GODS 10 COMMANDMENTS

Frank · Jan 8, 2004

Bob:
The Bible does not teach that law is sin. I do not affirm this at all. Your conclusion to the contrary is simply an idea contrived in your own mind without support.
The principle of respecting the sanctity of life has been around as long as man has been on the earth ( Gen.4:11-13,Gen.9:5,Exodus 20:13,Provs. 6:17,Gal. 5:21). Moreover, the principle of law has always been with man. The first law was in the Garden of Eden ( Gen.2:17). None of these laws are sin. Your attempt to paint me as one who believes this is simply inane. Sin takes place when one violates the righteous and holy laws of God. The law forbidding the eating of the fruit was not sin! However, the transgression against Jehovah was and is sin ( I John 3:4).
Laws are good for man. The Bible says,in 1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
Again, your argument is without foundation.

Men are amenable to one and only one will or testament. The will of Christ is the one men must adhere to by his absolute authority ( Col. 1:18). The Bible says, in Hebs. 9:15 ¶And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. One may have one binding will, not two. I choose the will probated by the blood of Christ.
As for you, I guess you choose the law of Moses or perhaps you choose to take a little from Moses and a little from Christ. However, the Old law was nailed to the cross ( Eph. 2:15, Col. 3;16) and taken out of the way as binding authority on men for their spiritual blessings ( Eph. 1:3). There are no spiritual blessings for men today received by keeping the old law. The blood of Christ purchased the new testament ( Mat. 26:28). It is the one in force , not the old ( Hebs. 9:17).

There is no example, implication, or declaration found in the pages of inspiration that authorizes anyone to keep the old law. You can search from Acts through Revelation and you will not find any affirmation to keep the Sabbath, the old law with it's commandments, statutes, judgments, and ordinances ( Nehemiah 8:5,13,14,18;9:13,14,29, II Kings 23: 2,21- 25). Christ fulfilled and became the end of the Law ( Mt. 5:17, Roms. 10:4, Gal. 3:24-29).

3AngelsMom · Jan 8, 2004

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Matt 19: 16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

A CLEAR reference to the TEN Commandments!

Kelly,

Too bad that you took the words of the Lord Jesus out of their context.Please allow me to finish what was said.</font>[/QUOTE]And too bad you took my words out of context because you are repeating what the rest of my post states with your next comment.

After the questioner left,the Lord Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

On hearing that,His disciples were astonished,and asked:

"Who,then,can be saved?"

The Lord answered,saying,"With men this is impossible,but with God all things are possible"(Mt.19:26).

It is also quite strange that you must LEAVE the Words of Christ and go to Paul to complete your point.

And that mirrors the words of Paul when he speaks of the "deeds of the law",or "works of the law":

"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith"(Gal.3:11).

And at best you used a quote from a book that is about 'the law', as opposed to 'the Commandments' which is what we are talking about here. If you read the book of Galatians from front to back, you will see a theme. What is it?

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin"(Ro.3:20).

Great verse, and I'm delighted that you posted it! WITHOUT the LAW (which is called HOLY) we do not KNOW that we are sinners, and without the knowledge of our SIN, we do not know that we NEED a Savior!!!

God Bless,
Kelly

3AngelsMom · Jan 8, 2004

Originally posted by Downsville:
Hi 3 Angels Mom
Glad to meet ya.

Nice to meet you as well!

God Bless,
Kelly

Eric B · Jan 9, 2004

This was already refuted on the other thread.

There it was shown conclusively

#1. There is no precident in all of scripture for assing God "holy just and perfect law" Romans 7 - to the "weak elemental things of this world pertaining to that which is not god at all" Gal 4.

Only the "return" to those things of paganism - meets the real "problem" identified in Gal 4.

Clearly Paul addresses the gentile churches in Galatia and mentions that before becoming Christian they were worshipping false gods. The Hebrew nation-church by contrast was established by the one true God of creation.

1. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) calls obedience to God’s Word – “Slavery”. Yet some Christians today prefer to think of it that way.
2. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) refers to God’s Word as “The weak and elemental things of this World” – yet some Christians do.
3. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) says that the Word of God is “worthless” and “pertaining to that “which by nature is not God”.

