debate Board and forum rules.

I don't personally debate, however, I do share my apologetic beliefs that are supported by sola scriptura.

My wife and I reside and serve the Lord in the SF Bay Area and are supporters of Jews for Jesus and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

God bless you, Michael, and your entire family.

Bob

 

[David]

Hello, my name is Michael. I am a non-trin Christian. I believe in keeping the commanded Sabbath and the moral commands of God.

Does this forum allow doctrinal debate?

Yes, doctrinal discussion is allowed here. What is not allowed is the promotion of teaching that contradicts clear Scripture, especially when it alters or denies core biblical doctrine.

Biblical Truth Forum exists for discussion under the authority of Scripture, not debate that treats settled biblical truths as negotiable opinions.

Members are free to ask questions, examine passages, compare interpretations, and test ideas openly. Acts 17:11 commends believers who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Honest examination is welcome.

However, the forum does not allow teaching that:

Denies or rewrites doctrines plainly taught in Scripture.
Reframes Christ’s warnings about judgment, salvation, or sin in ways that contradict His own words.
Presents doctrinal error as biblical truth after correction has been given from Scripture.

Titus 3:10 instructs, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” The purpose is protection of readers, not suppression of discussion.

So the answer is simple:

Yes, doctrinal discussion is allowed.
No, doctrinal contradiction of clear Scripture is not permitted to stand as teaching.

Discussion seeks understanding under God’s Word. The forum is not a platform for redefining what Scripture plainly says.

 

[Rose]

Did God create the angels? When were they created?

 

[David]

The angels did not always exist. Only God has existed from everlasting to everlasting. It is obvious from Scripture that angels are created. Colossians clearly reveals where they came from: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” ~Colossians 1:16. Notice that “principalities” and “powers” are referencing the spiritual realm unseen by the physical eye. Angels were spoken into existence by Christ.

Psalm 148 declares the same truth. “Praise ye him, all his angels… Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created” ~Psalm 148:2,5. Angels did not evolve. Angels did not just randomly happen into existence. God spoke and they were there.

Here is where Scripture reveals what may have happened. God formed the foundation of the earth and angels were already in existence watching His masterpiece being formed. When God asked Job where he was during creation, he said, “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” ~Job 38:4,7.

Imagine creation for a moment. Imagine that moment when God had just finished speaking the universe into existence. Imagine the angels watching as He spoke the earth into form by His word. They were there rejoicing like a heavenly choir at the mighty power and wisdom of their Maker. Angels were present because they had already been created by their Maker.

Scripture never tells us when they were created. Genesis never states on what day of creation they were made. All Scripture says is that angels already existed when God laid the foundation of the earth. Once Scripture stops telling us what happened, we need to stop guessing at what happened.

But Scripture does reveal why they exist. “Hebrews 1:14 says, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” Angels are servants of God. Angels work hard to achieve the will of God. They serve in His kingdom.

But here is why it really matters. The angels that caused heaven and earth to shake with their worship are servants to the same King that sent His only Son to save sinners from their hell-deserving sins. The Creator of angels became man to dwell among us to reconcile us back to Himself. God created angels to worship Him, and because they cannot redeem us from our sins, God sent His Son to do that. Let that put your puzzle into perspective. The Creator of angels laid down His life to redeem you and me.

 

[CherubRam]

Hello Michael;

In God's Word Cherub is a high ranking angelic servant and Ram was the sacrifice God provided to Abraham instead of Isaac, thus CherubRam.

CherubRam is an interesting name. Are you a disciple of Judaism Christian belief?

Please review our Biblical Debate Board and forum rules.

I don't personally debate, however, I do share my apologetic beliefs that are supported by sola scriptura.

My wife and I reside and serve the Lord in the SF Bay Area and are supporters of Jews for Jesus and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

God bless you, Michael, and your entire family.

