Who / What Are You Listening To?

Jesus the Christ in the flesh was God Incarnate. He came on the scene 2000 years ago, and the people He went to; the Jews of the time, were as careless about listening to Him as their forefathers where who came out of Egypt. God communicated to them through Moses. When He came among His own and spoke to them directly, they too took little heed to what He said.

(Matthew 17:5) While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

(John 10:27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

(Hebrews 1:1-2) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, °Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Odd, don’t you think, that given this information, Sabbatarians would resort to substituting what Jesus said and taught with what God spoke to the Hebrews upon coming out of Egypt; the Decalogue spoken from Mt. Sinai, overlooking why God spoke to them at Mt. Sinai.

(Exodus 19:9) And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

God thundered out the Decalogue from the mount, knowing full well they would not believe Him as they had already proven. This was for the express purpose of them believing Moses.

Sabbatarians are very careless with what God spoke directly to the people. Alterations are made with the actual quotes from Scripture, as well as alterations of the meanings of what He spoke.

(Matthew 5:17-19) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. °For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. °Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Everything Jesus said here is altered on a wholesale basis.

Jesus references the law and prophets and what is located in both with the potential to be destroyed or fulfilled, but Sabbatarians will cite this passage sans the prophets so as to imply He was talking about the legalities of the law, seeing as there are no laws codified in the prophets. Then, they substitute the Hebrew idiom about heaven and earth with a modern definition of cosmology so as to also alter the meaning given there so as to negate what the context reveals about prophesies in both the law and prophets He came to fulfill, following up with claiming “these” commandments which grammatically requires cited commandments, with “the” commandments of the old covenant law where the transgression of any of those resulted in a condemnation and death sentence, and not a situation or condition of entering into the kingdom of Heaven in a lesser capacity.

“These” commandments follow; commandments of His, where He contrasts them to old covenant commandments, even to the point of negating one located in the law.

Sabbatarians claim He is saying here that the law remains inviolate right down to the jots and tittles, then ignore His alteration of some of those commandments way beyond the scope of jots and tittles, with the crowning touch that, upon His death, He even went so far as to destroy over 98% of the law, claiming all those commandments were ‘ceremonial’ and done away with.

It is a masterful stroke of contradiction carried out in just a few verses, and Sabbatarians themselves are blind to the manipulation.

But wait! There’s more! … Much much more.

Jesus declared Himself Lord also of the Sabbath, where Sabbatarians cite this, usually with the exclusion of the word “also” so that people don’t conclude He is Lord “also” of the other days of the week; part of His creation, specifically the first day of the week, aka “Sunday” in the Roman Catholic calendar, used by many nations for the sake of standardization.

While acknowledging Jesus as the Lord of the Sabbath, they overlook and ignore what all He had to say in relation to the Sabbath, specifically that good works are lawful on the Sabbath, as contrasted to evil works. For once again, what He had to say flies in the face of Sabbatarian dogma.

In cults, like Adventism and the Worldwide splinters, fear and phobia induction is crucial to control. This is where the OC law comes into play. It is the means by which such religious cults control and manipulate their members. It is about the “management” of sin in order to manage the members. By defining sin as the transgression of the law, thanks to the poorly translated passage found at 1 John 3:4, and then citing only half of it while re-defining the law to mean just the Decalogue, the membership can be managed through fear by managing the law. If sin is the transgression of the law, then the avoidance of sin is through keeping the law; their interpretation of it, where they set themselves up as the administers of the law, however defined, where the law is presented as “do-able” and where the law serves the administrators of it. There is profit in being a prophet.

But take careful notice, even though the translation of 1John 3:4 is sloppy, for it begins declaring sin “ALSO” transgresses the law, where the passage in Greek defines sin, not through the transgression of the law, but through the words “hamartia” and “anomia” both of which need to be understood in their Greek context.

There is sin, and sin transgresses the law, where we would define sin, based on the terms presented in the Greek as evils and iniquities, often lumped together under the English word “lawless(ness) which reflects the Greek “anomia” from a transliteral perspective.

Regardless of how you want to define sin, the law was what gave “strength” to sin so that the law, in concert with the sin, condemns the sinner to death, and where Scripture declares that all have sinned, therefore all are under that death penalty.

It is here where Christ Jesus stepped in, and solved the problem of condemnation by taking upon Himself that condemnation so deservedly earned by all mankind. And it is also here that deceivers in religion must overcome; mitigate the sacrifice of Christ by convincing people they are still subject to the consequences of sin, should they sin again.