Yet some Christians today – want to so much to abolish Christ the Creator’s Law – that they are willing to turn the text of Gal 4 as it addresses the pagan lifestyle of the gentiles in Galatia and their practices – and attribute to God – the authoring of paganism.

No it was not refuted. Because I gave you verse 3 showing that Paul explicitly included himself as being in bondage to the "elements of the world". No, it's not the Law or "doing what God commands" that is "slavery" to the "weak elements", It's the STATE they were in; still lost, whether they kept the laws or not. That showed it was something other than the Law which saved. The Law was simply the tutor to brigng them to Christ. You keep twisting it so that I am making God the "author of paganism", and then repeat your statements thinking you have refuted something.

Rather – when it comes to abuses of the Word of God – Paul speaks of God’s Word as “Holy Just and Perfect” and as “condemning the sinner” – it is not the Law or the Word of God that he condemns – it is always the sinner that IT condemns. Yet some Christians today – want to so much to abolish Christ the Creator’s Law – that they are willing to turn the text of Gal 4 as it addresses the pagan lifestyle of the gentiles in Galatia and their practices – and attribute to God – the authoring of paganism..

Whatever other problems you can find in Galatians; paganism was not one of them. It was mentioned in a passing fashion as their past life. What they were now being influenced by was just as bad, and would be like a "return" to bondage; as Paul himself was once under.

#1 The Greek term for "observe" in Gal 4 is NOT the term used in Romans 14 that is also translated "observe". Rather in the unique Gal 4 case it means" to "watch with evil intent" and refers to something like the astrology practices seen today.

So “instead” of the Gal 4 text addressing the popular notion of “obeying God’s Word when you don’t really have to if you don’t feel like it” – the Gal 4 text is condemning “observe” as in the pagan practice “...to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously). Where "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful.

Who said it was the same as Rom.14? Still, "evil intent" does not mean astrology (that is once again confusing this Greek word with the Hebrew in Lev.19, because the English translated it with the same word.) Evil intent means just what it implies: doing something that looks good, but there is a bad motivation behind it. They looked nice and "lawful" trying to get the Christians to keep the laws, but Paul says this was bringing them back under bondage (because it was not voluntary personal devotion to the Lord, as Rom.14 teaches).

#2. God's Word did not command His people to "observe seasons or months".
#4. In this case months and seasons are lumped in with days. The indication of a pagan system of practice is clearly - and repeatedly brought to view. Nothing here is ordained by God - established by God - given by God as a practice for God's people. It is utterly condemned as originating from pagan worship alone.

Carson made an excellent point in "What do you do to keep the sabbath holy?" I had not even really realized-- the "familiar pattern that we already see in Scripture, which, in one fell swoop, designates (1) yearly, (2) monthly, and (3) weekly observances." Here they are reversed, and "seasons/times" (appointed times) is added, which can be also annual or seasonal observances Israel also had. V.17 continues "zealously they affect you" [i.e the pople he has been talking about throughout the whole book, who are associated with "the Law"], and four verses later "tell me, you who desire to be under the Law...". Clearly, it was the Law these people were trying to force on the people, and Jews would never be urging them to try to keep their old pagan practices.

Jerry Shugart · Jan 9, 2004

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
And too bad you took my words out of context because you are repeating what the rest of my post states with your next comment.

Kelly,

I did not repeat what you said later in your post.

And at best you used a quote from a book that is about 'the law', as opposed to 'the Commandments' which is what we are talking about here.

Are you not aware that the Ten Commandments are are part of the law?

The Ten Commandents were written in the "book of the law",and that is what the verse I quoted ios speaking of:

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith"(Gal.3:10,11).

Can you not see that when Paul speaks of "the law" that the Ten Commandments are included?

In His grace,--Jerry

BobRyan · Jan 10, 2004

Originally posted by Frank:
[QB] Bob:
The Bible does not teach that law is sin. I do not affirm this at all. Your conclusion to the contrary is simply an idea contrived in your own mind without support.

You first mistake is in not quoting my post - or the part where you claim that I said "The LAw of God is Sin".