Bob

A ram is a leader of the sheep. CherubRam means Highest Spiritual Ram. Years ago I needed a User Name and made up names at random until the computer program finally accepted this one. CherubRam
I am a (Judaeo / Judaic) Christian.
I live in the state of Oregon.

 

[CherubRam]

Hello Michael;

In God's Word Cherub is a high ranking angelic servant and Ram was the sacrifice God provided to Abraham instead of Isaac, thus CherubRam.

CherubRam is an interesting name. Are you a disciple of Judaism Christian belief?

Please review our Biblical Debate Board and forum rules.

I don't personally debate, however, I do share my apologetic beliefs that are supported by sola scriptura.

My wife and I reside and serve the Lord in the SF Bay Area and are supporters of Jews for Jesus and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

God bless you, Michael, and your entire family.

Bob

Quote: "Opinion, tradition, and personal experience are never treated as equal to Scripture."

Trinitarianism and Sunday Sabbath were established by the Catholic Church, that is, according to history.

In History
Originally the Judaizing Christians were the ones who had the letters of the Disciples. The Catholics got their scriptures from the Judaizing Christians and proceeded to alter them to make them acceptable to the Pagans.

I have noticed that this place does not even accept biblical foot notes of Study Bibles.

 

[David]

I have noticed that this place does not even accept biblical foot notes of Study Bibles.

One small clarification about the forum rules.

When the guideline says that opinion, tradition, and personal experience are not treated as equal to Scripture, that does not mean study helps are automatically rejected. Study Bible footnotes, cross references, language notes, and similar tools can be useful if they are pointing back to what the text of Scripture actually says.

What we do not allow is elevating human commentary to the level of authority, or using notes and traditions to make Scripture say something that is not written in the passage itself.

The standard is simple. Everything must stand or fall by the Word of God.

The Bereans were called noble because they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” ~Acts 17:11. Even the apostle Paul’s teaching was examined against the Scriptures.

So if a study note helps explain a passage and it can be supported by the text itself and the whole counsel of Scripture, it is welcome. If it contradicts or replaces what Scripture plainly says, then it will be challenged.

That is the approach we try to keep here. Scripture first, everything else tested by it.

 

[David]

Quote: "Opinion, tradition, and personal experience are never treated as equal to Scripture."

Trinitarianism and Sunday Sabbath were established by the Catholic Church, that is, according to history.

In History
Originally the Judaizing Christians were the ones who had the letters of the Disciples. The Catholics got their scriptures from the Judaizing Christians and proceeded to alter them to make them acceptable to the Pagans.

Just to be clear, this forum is not connected with Catholicism, and Catholic doctrine is not the authority here. The standard for discussion on this forum is Scripture alone.

When the rules state that opinion, tradition, and personal experience are not treated as equal to Scripture, that includes Catholic tradition as well as anyone else’s tradition. Everything must be tested by what is written in the Word of God.

Claims about doctrines being invented by a church institution do not determine truth. What matters is whether the teaching is found in Scripture.

For example, Scripture clearly speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together: Jesus commanded baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” ~Matthew 28:19. At the baptism of Christ, “Jesus… went up straightway out of the water… the Spirit of God descending like a dove… and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son” ~Matthew 3:16-17.

Likewise, the New Testament records believers gathering on the first day of the week: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them” ~Acts 20:7.

So the issue here is not what the Catholic Church claims, or what any other institution claims. The question is simply this: What do the Scriptures say?

That is the authority we operate under here. Any doctrine presented in discussion should be supported directly from Scripture and examined in its context.

 

[Capbook]

Just to be clear, this forum is not connected with Catholicism, and Catholic doctrine is not the authority here. The standard for discussion on this forum is Scripture alone.

When the rules state that opinion, tradition, and personal experience are not treated as equal to Scripture, that includes Catholic tradition as well as anyone else’s tradition. Everything must be tested by what is written in the Word of God.

Claims about doctrines being invented by a church institution do not determine truth. What matters is whether the teaching is found in Scripture.

