SDA Hypocrisy?

#1. By carefully avoiding ALL and ANY point listed in posts exposing the flaws in your argument you show yourself to be "gaming" instead of engaging in substantive scripture review. Your argument therefore is from "feeling" not "sola scriptura" not "exegesis" not substantive response.

What kind of discussion do you seek from that level of participation DHK "more gaming"???

#2. I SHOW how your OWN argument was that the unqualified term "MAN" means JEW ONLY in the gospels. "MAN was not MADE for the Sabbath" -- Does Gen 1 show the "MAKING OF MAN" or the "MAKING OF JEWS ONLY"???!! Your "MAN" means "JEWS ONLY" eisegesis HAS NEVER BEEN EXEGETED as a truth or a doctrine IN ALL of this discussion!! you simply "ASSUME" what you can not sustain in Exegetical argument!!

And this "tactic" is becoming surprisingly consistent with your posts recently. Why are you doing that? I thought you would be at least one of the people here that would not resort to doing what you are doing!

#3. You ADMITTED earlier that "the SABBATH WAS MADE FOR MAN" and then EISEGETED the idea that man is NO LONGER to honor the Creator's Holy day YEARS BEFORE the Cross! Now you want to claim that only JEWS had it in the first place THUS convoluting your OWN argument into "JEWs WERE NOT to honor the Sabbath YEARS BEFORE the Cross"!!

And of course on each substantive point from scripture we get "NO ANSWER" from DHK!!

How "instructive" for the reader!!

#4. Finally WE SHOW from scripture that Christ appeals to the ORIGIN of the MAKING of MAN (Gen 1) and the MAKING of the 7th-day HOLY Gen 2:3!

He shows that IN ORIGIN the initial intent is that the Sabbath is "MADE FOR MAN" not "MAN MADE" for the Sabbath. God created MAN in Gen 1 not "JEWS only"!!

The SAME ALL MANKIND scope is SEEN in Mark 2 for "Origin" of the Sabbath as we see in Isaiah 66 continued into the future of the NEW EARTH for ALL ETERNITY!

The lack of any substantive response on your part at this point is "instructive" for the reader.

Verifying that this is the case is left as an exercise for the reader - anyone can see it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK,

I think that there is a fundamental thing you dont realize.

God's people were to be like a "City on a Hill" giving out light to the heathen nations around them. The 10 Commandments were NOT just for the Jews. The people were supposed to keep the Law of God and by doing so, reflect God's character of love to the world.

All of the surrounding nations would recognize the superiority of those who served and worshiped the Creator.

"Behold," said Moses, "I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon Him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" Deut. 4:5-8.

And so for you to think the Sabbath was just something or the Jews is wrong. They were demonstrating these principles of living to the entire world.


Claudia

 

wrong thread...sorry

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK -
Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
--When he uses the word man he doesn't say all men. Man is used in a generic sense. His audience is the Jew. He is referring to the Jews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets continue to look at the attempt to exposes the eisegesis that would transpose the unqualified term "Man" in the Gospels as "Jews only" or "Jewish men only" that DHK has proposed for us.

What are the possible "alternatives" to simply accepting the Mark 2:27 statement of Christ the Creator?

If we accept Mark 2:27 as written then it is seen to obviously share the same scope “all mankind” in the fact of its “origin” and initial intent – just as we see it doing in Gen 2:3 and even into the future after the millennium in Isaiah 66 - the scope of Sabbath applies to “All Mankind” in those case

(Note: this unqualified reference to “mankind” as in “The Sabbath was MADE for man and not MAN (made) for the Sabbath” is also found in Heb 9


“ For it is appointed unto MANkind ONCE to die and then comes the judgment” Heb 9

In all these cases the unqualified term “man” can not be eisegeted as “Jewish men only”


“Mankind shall not live by bread alone” Matt 4:4

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Genesis 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, "It is written, ' MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"

Mark 10:7
" FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER ,

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, "It is written, ' MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'"

--------------------

Anthropos as “mankind” in Mark 2 and also here –


The unqualified reference to Man is “Mankind” as in “The Sabbath was MADE for man and not MAN (made) for the Sabbath” is also found in Heb 9

In NO case (even in HEBREWS) can this term be “downsized” to mean “It is appointed unto Jews Only – once to die and then comes the Judgment”

Then we see “mankind” used as all inclusive to mean “any member of mankind” indicating “no exceptions”

----------------

In the above - I show "sola scriptura" that the attempt to eisegete the idea of "Jews only" when we read the unqualified term for "man" in the Gospels, and in alll of the NT - utterly fails!