Frank said --
None of these laws are sin. Your attempt to paint me as one who believes this is simply inane. Sin takes place when one violates the righteous and holy laws of God.

I am surprised to find agreement there.

Lets try not to abolish that agreement - The Law of God "defines" sin (as we see in Romans 7) but the Law of God "is NOT Sin".

Frank --

There is no example, implication, or declaration found in the pages of inspiration that authorizes anyone to keep the old law.

If we assume that by the "old Law" you mean the "10 commandments" then of course we have the numerous quotes from that code of law - which would devastate your speculation above.

Frank said
You can search from Acts through Revelation and you will not find any affirmation to keep the Sabbath, the old law with it's commandments, statutes, judgments, and ordinances

Wrong.

Sabbath was "made for mankind" Mark 2:27 - the Word of Christ.

Sabbath is kept in the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship" - this is the Word of God regarding our future and the continuation of Christ the Creator's Holy seventh-day sabbath given to mankind in Gen 2:3 as a memorial of creation.

It is "obviously" applicable before the cross even in your confused model.

So when Christ says "KEEP My Commadndments" John 14:15 to His Pre-Cross Hebrew followers - then Exegesis insists that we "admit" to what the "primary audience" knew to the "the commandments". In fact even at the death of Christ we see that His Followers "Rest on the Sabbath day according to the Commandment".

You are simply wrong in your speculative view above.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jan 10, 2004

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather – when it comes to abuses of the Word of God – Paul speaks of God’s Word as “Holy Just and Perfect” and as “condemning the sinner” – it is not the Law or the Word of God that he condemns – it is always the sinner that IT condemns. Yet some Christians today – want to so much to abolish Christ the Creator’s Law – that they are willing to turn the text of Gal 4 as it addresses the pagan lifestyle of the gentiles in Galatia and their practices – and attribute to God – the authoring of paganism..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said

Whatever other problems you can find in Galatians; paganism was not one of them. It was mentioned in a passing fashion as their past life. What they were now being influenced by was just as bad, and would be like a "return" to bondage; as Paul himself was once under.

Carson makes a bold attempt on the other Sabbath thread to equate the "Perfect holy and just" Law of God with "weak and beggerly things" of Gal 04 and you seem to buy into that.

But since it is clearly refuted in Rom 3:31 "Do we then abolish the LAw of God by our faith? God Forbid! In fact we Establish the LAW of God!" Rom 3:31 your entire speculative line of reasoning falls short.

But even worse - you are here proposing that the "weak and beggerly Sabbath of Christ the Creator" that is to be kept when "From Sabbath to Sabbath all mankind shall come before Me to Worship" is in fact a condemnation for which the "christians" in Gal 04 are losing their salvation.

Your reasoning simply does not hold up. It works if you take a small snippet of scripture and ignore the chapter - and also the rest of scripture. But it does not work when you take a sound exegetical approach.

The fact is that all of Paul's letters - longer than 2 chapters - address more than one issue in the church. Galatians is no exception - and the "weak and beggerly things" that pertain "to that which is NOT god at all" as Paul said - can not be bent around and aimed at God's own Word - the way Carson so clearly did it. At least it can not be done and still survive a sound exegetical review.

Paul is clearly condemning "returning AGAIN" to the "Weak and beggerly things" that pertain to "that which is not god at all" - paganism. (Unless you propose that these are in fact Jewish Christians in Galatia that Paul is writing to - and he is mad at them for Keeping Christ the Creator's Word - calling it paganims for some odd reason).

In any case - your view seems to be plagued by a great many problems - unnsolvable and obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

Eric B · Jan 10, 2004

Carson makes a bold attempt on the other Sabbath thread to equate the "Perfect holy and just" Law of God with "weak and beggerly things" of Gal 04 and you seem to buy into that.

But since it is clearly refuted in Rom 3:31 "Do we then abolish the LAw of God by our faith? God Forbid! In fact we Establish the LAW of God!" Rom 3:31 your entire speculative line of reasoning falls short.