For example, Scripture clearly speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together: Jesus commanded baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” ~Matthew 28:19. At the baptism of Christ, “Jesus… went up straightway out of the water… the Spirit of God descending like a dove… and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son” ~Matthew 3:16-17.

Likewise, the New Testament records believers gathering on the first day of the week: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them” ~Acts 20:7.

So the issue here is not what the Catholic Church claims, or what any other institution claims. The question is simply this: What do the Scriptures say?

That is the authority we operate under here. Any doctrine presented in discussion should be supported directly from Scripture and examined in its context.

I just would like to follow CherubRam point about the Sabbath.
Is keeping the Sabbath included as good work the result of faith in Ephesians 2:10?
As the early believers whom visited Jesus at His tomb on a Friday then returned home and rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. (Luke 23:54-56)

 

[OceanLilly]

A ram is a leader of the sheep. CherubRam means Highest Spiritual Ram. Years ago I needed a User Name and made up names at random until the computer program finally accepted this one. CherubRam
I am a (Judaeo / Judaic) Christian.
I live in the state of Oregon.

You're a Messianic Jew.
That is a blessing indeed.

 

[David]

I just would like to follow CherubRam point about the Sabbath.
Is keeping the Sabbath included as good work the result of faith in Ephesians 2:10?
As the early believers whom visited Jesus at His tomb on a Friday then returned home and rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. (Luke 23:54-56)

Ephesians 2:10 says believers walk in good works prepared by God. But it does not redefine the Sabbath as a required work for the church. It has to be read with the rest of Scripture.

Luke 23:54–56 shows those women resting on the Sabbath before the resurrection, still under the old covenant pattern. That’s important context. It’s describing what they did at that time, not commanding how believers must live after Christ fulfilled the law.

Now look at what Scripture says after the cross. “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17. The Sabbath is called a shadow, pointing forward to Christ.

And Romans 14:5 says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” That removes it as a binding requirement.

So no, keeping the Sabbath is not presented in the New Testament as a required “good work” flowing from faith.

The good works of Ephesians 2:10 come from walking in obedience to Christ, not returning to shadows He has already fulfilled.

The issue isn’t whether the Sabbath existed. It did.

The issue is whether Scripture commands it for believers after Christ.

And the answer, from the text, is no.

 

[Capbook]

Ephesians 2:10 says believers walk in good works prepared by God. But it does not redefine the Sabbath as a required work for the church. It has to be read with the rest of Scripture.

Aren't we believers are to be called "the people of God?"

Heb 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Luke 23:54–56 shows those women resting on the Sabbath before the resurrection, still under the old covenant pattern. That’s important context. It’s describing what they did at that time, not commanding how believers must live after Christ fulfilled the law.

Now look at what Scripture says after the cross. “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17. The Sabbath is called a shadow, pointing forward to Christ.

Aren't verses 16, & 17, also the content of handwriting of ordinances in verse 14

Col 2:14 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 Romans 14:5 says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” That removes it as a binding requirement.

Isn't the context speak about one who fast and one who eat?

Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

So no, keeping the Sabbath is not presented in the New Testament as a required “good work” flowing from faith.

The good works of Ephesians 2:10 come from walking in obedience to Christ, not returning to shadows He has already fulfilled.

The issue isn’t whether the Sabbath existed. It did.

The issue is whether Scripture commands it for believers after Christ.

And the answer, from the text, is no.

I'm quite confused why Hebrews 4:9 states it so for the "people of God."
As the word "Sabbath rest" with Strong#G4520, in Greek "σαββατισμός sabbatismos" Bible lexicon defined it as means - 1) sabbath keeping and 2) future rest to come.

Likewise, sabbatismos as derivative of G4521 (Sabbaton), the weekly Sabbath.
Thus, per Bible lexicon one definition as “Sabbath keeping” I believe means the weekly Sabbath in verse 4 and 10.