Faith in Christ Jesus regarding His sacrifice is compromised, should you “continue in sin” sin again, which all do also. It is defined as though you paid the penalty for your previous “crimes” and now, you’ve committed another crime, resulting in another round of condemnation, denying the fact that Christ paid the debt, once, for all, for all time.

A believer is removed from the law, through death, so that the law can NEVER charge them again. They exist now, and forever, in a state of Grace, like ‘diplomatic immunity’ from prosecution which concept is met, not with biblical evidence, but with rationalizations; human reasoning designed to actually overthrow the facts of Scripture:

“Why, if we (you) were free of the law, then you could sin with impunity without fear of any divine reprisal!”

You could, and you might, if it were not for another matter associated with that sacrifice, that being the issuance of the Holy Spirit to those who actually believe God and Christ for what Christ did; removing their sins; forgiving their sins, and preserving them in a state no longer subject to the condemnation of the law, especially those points of law specific to the law; “works” of the law, where the transgression was not against either God or fellow man, but the law itself.

One of the common mantras of Sabbatarianism is that the law (that remains) is how one expresses love; for God and fellow man. The works of the law, specific to the law itself, effect neither God or fellow man; rather, they affect the law itself, so that following the Sabbatarian logic, keeping those works of the law would be a reflection of one’s love of the law; not God or fellow man.

The unspoken real issue here is hidden in all this distraction over the law by those intent on administering it, illegally, I might add, for once Christ’s sacrifice was “finished” it was finished. Done. Completed, so that the law could never affect anyone’s condemnation again.

“Blasphemy!” Screams the Sabbatarian, usually followed by more rationalizations sans biblical evidence. For in the eyes of Sabbatarians, it is by and through the law God will be judging all mankind. Their theology demands it; their theology and control are dependent upon it.

This is perhaps then the greatest distraction or deception in all of Scripture, for its claim means that God does judge mankind as does mankind itself, with what God stated was UNRIGHTEOUS judgment, according to appearance, where the appearance of sin can be manipulated by man.

What did God say, Himself, was the means whereby He judges mankind?

(1 Samuel 16:7) But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

God judges according to the heart.

When you broach this subject with Sabbatarians, it’s like holding a cross up to a vampire, figuratively speaking. They don’t want to discuss the heart. They want to keep the focus and attention on the Decalogue, specifically the Sabbath.

Christ came and took away the sin(s) of the world. The law, despite the best efforts of Sabbatarianism, Catholicism, and a few more .isms cannot judge anyone. Only one judgment remains, to be conducted by God, who judges righteous judgment, and not according to appearance. He will judge all according to the heart of a man, and this revelation does not bode well with those who have used the law to cloak their evil hearts.

The heart is associated with the Spirit; the “heart, soul, mind” of a person. That non-corporeal aspect of a person, addressed in the Great commandment of the law that Sabbatarians have relegated to the artificial division of law referred to them as “ceremonial” and not applicable in their theology, and no wonder, for it destroys their legal construct of “moral” law.

(Matthew 22:36-40) Master, which is the great commandment in the law? °Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. °This is the first and great commandment. °And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. °On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

One’s whole focus is on God and a total dedication to Him; not a split devotion between Him and the law that could only expose the evil heart one will be judged by, and the law that could only condemn sins committed by those with an evil heart… of unbelief. It is not the function of that law to regulate the lives of the righteous, whose righteousness is derived through faith. What guides and leads the believer, with the new heart, is the Holy Spirit.

(John 16:13) As long as those with the evil hearts of unbelief are kept occupied with the law, convinced the law will lead and guide them, they won’t be looking elsewhere. But truth is found in the Spirit; not the law.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

(John 14:6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

(John 1:17) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Abraham And The Exclusion Of Merit