The context is THE MAKING of MAN and the MAKING of Christ the Creator's Holy Day - the Seventh-day "made holy" in Gen 2:3.

This reference to "origins" and the "MAKING of MN" is not a "Jews only context". Gen 1 is not about "the making of Jews only".

"Let us Make Man in our own image" - does note refer to "making Jews". There is not other "MAKE MAN" text in all of scripture other than Christ the Creator's act of doing it in Gen 1 and HIS OWN reference to HIS work in MArk 2:27!

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK -
Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
--When he uses the word man he doesn't say all men. Man is used in a generic sense. His audience is the Jew. He is referring to the Jews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This next reference is interesting in that it admits to the “making of both” the Sabbath and Mankind at Creation week and shows the true binding nature of the Sabbath – AND it admits to its own need to switch the Sabbath from what Christ the Creator gave in Gen 2:3 – to man’s traditions regarding “weekday-one”

 

DHK - I have shown your assumption that "the making of man" mentioned in Mark 2:27 is ONLY talking about "the making of Jewish men" or of "Just Jews" does not work in all of the Gospels - it is not a form of exegesis even remotely. I have shown how it fails IN the Gospels and IN the NT and now I have shown how it even is seen to fail when non-SDA non-Sabbath-keeping Bible Scholars look at Mark 2:27.

Further your eisegesis that Jesus was trying to get Jews to STOP keeping His own Holy day YEARS before the Cross - is an utterly failed argument! This is the argument that you have when you insist that "the making of mankind" is "the making of Jews ONLY" and then insist on INSERTING into the text "NO LONGER a need for man to honor" the Savior's Holy Day!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am sorry that you feel that way Bob. I get the distinct feeling that it is you that fails to directly respond to the Scripture I post. You evade, go on tangents, red herrings, and whatever else except to answer Scripture that is directly given to you. When you do engage in trying to refute a Scriptural position you fail to realize the context of the Scripture. Most often that is your biggest downfall. This was so evident in the Isaiah 66 passage where it was like pulling teeth to get you to admit that it was talking about the Millennial Kingdom, and therefore not relevant for today.
Let’s try to consider the context again (which I have already described to you), so that you might have a better understanding of Mark 2.

First of all, Bob, I am entitled to my opinion, my exposition of Scripture, without you getting all riled up and losing your temper. That is what the capital letters portray, especially when coupled with multiple question marks and explanation marks. So please calm down.
Now look at the context. Context! Context! Context! Yes, the context is so important, one cannot ignore it; nevertheless you do.
I will give you some examples first:
If you hear or read someone say: “Man must submit himself to Allah.” Does “Man” mean all mankind?
If you hear “Man must obey the prophet Mohammed,” does “man” mean all mankind?
If you hear “Man must take heed to the Talmud,” does “man” mean all mankind?
If you read “All (men) must wear steel-toed boots,” does that mean all mankind?

I hope you will agree with me that the context of the statements above make the definition of the word “man” relevant, and even define it to some extent. Context is always important.

But you want to ignore the context in Mark 2—a discussion between the Pharisees and Christ about the disciples of Jesus plucking corn on the Sabbath Day. The Pharisees were elite Jews, the most conservative of all the Jews. To them, these legalistic Jews, Jesus said:
Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
--The man is obviously the Jewish man—not the Muslim, not the Buddhist, not the Gentile, not the Christian, but the Jew. That is the context. That is who he was speaking to. Don’t ignore the context. He wasn’t speaking to factory workers requiring steel-toed boots; he was speaking to the Pharisees, Jews, about keeping the Sabbath, and the meaning of the Sabbath. It has nothing to do with Gentile Christians.

Are you speaking of the tactic to draw your attention to the context of the passage in question??