(NAS95+) Heb 4:9 SoG686 there remainsG620 a SabbathG4520 restG4520 for the peopleG2992 of GodG2316.

G4520
σαββατισμός sabbatismos
Thayer Definition:
1) a keeping sabbath
2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a derivative of G4521

 

[David]

Aren't we believers are to be called "the people of God?"

Heb 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Aren't verses 16, & 17, also the content of handwriting of ordinances in verse 14

Col 2:14 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;

Isn't the context speak about one who fast and one who eat?

Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

I'm quite confused why Hebrews 4:9 states it so for the "people of God."
As the word "Sabbath rest" with Strong#G4520, in Greek "σαββατισμός sabbatismos" Bible lexicon defined it as means - 1) sabbath keeping and 2) future rest to come.

Likewise, sabbatismos as derivative of G4521 (Sabbaton), the weekly Sabbath.
Thus, per Bible lexicon one definition as “Sabbath keeping” I believe means the weekly Sabbath in verse 4 and 10.

(NAS95+) Heb 4:9 SoG686 there remainsG620 a SabbathG4520 restG4520 for the peopleG2992 of GodG2316.

G4520
σαββατισμός sabbatismos
Thayer Definition:
1) a keeping sabbath
2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a derivative of G4521

What you’re looking at there is a lexicon entry, not Scripture itself. It’s a man-made attempt to describe how a Greek word is used. The word in Hebrews 4:9 is σαββατισμός (sabbatismos), and yes, it comes from the word for Sabbath, so it naturally carries the idea of a “Sabbath-like rest.” But the definition in a lexicon does not control the meaning. Scripture does.

Hebrews 4 explains exactly what that word means in its own context. Earlier in the chapter, it says, “For we which have believed do enter into rest” ~Hebrews 4:3. That is present tense. This is not just something future. It is something believers enter now by faith. Then the passage reaches back to God resting on the seventh day, not to command a pattern, but to show a picture of a completed work.

By the time you reach verse 9, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God,” the meaning is already being built. Then verse 10 defines it plainly: “For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” That is the key. The rest being described is not about observing a day. It is about ceasing from your own works and resting in what God has done.

Now look back at the lexicon definition you quoted. It gives two possible meanings, one being “a keeping sabbath” and the other being a future or blessed rest. Only one of those fits what Hebrews 4 is actually saying. The chapter already made it clear that Israel had the Sabbath and still did not enter God’s rest. Hebrews 4:8 says, “For if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” That shows the weekly Sabbath was never the final rest.

So the word “sabbatismos” is being used to describe the true rest that the Sabbath pointed toward all along. It is the fulfillment, not a return to the shadow. This lines up with what the rest of Scripture says. “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17. The shadow pointed forward, but the substance is Christ.

So when you see that lexicon entry, understand it this way. It gives you a range of possible meanings, but the passage itself tells you which one is correct. In Hebrews 4, the Holy Spirit defines that word as the rest that comes from trusting God’s finished work, not as a command to keep a weekly Sabbath.

 

[Capbook]

What you’re looking at there is a lexicon entry, not Scripture itself. It’s a man-made attempt to describe how a Greek word is used. The word in Hebrews 4:9 is σαββατισμός (sabbatismos), and yes, it comes from the word for Sabbath, so it naturally carries the idea of a “Sabbath-like rest.”

I am used to consult Bible Lexicons as they I believe are credentialed lexicographers that define Bible words from original languages and render what it means at the time such word was used.
And if Bible lexicographers are unreliable as man-made, Bible translators are also human.
Some based their translation from original Bible words but some based from the translators thoughts.

In this case, the English "Sabbath rest" in Greek "σαββατισμός (sabbatismos)" is used only in this verse.
Which I believe Bible lexicons can help, and that the Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God, refer to the weekly Sabbath, as the Greek word (Sabbatismos) a derivative of Sabbaton, the weekly Sabbath.