It might be supposed that Paul had now made his point, proved the universal need of righteousness, the impossibility of man providing that righteousness for himself, and the revelation through the gospel of what alone can meet the need, a righteousness bestowed by God. He might now proceed to the triumphant exposition of “all the good things that are ours in Christ” as we find it in ch. 8, the chapter which, with the possible addition of ch. 12, represents the crowning purpose of his writing. But again his sensitiveness to the point of view of others leads to a digression. What about Abraham? Abraham was indeed, on the surface at least, a strong case for the Jew to appeal to. He was the Founder of the People, the Friend of God; and his life had been marked on more than one occasion by conspicuous obedience to the will of God. “When he was called, ... he went out not knowing whither he went”; “when he was tried, he offered up Isaac” (Heb. 11:8, 17). And the fact that the writer to the Hebrews traces his obedience on both occasions to “faith” (though he uses the word in a different sense from that peculiar to Paul) is evidence that these works of obedience were regarded as proofs of his faith. On this it would not be difficult to found an argument that in this classical instance justification had followed on a combination of faith and works or on works alone, as, indeed, we find it in the First Book of Maccabees: “Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was reckoned it to him for righteousness?” (Cf. Jas. 2:21, 22.) Paul faces the possibility of such an argument, and admits. If Abraham was, as perhaps you say, justified on the ground of merit, then, of course, he had a ground of claim (contradicting 3:27). But it cannot be really so from the point of view of God; for Scripture itself connects his justification with his faith, and says nothing about his works. Indeed, the text tacitly excludes any question of merit. For if justification was granted in answer to faith, it was granted out of grace and not as something which had been earned. The text in Genesis could in fact apply only to a case where all idea of earning righteousness by merit had been abandoned (v. 5). The verses quoted from Psa. 32 are relevant in so far as their silence as to any condition on the side of man suggests that the divine forgiveness was unconoditioned, in other words, of grace."

C. Anderson Scott, The Abington Bible Commentary, p. 1144-1145, on Romans 4:1-8

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Halloween I - Origins

Think you know where Halloween came from? Maybe you do. Or maybe you've just heard the same story repeated often enough that it sounds like history. Here are some quick facts and observations to separate the historical record from the Halloween mythology.

---

I don't feel the need to post about Halloween every year. The day is simply a bridge too far for some people. Some love to hate Halloween, even if much of what they believe about it is based on misinformation and outright lies. I am personally not very fond of modern Halloween as it is lately. So why write about it? Because I love history and I want to know the truth about it. How can we say we love the truth if we won't look at the truth? And God is truth. So, I persist.

I just so happened to have some extra material on Halloween that I've been wanting to post somewhere. I thought an article hitting the highlights sounded like a better idea than digging into a single detail. So, today I offer you a rapid-fire bunch of interesting facts and observations. Any one paragraph should give you something good to consider. 

At first, I had this all as one post. When I read through it, I thought it would be unlikely that anyone would read through it all, and if they did, they would never remember what was at the start of the article by the time they got to the end. So, I've decided to turn this into a series. It's easier to digest that way. I will put links at the end for more information.

Please take this quote from The Sun as our introduction:

"Trick or treating may seem like a modern event, but it can actually be traced back to Celtic Britain and Ireland in the 9th century. The night of October 31 was known as Samhain, a Pagan festival which was later combined with Christian celebrations and renamed All Saints’ Day by the Catholic church. At Samhain, our Pagan ancestors believed the souls of our dead came into our world – and were appeased by offerings of food and drink."
-Josie Griffiths and Jennifer Roback, “When Did Trick or Treating First Start, What Is the Meaning Behind the Phrase and How Does It Vary Around the World?” The Sun, October 31, 2021.

I bet most of the readers here are familiar with that kind of material.
There is so much to fix here. How can it be wrong if it's in the mainstream media?? (He said, knowingly.) As we've seen in my "Samhain Lord of the Dead" article and elsewhere, even the Encyclopedia Britannica can be wrong.

First, we have to know who we're dealing with.

THE CELTS

What is a Celt?
Celts are a people group, same as Romans or Anglo-Saxons or Danes. They lived in the British Isles, France, and across Europe into Turkey. The Galatians were Celts (yes, those Galatians). I am part Celt. But as the Roman Empire had many nations, there were many and diverse tribes who were considered to be Celts. In the British Isles alone there were at least 25 named tribal groups (Iceni, Brigantes, Silures, Trinovantes, Dumnonii, etc), and probably more when smaller groups and northern peoples are included. It wasn't one unified group.

The word Celt is not synonymous with pagan or Druid any more than Italian is synonymous with Catholic. Saying a tradition is Celtic says nothing at all about whether or not it was pagan or Druidic or even religious at all.

What is a Druid?
Druids, real Druids, were (past tense) priests in ancient Celtic paganism. We know almost nothing about what they genuinely looked like or what rituals they actually performed. Only two sources are believed to have been actual eye witnesses to Druids: Julius Caesar and Cicero. And we must take their accounts with a grain of salt.