I answered this already, in the other thread. "And this in a whole chapter where Paul contrasts 'Law vs. faith'. So anticipating that people will think he is teaching lawlessness, he asks 'are we making void the Law through faith', and counters, that no, we are actually establishing it. This is what I have been saying all along...".
You pull the same stunt on Carson, with the same repeated, memorized argument, but he showed you how the laws were what was referenced to, and I showed you repeatedly why. You have yet to even address verse 3, so you have not answered our points at all.

... that is to be kept when "From Sabbath to Sabbath all mankind shall come before Me to Worship"...

Along with New Moons, priests and Levites. You have yet to even notice that. And it says nothing about what God expects of us now.

Your reasoning simply does not hold up. It works if you take a small snippet of scripture and ignore the chapter - and also the rest of scripture. But it does not work when you take a sound exegetical approach.

Taking snippets and ignoring the rest is precisely what you are doing, and add to that changing the text (i.e mixing up the words of Gal.4:8,9)

Paul is clearly condemning "returning AGAIN" to the "Weak and beggerly things" that pertain to "that which is not god at all" - paganism. (Unless you propose that these are in fact Jewish Christians in Galatia that Paul is writing to - and he is mad at them for Keeping Christ the Creator's Word - calling it paganims for some odd reason). In any case - your view seems to be plagued by a great many problems - unnsolvable and obvious.

No, it was Jewish "Christians" (who did not fully understand or accept the NT Gospel) who were influencing the Galatians, and as I showed above, were referred to all throughout the book; see v.21, the whole discussion of the "Law" in the previous chapter, etc. Look at Isaiah 1:13-14, where God is mad at them for keeping the laws He gave them. I know you will try to say that these were "pagan practices", but that is not what God says; it is because "their hands were full of blood" (v.15) and they neglected other things (v.16,17). That negates the legitimate God-given laws they were keeping, and since none of us is sinless, we are just as lost "under the Law" as any other people. Yes, Jesus may have added "and not leave the other things undone" (Mt.23:23), but the point was, that simply "following the 10 commandments", they missed "the weightier matters of the Law" (which are not expounded in the ten-point summary of the Law), and God chastized them as if they were practicing paganism, even though it was the laws He Himself had commanded them. All of this is used by Paul to show that the Israelites WERE in fact in the same type of "bondage" as the pagans, and this because they were under the Law.

BobRyan · Jan 10, 2004

#1. No text says that the Word of God is bondage.

#2. Gal 3 points out that the Law condemns ALL and that "Scripture places all under sin". Making God's LAW and Scripture - interchangable. Indeed they are "The Word of God"

#3. Gal 04 references the practice of gentile Christians before their conversion of worshipping that "which is not god at all" and practices pertaing to the "Weak and beggerly things of this world".

#4. God's Word, God's Law, Scripture is never referenced as "a weak and beggerly thing" in all of scripture - much less by Paul.

#5. God's Word never says that obedience to the Word of God "is a form of slavery":.

#6. God's Word never says "the New Moons feast days are made for mankind" - no are they included in the 10 commandments nor are they included in the pre-cross institutions given to mankind. "Whatever else" you may think of them.

#7. God's Word presents Christ the Creator's 7th day Sabbath as "Made for mankind" and "included" in the "10 commandments" as "continued even after the 2nd coming" in the New Earth and as "given before the sin of Adam" to all mankind.

#8. Christ the Creator's Holy day is never called "that which pertains to the weak and beggerly things of this world" in the NT or the OT.

#9. God's commandments are valid in the pre-cross NT text of MAtt, Mark, Luke John even by the most abuseve doctrinal structures today. "Not repeated means deleted" fails there at the very start.

#10 instead of saying "Our faith now declares Scripture God's Law to be of the weak and beggerly things of this World and obedience to it is returning to paganism" - Paul says "Do we then abolish the Law Of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the LAw of God!" Rom 3:31

#11. Instead of saying "Being a DOER of God's LAW" is an optional choice and you should NOT expect others to obey it -- Paul says "IT is NOT the HEARERS of God's Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS will be Justified" Rom 2:13

Obviously this is a far cry from the eisegetical approach to Gal 04 that would claim that the "weak and beggerly things of this world" consist of a Christian who pays attention to the Law of God - because someone like Paul has said to him "IT is NOT the HEARERS of God's Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS will be Justified" Rom 2:13

#12. Christ said "If you LOVE Me KEEP My commandments" John 14:15 and John "continues" to show that same obligation in 1 John 2 and in Rev 12. Instead of turning and saying "no wait! To do as Christ commanded is now the Weak beggerly thing pertaining to that which is not god at all"

There is just no way to spin Gal 04 to get what you are seeking. Too many problems with that approach.