But the definition in a lexicon does not control the meaning. Scripture does.

And if we let the Scriptures interpret itself, the context I believe still refer to the weekly Sabbath.
As when the people of God kept that remained Sabbath rest (Sabbatismos), also entered God's rest, as God rested on the seventh day from all His works. (Heb 4:4, Gen 2:2, Ex 20:11)
And that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God. (Ex 20:10)

Heb 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Hebrews 4 explains exactly what that word means in its own context. Earlier in the chapter, it says, “For we which have believed do enter into rest” ~Hebrews 4:3. That is present tense. This is not just something future. It is something believers enter now by faith. Then the passage reaches back to God resting on the seventh day, not to command a pattern, but to show a picture of a completed work.

By the time you reach verse 9, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God,” the meaning is already being built. Then verse 10 defines it plainly: “For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” That is the key. The rest being described is not about observing a day. It is about ceasing from your own works and resting in what God has done.

I believe verse 4, interpret what God's rest people of God entered into.
As the phrase, "for he (believer) entered into God's rest, also ceased from all his own work," this made clear in "as God did from His."(v.10)
And when did God ceased or rest from His work?
Verse 4 state, "And God did rest the seventh day from all his works."

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Now look back at the lexicon definition you quoted. It gives two possible meanings, one being “a keeping sabbath” and the other being a future or blessed rest. Only one of those fits what Hebrews 4 is actually saying. The chapter already made it clear that Israel had the Sabbath and still did not enter God’s rest. Hebrews 4:8 says, “For if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” That shows the weekly Sabbath was never the final rest.

Even if we avoid the meaning of "Sabbath rest (Sabbatismos) as not the weekly Sabbath.
Scriptures states clearly to us that in the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells, I understand as no more sin and sinners. All mankind will worship God weekly.
As the word "new moon" with Strong#H2320, in Hebrew "חדשׁ chôdesh" Bible lexicon defined it as means - the first day of the month.

That I understand from the first day of the month as Sabbath, and the next seventh day as Sabbath and so on, from the stated "Sabbath to Sabbath."

2Pe 3:13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

Isa 66:22 "For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me," declares the LORD, "So your offspring and your name will endure.

Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Isa 66:23 "And it shall be from R1newH2320 moonH2320 to newH2320 moonH2320 And from sabbathH7676 to sabbathH7676, AllH3605 N1mankindH1320 will comeH935 to R2bowH7812 downH7812 beforeH6440 Me," saysH559 the LORDH3068.

H2320
חדשׁ chôdesh
BDB Definition:
1) the new moon, month, monthly
1a) the first day of the month
1b) the lunar month

So the word “sabbatismos” is being used to describe the true rest that the Sabbath pointed toward all along. It is the fulfillment, not a return to the shadow. This lines up with what the rest of Scripture says. “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17. The shadow pointed forward, but the substance is Christ.

So when you see that lexicon entry, understand it this way. It gives you a range of possible meanings, but the passage itself tells you which one is correct. In Hebrews 4, the Holy Spirit defines that word as the rest that comes from trusting God’s finished work, not as a command to keep a weekly Sabbath.

Whichever of the two Bible lexicon definition we'll use, as I've tried to explain above would ultimately led us to worship God weekly from new moon to another, and from Sabbath to another, in where God planned to make the new heavens and new earth which righteousness dwells, as I understand prepared for the over comers.

 

[David]

I am used to consult Bible Lexicons as they I believe are credentialed lexicographers that define Bible words from original languages and render what it means at the time such word was used.
And if Bible lexicographers are unreliable as man-made, Bible translators are also human.
Some based their translation from original Bible words but some based from the translators thoughts.

In this case, the English "Sabbath rest" in Greek "σαββατισμός (sabbatismos)" is used only in this verse.
Which I believe Bible lexicons can help, and that the Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God, refer to the weekly Sabbath, as the Greek word (Sabbatismos) a derivative of Sabbaton, the weekly Sabbath.