Druids first appear in historical records in the second century BC, and they disappear from the record roughly around the 400s AD. In the first century, Rome tried to stamp out Druidism in Britain, claiming the Druids engaged in human sacrifice. (This is one example of why we need to take the Roman accounts with a grain of salt. We cannot be sure if this was accurate or just propaganda.) Druidism survived in Ireland and Scotland in part because Rome never fully conquered those areas. Christianity first arrived in the British Isles by 200 AD. Over the following centuries, Christianity spread throughout the British Isles. By the 6th century, Christianity was flourishing in the British Isles. No trace of the Druids remained. Medieval Christian writers reimagined them as wizards (think Merlin).

Aren't there Druids today? No. Not real Druids anyway. Starting in the 1500s, some people in the British Isles began to romanticize the Druids. A great deal of material was written about them which was, shall we say, less than accurate. A good amount of it was extrapolation, imagination, or outright fabrication. They created costumes, songs, holidays, traditions, etc etc. Later writers built upon and added to the claims of earlier writers, until all they had to do to appear legitimate was to quote one another. It turns out that Druids can be whatever you want them to be. Modern Druidism is a revival movement, not a demonstrably unbroken continuation of the ancient priesthood. Modern Druids draw on many sources, including this questionable material, along with later developments of their own. The same goes for Wicca. Its founders relied heavily on that same material.

Modern scholars, such as Ronald Hutton for one example, are moving away from claims made from 1500s through the mid-1900s.

Now that you know what Celts and Druids are, let's move on to Halloween.

HALLOWEEN ORIGINS

What is Halloween anyway? Halloween is short for "All Hallows Eve" which is the evening before All Saints' Day (aka. All Hallows). All Saints' Day is on November 1st and honors all Christian dead in Heaven. All Saints' Day is the real holiday here, not Halloween. Halloween is to All Saints' Day what Christmas Eve is to Christmas. The day after All Saints' Day is All Souls' Day. All Souls' Day honors all Christian dead who have not yet entered Heaven (remember, Catholics believe in Purgatory). Together, Halloween, All Saints' Day, and All Souls' Day make up Hallowtide or All Hallowtide. A "tide" is a festive period of time as opposed to a single day.

Here is a super-condensed timeline of how Halloween developed:

• Christians had been honoring martyrs ever since there were martyrs. It eventually became difficult to honor them all individually.
• In 609 AD, Pope Boniface IV created a memorial for the dioceses of Rome of all Rome's martyrs on May 13. Other areas had their own days.
• In 735 AD (approximately), Pope Gregory III created a memorial for the diocese of Rome of all departed saints in Heaven on November 1, as part of his dispute with the Byzantine Emperor.
• In 835 AD, Pope Gregory IV expanded the all saints memorial to the whole church.
• Late 800s AD, estimated date of the first recorded mention of samhain. (We will get more into this in the next post.)

You may have heard something like, "The Pope moved a feast to November 1 to coopt Samhain." Is that true? No.
Scholars debate whether Samhain was a festival at all in this time period, let alone a popular one. Pope Gregory III did not move the May 13 date to November 1. All Saints' Day was not intended to replace the May 13th memorial to all martyrs. The May 13th observance took centuries to end. Some sources say it was Pope Gregory IV who transferred the observance to November 1 to better facilitate the many pilgrims to Rome, but other sources say it was Pope Gregory VII who put a final end to the May 13 observance.
This claim about the Catholic Church co-opting Samhain was popularized by James Frazer, who built on ideas from writers such as John Rhys and Edward Tylor. His work helped make the claim widely accepted, and later writers continued spreading it. There is no primary source or reliable secondary source evidence for this claim. Not only is there no valid evidence in support, but there is legitimate evidence against it. Recent scholars have since moved away from the claims of these authors.

You should understand something about Halloween - it wasn't originally a holiday in its own right. The records show the phrase "All Hallows Eve" being used as far back as the 1300s (which means it's older than that), but it was used in reference to All Hallows Day. It wasn't until the mid-1500s that Halloween starts looking like its own holiday in its own right. It wasn't until the 1800s that it became a distinct social celebration in Scotland and Ireland; the area where our attention will focus in the next post. People tend to treat Halloween anachronistically, as if how things are today are how things always were for the past 2,000 years. That simply is not so.