You sound very confused. I have been consistent in these two things:
1. The Sabbath has always been a sign to the Jews, and only to the Jews. It was never given to the Gentiles. No one has yet been able to demonstrate that yet, through the Scriptures.
2. The other references that have been given concerning the Sabbath Day (as in Genesis) are not commands to keep the Sabbath. There is no command to keep the Sabbath until the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. Your Genesis reference then becomes totally irrelevant. There is no command there to “keep the Sabbath.”

You would do well to look to your own back yard before casting personal accusations.

So? Christ refers to it. What of it? Christ makes several Old Testament references. He refers to Jonah and Noah as well. Should we make days to honour them as well. The point is that though there is an Old Testament reference to the Sabbath Day in the New Testament, there is no command from Jesus to keep it. There is no command in Genesis, and no command in Mark. Your point is completely invalid.

Here is what it says in Genesis:

Genesis 2:2-3 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Christ did not quote Genesis when he gave the purpose of the Sabbath to the Jews. He blessed the Sabbath and set it apart from the other days. Why? Because on that day he ceased from His labors. The principle that one can learn is that man should rest his body one day out of seven. The command to keep the Sabbath does not come until Exodus 20.
You are still taking the verse out of its context as I explained above. He is speaking to the Jews. You are ignoring the context. Pharisees are Jews; SDA’s are not.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. You previously agreed with me that this verse was speaking of the Millennial Kingdom I will not even bother to answer it, for it has no relevance for us today. The Sabbath Day is not for today, and thus it does not continue into the future. Your logic is pure foolishness here. You have to demonstrate the other parts of the passage viable before you can even begin to discuss the Sabbath. But again you ignore context.

How about: anyone can see that a person who takes a text out of its context and makes it a pretext for his own pre-conceived theology is not rightly dividing the word of truth, and is only out there to prove a point all the while completely ignoring the truths of Scripture.
DHK

 

Claudia, sorry to expand the issue of Goats and Sheep to this thread.

I want to make sure every one should stick to Holy Spirit, not to the Law.

What if Holy Spirit works in contradiction to the Law in human eyes?

Didn't it happen in Mt 12:1- and in Luke 6:1-?

 

Is Sabbath above Holy Spirit?

Let's say I am a Doctor, and healed a patient in emergency, is it the violation of Sabbath ?

See Luke 14:1-

Why don't you interpret Galatians?

I have never seen SDA preaching Galatians.

 

Eliyahu

No, of course not. God expects us to help the sick on the sabbath.Why do you think Jesus healed on Sabbath?


I have talked about Galatians many times.Go see the thread "What happens if we die while sinning"

 

You should go read my topic about Did Jesus break the Sabbath...

He never broke the Sabbath, He said He was doing what was LAWFUL on the Sabbath by healing and by picking grains for food while He and the disciples were doing work for God... Just as David ate the shewbread when he was working for God.

 

He did break the Letter of The Law which should have brought death.

But, He did not break the Spirit of The Law.

Of course, being the Law Giver Himself He had every righ to interpret it.

SMM

 

Nooooooooooooooooooooo

Jesus did not break the Sabbath or the letter of the Law.

The Sabbath is part of the commandments and of those commandments Christ declares, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law."


Jesus said, "I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love." John 15:10. Jesus NEVER broke the law of the Sabbath.

He could say unchallenged, "Which of you convicteth Me of sin?" John 8:46,


THAT is the very reason why SO MANY of you are dead set against the commandments...the law... because YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IT!! You view it in a legalistic manner... instead of the way Jesus demonstrated it ought to be kept.

Jesus didnt break the law... He couldnt be our sacrifice for sin if he had of.

Jesus pointed to examples from the Old Testament, acts that were done on the Sabbath day by those who were in the God's service.

"Have ye not read so much as this," He said, "what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him; how he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, . . . which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?" "And He said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." "Have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are BLAMELESS?"

Dont you SEE??? The very underlying foundation of the whole law is love God (first 4 commandments) and love your neighbor (last 6 commandments) LOVE is the very foundation of it.. so how could Jesus allow someone to die or be sick on Sabbath???