And if we let the Scriptures interpret itself, the context I believe still refer to the weekly Sabbath.
As when the people of God kept that remained Sabbath rest (Sabbatismos), also entered God's rest, as God rested on the seventh day from all His works. (Heb 4:4, Gen 2:2, Ex 20:11)
And that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God. (Ex 20:10)

Heb 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

I believe verse 4, interpret what God's rest people of God entered into.
As the phrase, "for he (believer) entered into God's rest, also ceased from all his own work," this made clear in "as God did from His."(v.10)
And when did God ceased or rest from His work?
Verse 4 state, "And God did rest the seventh day from all his works."

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Even if we avoid the meaning of "Sabbath rest (Sabbatismos) as not the weekly Sabbath.
Scriptures states clearly to us that in the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells, I understand as no more sin and sinners. All mankind will worship God weekly.
As the word "new moon" with Strong#H2320, in Hebrew "חדשׁ chôdesh" Bible lexicon defined it as means - the first day of the month.

That I understand from the first day of the month as Sabbath, and the next seventh day as Sabbath and so on, from the stated "Sabbath to Sabbath."

2Pe 3:13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

Isa 66:22 "For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me," declares the LORD, "So your offspring and your name will endure.

Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Isa 66:23 "And it shall be from R1newH2320 moonH2320 to newH2320 moonH2320 And from sabbathH7676 to sabbathH7676, AllH3605 N1mankindH1320 will comeH935 to R2bowH7812 downH7812 beforeH6440 Me," saysH559 the LORDH3068.

H2320
חדשׁ chôdesh
BDB Definition:
1) the new moon, month, monthly
1a) the first day of the month
1b) the lunar month

Whichever of the two Bible lexicon definition we'll use, as I've tried to explain above would ultimately led us to worship God weekly from new moon to another, and from Sabbath to another, in where God planned to make the new heavens and new earth which righteousness dwells, as I understand prepared for the over comers.

You’re forcing Isaiah 66 to override the clear teaching of the New Testament, and that’s where the error is.

Isaiah uses language Israel understood, but you’re turning that language into a binding command instead of recognizing what it’s pointing to. The New Testament already settled the role of Sabbaths: “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17.

So when you read “from sabbath to sabbath,” you’re taking a shadow and rebuilding it as if Christ never fulfilled it. That’s backwards.

Scripture does not point forward to a return to shadows. It points forward to full, continual worship of God in His presence. The language is familiar, but the fulfillment is greater.

You’re reading it as a calendar requirement. Scripture presents it as fulfilled reality in Christ.

 

[Yesua888]

You’re forcing Isaiah 66 to override the clear teaching of the New Testament, and that’s where the error is.

Isaiah uses language Israel understood, but you’re turning that language into a binding command instead of recognizing what it’s pointing to. The New Testament already settled the role of Sabbaths: “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17.

So when you read “from sabbath to sabbath,” you’re taking a shadow and rebuilding it as if Christ never fulfilled it. That’s backwards.

Scripture does not point forward to a return to shadows. It points forward to full, continual worship of God in His presence. The language is familiar, but the fulfillment is greater.

You’re reading it as a calendar requirement. Scripture presents it as fulfilled reality in Christ.

Hi David,
I have asked a similar question before about "shadows' ...
Perhaps we need a dedecated post on SHADOWS because I am still battling to understand this.
In the Old Testament for eg. God said not to eat pork or shellfish (because they are scavengers and unclean). To me that is a clear command.
Could you try to explain again how the OT command is a "shadow" of what Jesus said in the NT?
Perhaps you could also explain your point above.
Sorry, I am truly battling to digest this : )
Thanks

 

[Yesua888]

Quote: "Opinion, tradition, and personal experience are never treated as equal to Scripture."

Trinitarianism and Sunday Sabbath were established by the Catholic Church, that is, according to history.