Halloween was brought to the United States by immigrants. It changed over time, as most things do. Due to the influence of such things as Protestantism and the Industrial Revolution, to name but two, customs that were once spread over the entire Fall season began to coalesce into single holidays, like Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. Really, it wasn't until the 1900s that Halloween began looking like we know it today (much the same as it was with Christmas, as we saw in the post "Christmas Eras Tour - Part IV"). We will see more of that in the third and final post in this series.

CONCLUSION

So, now you have a better understanding of the origins of Halloween.

Next time, we will dive deeper into Samhain. It is unfortunate that we must always investigate Samhain when we investigate Halloween, but such is the power of a lie told often enough.

---

I promised some sources at the end of the article.

Material on ABD:

Samhain Was Not On October 31
Samhain Lord of the Dead
The Plain Truth About Samhain
The Real History Of The Druids
Review - Is the Occult Influencing Your Family
Peddlers of Paganism

Material off ABD:

Samhain and Halloween. God Cannot Be Contained blog.
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/10/samhain-and-halloween.html
Note: This is Lonnie's post which got me started reading about Halloween in the first place.

Sanas Carmaic (Cormac's Glossary): https://archive.org/details/cu31924071173474/page/n101/mode/2up. See p.102 of that link, under Gamuin. Note: items in parenthesis are not original.

Annála Uladh (Annals of Ulster): https://archive.org/stream/annalauladhannal01royauoft/annalauladhannal01royauoft_djvu.txt. See p.158 of that link. Note: English translations use "Samhain" or "Allhallowtide", but that is not in the oldest manuscripts.

Tochmarc Emire (The Wooing of Emer):
https://www.paddybrown.co.uk/pdfs/The_Wooing_of_Emer.pdf. See pp.7 & 13 of that link; "Samain".

Félire Óengusso (The Martyrology of Oengus):
https://archive.org/details/martyrologyofoen29oenguoft/page/232/mode/2up. See p.232 of that link.

Acallam na Senórach (Tales of the Elders of Ireland):
https://archive.org/details/silvagadelicaix00gragoog/page/77/mode/1up?q=Sam.

Echtra Nerai (The Adventure of Nera):
https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/academic/seanmeanghaeilge/cdi/texts/Meyer-Echtra-Nerai.pdf. See pp. 4, 10, & 14 of that link. Note: This translation transliterates samuin as Halloween.

Bede's "De Temporum Ratione" (The Reckoning of Time):
https://old.katab.asia/special/De_temporum_ratione.pdf. See pp.53-54 of that link for "Winterfylleth".

Nathan J. Harris, "Debunking Samhain: Undoing the Misinformation of Wicca", PDF file, Academia.edu, accessed 11-4-2025, https://www.academia.edu/144624704/Debunking_Samhain_Undoing_the_Misinformation_of_Wicca.

Ronald Hutton, "Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain", (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p.95. Note: I cannot find an online, free version.

"Scribes and Kings: Religion, Politics and the Medieval Manuscripts of Ireland." On Mythical Ireland. https://mythicalireland.com/blogs/news/scribes-and-kings-religion-politics-and-the-medieval-manuscripts-of-ireland. Note: This is a fine example of a reasoned attempt to identify the balance between old and new in the medieval Irish legends.

Catholic Encyclopedia. “Irish Literature”. NewAdvent.org, accessed 11-8-2025. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08116a.htm

"Internet Medieval Sourcebook". Fordham University.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/sbook1g.asp. Note: Tons of old works here from Celtic regions.

"The Truth About Halloween". Eternal COG.
https://www.eternalcog.org/media/The-Truth-about-Halloween.pdf. Note: This is a fantastic example both of what to do and not to do in a study. Good: cite lots of sources. Bad: Treat any and all sources as authoritative. People, please mind your sources! Quality over quantity.

Lisa Morton, "Trick or Treat: A history of Halloween". Internet Archive .
https://archive.org/details/trickortreathist0000mort/ Note: I found this after doing this post. It has a ton of info on customs, but does at times draw on some bad sources. Overall, an interesting read.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Where Shadows Wait

Velvet sky unfolds
silver threads stitch dark with light
stars hum ancient songs

Moon drifts like a thought
soft upon the breath of clouds
guiding tides to dream

Owls trade whispered news
crickets weave their patient hymn
night blooms without end

A cool wind wanders
through the hush of sleeping fields
carrying the stars

Shadows lean and sway
as if listening for dawn
yet linger in peace

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Rest Found In/With Christ Jesus

(Matthew 11:28-30) Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. °Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. °For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

To say Sabbatarians such as Adventists here twist the scriptures in this regard is an understatement. They mangle it. They chew it up and spit it out.