In Christ,

Bob

Eric B · Jan 10, 2004

No text says that the Word of God is bondage.

No one ever said this.

Gal 3 points out that the Law condemns ALL and that "Scripture places all under sin". Making God's LAW and Scripture - interchangable. Indeed they are "The Word of God"

Good point. Now, in that Light:

instead of saying "Our faith now declares Scripture God's Law to be of the weak and beggerly things of this World and obedience to it is returning to paganism" - Paul says "Rom 3:31

Instead of saying "Being a DOER of God's LAW" is an optional choice and you should NOT expect others to obey it -- Paul says "IT is NOT the HEARERS of God's Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS will be Justified" Rom 2:13

Obviously this is a far cry from the eisegetical approach to Gal 04 that would claim that the "weak and beggerly things of this world" consist of a Christian who pays attention to the Law of God - because someone like Paul has said to him "IT is NOT the HEARERS of God's Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS will be Justified" Rom 2:13

Christ said "If you LOVE Me KEEP My commandments" John 14:15 and John "continues" to show that same obligation in 1 John 2 and in Rev 12. Instead of turning and saying "no wait! To do as Christ commanded is now the Weak beggerly thing pertaining to that which is not god at all"

so, if the "scriptures" teach that the sabbath is no longer binding, than that IS "the LAW", and if we don't keep it, then "Do we abolish the Law Of God...? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God!" This is what I have been trying to get you to see the whole time. See, you confuse "Law" and "MY Commandments" in the New Testament, with the "Law of Moses" in the Old. But as you are not keeping all 613 commandments of the Law of Moses (which were ALSO, in effect "in the pre-cross NT text of MAtt, Mark, Luke John", then you must be somehow "establishing" God's LAW without keeping those commandments. Because the Law of Jesus supersedes the Law of Moses, even though they overlapped during the time Jesus lived before the Cross. Afterwards, we were free from the Law of Moses, which was summed up in the 10, not separate from them. Those of the 10 that continue could be cited, but not because they were in the "10 commandments", but rather because they were in the eternal Law of God that predated Moses.

Gal 04 references the practice of gentile Christians before their conversion of worshipping that "which is not god at all" and practices pertaing to the "Weak and beggerly things of this world".

OK, now that's what they WERE doing BEFORE conversion. What about NOW, that Paul is speaking to them? Look at the CONTEXT. And stop reversing the verses. It does NOT say they "RETURNED" to "that which is not god". They came OUT of that, yet came under something ELSE which was the same level of "bondage to the elements".

God's Word, God's Law, Scripture is never referenced as "a weak and beggerly thing" in all of scripture - much less by Paul.

God's Word never says that obedience to the Word of God "is a form of slavery":

But if they were persisting in being legalistic on something God's LAW--God's Word, the scripture, no longer mandated, then they were NOT "obedient" to that LAW, and it now WAS slavery! Even when it was mandated and the people "obeyed", still, most were lost, because simply keeping "commandments" did not make them righteous, so once again, this was "slavery" to the "elements", NOT THE LAW ITSELF, but the STATE they were in (Rom.7:7, 8, 14) and Paul identifies it as such in Gal.4:3 (which you STILL ignore!) So let's move on past this already.

God's Word never says "the New Moons feast days are made for mankind" - no are they included in the 10 commandments nor are they included in the pre-cross institutions given to mankind.

God's Word presents Christ the Creator's 7th day Sabbath as "Made for mankind" and "included" in the "10 commandments" as "continued even after the 2nd coming" in the New Earth and as "given before the sin of Adam" to all mankind.