In History
Originally the Judaizing Christians were the ones who had the letters of the Disciples. The Catholics got their scriptures from the Judaizing Christians and proceeded to alter them to make them acceptable to the Pagans.

I have noticed that this place does not even accept biblical foot notes of Study Bibles. some reasons why, below

• Use a Bible without study notes for regular reading to maintain focus on the text itself.
• Cross-reference multiple study Bibles or commentaries to gain a broader understanding of differing scholarly views.
• Examine the primary text and context before consulting footnotes to ensure a balanced interpretation.
• Be aware of the translation's editorial stance, as footnotes often reflect the specific scholarly methodology of the translation committee.

The footnotes in major study Bibles are typically written by prominent biblical scholars, theologians, and editorial teams associated with specific denominations or academic institutions. Key figures and groups include:

1. Cyrus I. Scofield: The most influential early figure, he single-handedly authored the notes for the Scofield Reference Bible (1909), which popularized dispensationalist theology. While later editions had revisions, the core notes are his work.
2. Large Scholarly Teams: Modern comprehensive study Bibles are collaborative efforts by dozens of scholars.
   
   • The ESV Study Bible was created by a team of 95 scholars from various evangelical institutions and countries, including notable figures like J. I. Packer, D. A. Carson, and Tim Keller.
   • The NIV Zondervan Study Bible (formerly NIV Study Bible) features contributions from over 60 scholars, including D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Kevin DeYoung.
3. Individual Theologians: Some study Bibles are the work of a single prominent teacher.
   
   • The footnotes, outlines, and cross-references for the Recovery Version were written by Witness Lee, founder of the Local Churches movement.
4. Denominational Committees: Catholic study Bibles, like the New American Bible or Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, have footnotes written by committees of Catholic scholars and clergy, often under the auspices of a bishops' conference.

 

[Capbook]

You’re forcing Isaiah 66 to override the clear teaching of the New Testament, and that’s where the error is.

The Old Testament is the one mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 as stated, inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction for training in righteousness. So that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I just follow what the Scriptures said and not forcing to override any teaching, and as stated also for correction.
And besides, it looks forward and pointing to the future, God would make the new heavens and new earth where God's righteous people dwells, and will worship Him every week, from new moon to another and Sabbath to another.
And also nothing in the context that said it is a shadow.

Isaiah uses language Israel understood, but you’re turning that language into a binding command instead of recognizing what it’s pointing to. The New Testament already settled the role of Sabbaths: “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17.

Yes, I believe the prior verse 14 mentioned those handwriting ordinances, the shadows that was nailed to the cross, but never was the fingerwritten Law of God.

So when you read “from sabbath to sabbath,” you’re taking a shadow and rebuilding it as if Christ never fulfilled it. That’s backwards.

Isaiah 66:22.23, as the author states is pointing forward to the future, when God will make the new heavens and new earth, where righteousness dwells.
It does not go backwards as new heavens and new earth are not yet existing today.

Scripture does not point forward to a return to shadows. It points forward to full, continual worship of God in His presence. The language is familiar, but the fulfillment is greater.

You’re reading it as a calendar requirement. Scripture presents it as fulfilled reality in Christ.

I'm reading it based on what 2 Timothy 3:16 states.
And what the author of Isaiah wants us to see, are for the overcomers where all righteous dwells.
Also, the new heavens and new earth was shown to John in Revelation, where the holy city new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, inside were the righteous overcomers whose name are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

 

[David]

The Old Testament is the one mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 as stated, inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction for training in righteousness. So that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I just follow what the Scriptures said and not forcing to override any teaching, and as stated also for correction.
And besides, it looks forward and pointing to the future, God would make the new heavens and new earth where God's righteous people dwells, and will worship Him every week, from new moon to another and Sabbath to another.
And also nothing in the context that said it is a shadow.