This is a rest the law does not provide. The Sabbath was a temporary respite from labor, carried out the previous six days – physical labor followed by a physical rest from physical work. The Sabbath commandment was a total ban on ANY work on the Sabbath; even the preparation of a meal, where they were to prepare their meals for the Sabbath the day before; the day of preparation, with one interesting statement made in this regard:

(John 19:42) There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Whose preparation day? The Jews’ preparation day. Not the preparation day; the Jews’ preparation day before the Sabbath where Sabbatarians try to play cute, and claim the Sabbath was for all mankind, misapplying what Jesus said in Mark 2:27, redefining what “man” meant to the Jews at that time in their culture, where only Jews were “man.”

The Sabbatarian “definition” would mean that it was quite alright for Gentiles to be keeping the Sabbath “according to the commandment” without having to prepare for it…maybe all the Gentiles keeping the Sabbath didn’t eat on the Sabbath, fasting on that day referred to as a feast day in Leviticus 23...

Jesus makes reference to HIS rest for the soul as being in the context of a yoke and burden, with the caveat it is a light yoke and burden, which begs the logical question regarding another yoke and burden that was not so light.

(Galatians 5:1) Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Here, the liberty found in Christ, being a light yoke and burden, is contrasted to another yoke and burden that was just discussed in the previous verses and account which was about the law, given at Mt. Sinai, starting in verse 21 where Paul asks a question of those who were opting to embrace the law:

(Galatians 4:21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

They were unwittingly placing themselves, needlessly, under the yoke and bondage of the law.

Even Peter touches on this theme in Acts 15, during the debate and council at Jerusalem over whether the Gentiles should be required to become Jews first and Christians second by having them undergo circumcision, bringing them under the law according to the law.

(Acts 15:7-11) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. °And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; °And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. °Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? °But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

This is one of those passages of Scripture, anathema to Sabbatarians, who insist the law be kept in order to demonstrate one’s devotion and obedience to God, which does no such thing. Theirs is a devotion and obedience to the law; not God. God is not the law, and the law is not God. But the law can be treated as “another god besides God” in that it was graven images of stones given to the faithless Hebrews who had already shown they would not listen to or follow God, where they ended up being given the law; even the Decalogue, not so that they would believe God, but believe Moses, “for ever.” (Ex. 19:9)

Christ Jesus; God Incarnate, offered a rest for the soul; a permanent rest from the evil works of the flesh, ultimately leading to death. This is the “sabbatismos” spoken of in Hebrews 4:9 that Sabbatarians insist is the weekly “shadow” (Col. 2:16-17) Sabbath (“sabbaton”) that was temporary, and for the physical body after six days of physical work. They are blind to the context, having a veil before their eyes. It is a rest that is a cessation of a particular work, even as God ceased from a particular work on the seventh day of Creation Week. It is “God’s Rest” entered into through faith; something the faithless Hebrews (Jews) could not do (Heb. 4:6) but they did enter into the shadow weekly Sabbath.

Those led by the flesh choose the things of the flesh; physical rites and rituals found in the old covenant law; not the new covenant law of faith and the Spirit where those shadows found their fulfillment in the spiritual realities, such as God’s Rest entered into through faith. (Heb. 3:18-19;4:1)

The Hebrews refused the rest found in/with Jesus, for they were quite comfortable with the shadow Sabbath they were given at Sinai, where all is judged according to the flesh by the flesh.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Unspoken, Unrecognized Sin

There is a sin that resides at the core of all sin. It is the genesis of all relevant sin that affects the mind, heart, and soul of mankind, and it is downplayed to the point that it is even denied as a sin by those who seek for an easy to define sin that focuses on the end point; the result that follows a progression from this elementary sin.

It is the sin of faithlessness, also known as the sin of unbelief.

The definition of sin used by Adventism obscures this sin to the point it is even denied as being a sin, where sin is defined as the transgression of the Decalogue of the old covenant law, based on half of a passage of Scripture massaged further that ignores both the English and the Greek of that entire verse.

The sin of unbelief is born of an evil heart, used to describe the Hebrews who were given the law and their progeny that followed after them by the author of Hebrews who describes a “rest” a “sabbatismos” that the Hebrews, who had the Sabbath (Gr. Sabbaton) could not enter into due to their faithlessness and unbelief; their evil hearts of unbelief.