They were BLIND and mistook the very object of the Sabbath, the very purpose of it.
He said, "If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the GUILTLESS." Matt. 12:7.

Then Jesus sees the man with the withered hand and its the Sabbath.
Jesus asked, "It is LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?"

He saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Mark 3:4, 5.

When asked, "Is it LAWFUL to heal on the Sabbath days?" Jesus answered, "What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is LAWFUL to do well on the Sabbath days." Matt. 12:10-12.

 

I will not Spam the Board... Please see my post on Claudia's other thread, "Jesus Kept the Law".

 

After quoting Exodus 31:16-17 DHK wrote:

Clearly, Bob is not in denial or in the condition of unbelief about anything concerning Exodus 31:16-17 when one comes to the understanding that “Israel” in is NOT to be construed genetically in the aforementioned! The “sign” never pertained solely to the genetic descendants of Jacob in the first place. How easily antinomians neglect the mixed multitude that accompanied the genetic descendants in the wilderness who were instructed to keep the sign also. How easily antinomians neglect the laws that pertained to the genetic descendants also required that the alien who sojourned in the land honor the sign. How easily antinomians neglect that it was Yahweh’s purpose that the genetic sons witness to the Ethnos for the purpose of joining them to Israel as Yahweh’s people: Yahweh is not a respecter of persons. How easily antinomians neglect that the alien that joined himself to the house of Israel, the “people of Yahweh”, was required to uphold the fourth commandment also.

There are copious texts that verify the above and support that one of the distinctions between the Ethnos/Nations and the “people of Yahweh” was this “sign”; yet, the “people of Yahweh” were not strictly construed genetically. Clearly, the Sabbath was made for man in the “generic” meaning and not the “genetic” meaning.

And this is concomitant with Paul’s discourse that in the ultimate sense the “people of Yahweh” were NEVER to be construed by the flesh.

“Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” Romans 9:6-8

Israel was never strictly construed by some genetic indicator as antinomianism and Dispensationalism suggests, and this is at the crux of DHK’s eisegesis of “context” in Mark chapter two.

It is clear that the context of Mark chapter two concerns “Yahweh’s people” but “Yahweh’s people” were never to be construed strictly by genetics according to scripture. Yahshua’s people represent two camps according to Dispensationalism (Israel and the church)? There are different commandments for the Jew and the church according to antinomianism. I see that scripture completely dispel both Dispensationalism and antinomianism, but this does not make my view unbelief or denial of the scripture.

I uphold the seventh-day Sabbath because I see scripture support that the church is spiritual Israel and heirs to the same promise as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Galatians 6:15-16

Certainly there is debate upon the text above, but it and many other texts in the NT reveal to me that Israel is spiritual and in Yahshua we become spiritual Israel; consequently, the sign still persists.

Funny, Christmas and Easter also can’t be demonstrated in scripture but that doesn’t keep some from observing the aforementioned and staunchly upholding these observances as “Christian”. Christians don’t worry about proving their genetically Levites either but that doesn’t prevent some from claiming tithes either. Yahshua inaugurated foot-washing along with his communion service but most ignore the former.

It’s clear that the seventh-day Sabbath CAN be demonstrated more clearly in scripture than a lot of contemporary Christians observances—but unfortunately SOME men will choose man-made traditions over the commandments of Yahweh.

Maybe a better title for the thread would be "Christian Hypocrisy?"

Michael

[ May 22, 2006, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Michaeneu ]

 

Good points, but what you (Mich and Claudia) forget is that Israel in the OT (including the non-Israelites grafted in) was still under a separate COVENANT. Under the covenant, Israel would be a light to the world, and spread, basically, Judaism to the world, including all the sabbaths, sacrifices, and everythign else' and we see ALL of this in the much touted Isaiah 66 passage. But that Covenant was broken by Israel. The lesson God was giving through that was that man's problem was not simply that he did not have the Law, because while the Law defined sin, man himself had an innate problem, and that was a sin NATURE. In fact, Law alone would only make this nature rebel all the more (Romans 7) So a NEW covenant was formed. All of the rules and agreements of that covenant do not just transfer over, as circumcision became apart of it, and in fact was a major "sign" of God's people beginning with Abraham, and that is no longer mandatory, and neither are the sacrifices, but all of these have SPIRITUAL applications now that FULFILL the intent of the old command (Christ's sacrifice is applied to us; hearing God is "circumcision of the ears", Jesus gives us rest, and LOVE for one another is the "SIGN" of God to the world.
Once again, you all are picking and choosing out of the whole law. Make up your mind, "not one jot nor tittle" (including every sacrifice, circumcision, etc), or it must be "fulfilled" now.