Yes, I believe the prior verse 14 mentioned those handwriting ordinances, the shadows that was nailed to the cross, but never was the fingerwritten Law of God.

Isaiah 66:22.23, as the author states is pointing forward to the future, when God will make the new heavens and new earth, where righteousness dwells.
It does not go backwards as new heavens and new earth are not yet existing today.

I'm reading it based on what 2 Timothy 3:16 states.
And what the author of Isaiah wants us to see, are for the overcomers where all righteous dwells.
Also, the new heavens and new earth was shown to John in Revelation, where the holy city new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, inside were the righteous overcomers whose name are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

You’re right that all Scripture is God-breathed. But you’re missing how Scripture itself tells you to read Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 does not mean every Old Testament command stays binding the same way after Christ. If that were true, you would still be offering sacrifices, keeping dietary laws, and observing every ordinance given to Israel. But Scripture itself says those things were fulfilled.

The issue is not whether Isaiah is true. The issue is how Isaiah is fulfilled.

You’re isolating Isaiah 66 and reading it without the light of the New Testament that explains it.

God already told you what Sabbaths were:

“Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17

That is not talking only about “handwriting ordinances.” It explicitly says sabbath days. You cannot remove that word from the text to protect your conclusion.

Hebrews makes it even clearer. The old system was temporary:

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things…” ~Hebrews 10:1

And then it tells you what the real rest is:

“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God… For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works” ~Hebrews 4:9–10

The rest is not a weekly day. The rest is Christ.

Now look at the new heavens and new earth you’re pointing to.

Revelation does not describe a return to weekly cycles or temple systems. It says, “I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” ~Revelation 21:22.

That matters. No temple. No system. No shadows. Just God Himself.

So when Isaiah says “from sabbath to sabbath,” he is using language they understood to describe continual, unbroken worship. Not a reinstated calendar law.

You’re taking prophetic language and turning it into a legal requirement that the New Testament already fulfilled and set in its proper place.

Scripture does not contradict itself.

If you say Sabbaths continue as binding law in the future, you are directly opposing what God already said about them being shadows fulfilled in Christ.

The future is not a return to shadows.

The future is the fullness of what the shadows pointed to.

 

[Yesua888]

You’re right that all Scripture is God-breathed. But you’re missing how Scripture itself tells you to read Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 does not mean every Old Testament command stays binding the same way after Christ. If that were true, you would still be offering sacrifices, keeping dietary laws, and observing every ordinance given to Israel. But Scripture itself says those things were fulfilled.

The issue is not whether Isaiah is true. The issue is how Isaiah is fulfilled.

You’re isolating Isaiah 66 and reading it without the light of the New Testament that explains it.

God already told you what Sabbaths were:

“Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17

That is not talking only about “handwriting ordinances.” It explicitly says sabbath days. You cannot remove that word from the text to protect your conclusion.

Hebrews makes it even clearer. The old system was temporary:

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things…” ~Hebrews 10:1

And then it tells you what the real rest is:

“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God… For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works” ~Hebrews 4:9–10

The rest is not a weekly day. The rest is Christ.

Now look at the new heavens and new earth you’re pointing to.

Revelation does not describe a return to weekly cycles or temple systems. It says, “I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” ~Revelation 21:22.

That matters. No temple. No system. No shadows. Just God Himself.

So when Isaiah says “from sabbath to sabbath,” he is using language they understood to describe continual, unbroken worship. Not a reinstated calendar law.

You’re taking prophetic language and turning it into a legal requirement that the New Testament already fulfilled and set in its proper place.

Scripture does not contradict itself.

If you say Sabbaths continue as binding law in the future, you are directly opposing what God already said about them being shadows fulfilled in Christ.

The future is not a return to shadows.

The future is the fullness of what the shadows pointed to.

I think I am getting your previous posts about "shadows" and am assuming then that it would be explicitly written in the Scripture that it is a "shadow", or will be fulfilled by Christ : )