(Hebrews 3:17-19) But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? °And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? °So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

The author of Hebrews refers to Psalms 95 in this regard.

(Psalms 95:10-11) Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: °Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

(Hebrews 4:3) For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

The works carried out prior to this rest God entered into were finished from the foundation of the world, which is what the narrative in the opening verses of Genesis describe “In the beginning” that being Creation Week. God entered into a rest from that finished work of Creation and He is quite literally still in that “rest” from that finished work; a cessation of a work that was complete. Whole. Finished. Done.

Understand the implications. God SWORE in His wrath the faithless; the unbelieving cannot and will not enter into His rest with Him that He finished at the foundation of the world. They are barred from entry, but the faithful and believing do join Him in His rest from that work of Creation.

Where is God? In His Heaven; His kingdom.

Who enters into His kingdom, Heaven? Those who keep the law, like as did the Pharisees Jesus described as evil children of the devil, doing the will of their father the devil? Or some other category of people? The author describes them as “believing” – the faithful, and Scripture tells us plainly enough it is the believing and faithful who enter into this rest with God, where we read in the Scriptures that the law is NOT OF FAITH.

The faithless are relegated to the wrath of God, seeing as they are faithless; unbelieving. So I ask you, what did the faithless, unbelieving Hebrews receive that produced this wrath God spoke of?

(Hebrews 4:3) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Understand the logic flow. The law works wrath; produces wrath. If there were no law, then there is no transgression. And if there is no transgression, there is no wrath resulting from the law and transgression.

The faithlessness and unbelief is in relation to God Himself; not the law. The faithless, unbelieving Hebrews heartily embraced the law, where they had the shadow-Sabbath they entered into weekly when it came about; a temporary rest from the physical works carried out the previous six days of physical labor; typology of God’s eternal rest from a finished work He entered into on that seventh day of Creation Week; a rest Jesus refers to as a rest for the SOUL and not a physical rest following physical labor; a sabbath described in Colossians 2 as a shadow with no substance, whereas it is Jesus wherein we find ‘substance’ that the weekly Sabbath did not possess, a substance that now offers the believing and faithful a rest for the SOUL; a “cessation” of one’s former works, of the flesh; works of the unbelieving and faithless that eventually lead to death, and not eternity of rest with God and His rest.

I write this knowing full well the faithless and unbelieving do not believe this, for they equivocate God with the law, so that to believe in the law is to believe in God; an assumption that holds no truth. For even God stated to Moses that they were to be given that law, thundered out at Mount Sinai, so that the Hebrews would believe Moses forever; not God. The Hebrews were ready to embrace anything other than God, including a gilded cow they also equivocated with God, calling it the god who brought them up out of Egypt.

Faith; belief, also involves trust – trusting God, explicitly. Completely.

(Psalms 146:3) Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

You are a ‘son of man’ and you are not even to trust yourself.

Recall the narrative where a wealthy man asks Jesus what “good” thing he, personally, could do in order to acquire eternal life. Jesus replies in regards first to his reference to “good” which goes right over the heads of faithless people, where Jesus states that only God is good. And if only God is good, then, according to how God judges, only God can do good. He, being a man born with the “deceitful and desperately wicked heart” could not do good. The best he could do, given his condition as a ‘man’ was to keep the commandments and thus never sin; an impossible task that those with the evil hearts of unbelief cannot accomplish, but are convinced they can, and do; their deceitful heart that cannot be trusted, telling them they can. You might believe you can keep the law if you ignore your evil heart; deny its existence, and reject Jesus’ teaching regarding the fruits or works wrought by those devoid of God’s Spirit; the “new heart” that enables one to produce good works.

Evil people, with the evil hearts of unbelief, cannot produce good works. It is interesting then that God gave them the Sabbath; a day where they were commanded not to do ‘any’ work on that day; a day stated to be a “holy convocation” in Leviticus chapter 23, where all of Israel; all the Hebrews were seen as being in the presence of God on that day, where extra sacrifices for sin were required at the temple, on a day no one was working, ergo no one was actively sinning by working works that were only evil in the sight of God who judges according to the heart.

Let this sink in. They were not working on the Sabbath, which would ‘logically’ equate to resting from their evil works brought about by an evil heart of unbelief, but there were additional sacrifices for sin on the Sabbath anyway. Their sin of unbelief and faithlessness did not go away on the Sabbath.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************