Also, nobody here that I know of is an "antinomian". That means "against the name" (of "Christian") and is a person who breaks every command and lives no differently from the world. You must differentiate between us believing we are no longer under the "Law" of the Old Covenant, and not being under ANY law period.
Those who do keep the annual feasts say the same things about you, and they too find a way to dismiss your reading of Colossians and Rom14, just as you do ours. And then there are disputes amongst different sacred namers as to whether it is "Yahshua" or "Yeshua", and some whole thing about the new moon of green ears of barley, and some are strictly unitarian, and call you pagan for believing on the Trinity, or even just the Father and Son Godhead. (This is probably why DHK earlier assumed you were unitarian).
So where does it stop? Desireing to be teachers of the Law, you do not know what you are teaching, and the sabbath apparently can't be THE sign, as we see you all do not even recognize it as such amongst each other!

 

I think Ive already made up my mind, Ive said a zillion times that the ceremonial laws were nailed to the cross and were shadows of Christ. Once He died they were not needed anymore. When Jesus said one jot or tittle its pretty obvious He meant the 10 commandments

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SAME ALL MANKIND scope is SEEN in Mark 2 for "Origin" of the Sabbath as we see in Isaiah 66 continued into the future of the NEW EARTH for ALL ETERNITY!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. That would be the Future New Earth Language

#2. you are right about one thing - your constant ducking of the point of the argument is getting rediculous

#3. The argument above SHOWS that BOTH the Origin AND the FUTURE scope of the Sabbath is "ALL MANKIND". Instead of "addressing the point" you merely "assert" that you choose not to "accept it for today".

That part "was obvious". How about addressing the point of the origin and the future scope being SEEN above?

Better to just answer the point than simply ignoring it each time.

"Again" that part was the "obvious part".

AS it turns out - "Scripture is viable" sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4. Finally WE SHOW from scripture that Christ appeals to the ORIGIN of the MAKING of MAN (Gen 1) and the MAKING of the 7th-day HOLY Gen 2:3!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a perfect example of eisegesis!

"again".

"The POINT" Christ makes in his PRE-CROSS statement in Mark 2 IS NOT "THERE is NO PRe-CROSS command to keep the Sabbath"!!

Clearly you need to "INSERT THAT" as "THE POINT" of Mark 2-- but it is not!

"THE POINT" Christ makes is that by APPEALING to the ORIGINAL scope AND intent for Sabbath ONE must go to the MAKING of MANKIND and the MAKING of the Sabbath

"Let us MAKE MAN in our OWN Image" God said in Gen 1.

And sadly for the attempted eisegesis you suggest in your post THERE IS NO "Let us Make Jew in our own Image" in all of scripture!!

So going to "scripture alone" We find in Gen 1-2:3 the "MAKING of MAN" AND the "MAKING of the 7th day - as a HOLY DAY".

The SAME term for the HOLY DAY of Gen 2:3 is USED AGAIN in Exodus 20:8-11 "Therefore the Lord BLESSED the Sabbath day and MADE IT HOLY". Ex 20:11.

Note "the details" as the TEXT itself points us BACK to that singular event on DAY SEVEN of creation week!

This is the very text you had hoped to negate/abolish by the reading of Exodus 31.

But this text "remains" anyway.

And it POINTS US BACK to the Gen 2:3 "event" for the "MAKING of the Sabbath day HOLY". The "past-tense" act of God is CLAIMED in Exodus 20:8-11 for that Gen 2:3 event.

 

How sad DHK that you never responded to this post.

How odd that you constantly "pretend" that these remarks are simply those of SDAs!!

Why do you take such a failed position??