New Moons are in your key "New Heavens" verse you take to prove something is eternal. But since it is not in the 3 other proof texts, then this COMMANDMENT can be discarded?
(

not included in the pre-cross institutions given to mankind??? Isn't Numbers 28:11 one of those "commandments" of the "Law" Christ spoke of that was still in effect pre-cross, and we would "keep" if we "loved" Him??? But oh, it's not in the other proof texts!)
Marriage was also "made for mankind", "included in the pre-cross institutions and given before the sin of Adam", (and unlike the Sabbath, we at least see an actual command to "be fruitful and multiply"). So is everyone obligated to get married? But I guess it will not be in the Kingdom, and getting married wasn't in the 10 commandments, only not "violating" it if you do.
So what is this? Four proof-texts are required? Or four criteria? Is that how we know what to observe today? But what about dietary laws and tithing? they were not explicitly said to be "made for mankind", "given before the Fall", or "apart of the 10 commandments" either. But you find other passages on them. I guess any four scriptures or criteria will do. No wonder there are so many sects who keep "Christ's 7th day memorial of creation", but still argue amongst each other as to who is right, and what else is to be kept. That is such shaky ground to be setting Church practice on. Everything and anything but a New Testament command or instruction to keep it.

[ January 10, 2004, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

BobRyan · Jan 10, 2004

Eric said

so, if the "scriptures" teach that the sabbath is no longer binding, than that IS "the LAW", and if we don't keep it, then "Do we abolish the Law Of God...? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God!" This is what I have been trying to get you to see the whole time.

I see, so the new law of faith is "Abolisth the law of God" and since that is the "new law" then by faith we "establish the LAw" since the "new law is abolish the law of God". As a result Paul can insist that we "Establish the Law of God instead of abolishing it"???

You have God declaring "thou shalt not honor Christ the Creator's Holy day" - by doing so - you make it a "sin" to obey that Holy day "made for MANKIND" and show that God is "commanding sin"
in Isaiah 66 when he predicts that the Sabbath will continue from then right on into the New Earth.

Eric - your argument become "more circular" and conflicted in form as the exchange continues. I can't believe that you are taking your proposals seriously. Surely you are just toying with options hoping to escape the obvious and devastating point of Rom 3:31 for your views.

Eric said --
See, you confuse "Law" and "MY Commandments" in the New Testament, with the "Law of Moses" in the Old

When Christ said "if you Love me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15 it was pre-cross and before 'anything' could possibly have been nailed to the cross. It was the pre-cross period in which perfect fulfillement and obedience to the Law of God was the example of Christ "by every measure" and even by the most "abusive of doctrinal strictures today" it is still "confessed".

In John 14:15 When Christ quotes the 3rd commandment where He stated at Sinai specifics regarding "Those that Love Me and Keep My commandments" Ex 20:7 - exegesis demands that we "confess" that point and that we confess that his Hebrew first century pre-cross audience saw that quote in the context of the 10 commandments given by Christ at Sinai.

This is hardly deniable. Your attempt to "divide" the commandments even before the Cross - as if part of the 10 commandments belong to God and another part to "Moses" - is not even remotely credible! Even in the most abusive models today - the law is perfectly kept and supported by Christ and is honored by His followers before the Cross.

EVEN at His death they are "resting" on Christ the Creator's Holy Day "according to the Commandment" of Christ at Sinai and in Gen 2:3

Your "abolished at the cross" dies with the fact that the New Earth "still" has "All mankind coming before God to worship from Sabbath to Sabbath".

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jan 10, 2004

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gal 04 references the practice of gentile Christians before their conversion of worshipping that "which is not god at all" and practices pertaing to the "Weak and beggerly things of this world".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said

OK, now that's what they WERE doing BEFORE conversion. What about NOW, that Paul is speaking to them? Look at the CONTEXT. And stop reversing the verses. It does NOT say they "RETURNED" to "that which is not god". They came OUT of that, yet came under something ELSE which was the same level of "bondage to the elements".

There is no "something else" in the Gal 04 when it comes to "return again" to those same practices of paganism.

There is no "new practice that is sorta like the old one" statement of Paul.

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

So he says you are "Turning back AGAIN to those things" and then "you desire to be enslaved ALL OVER AGAIN" - that is your way of reading "You are doing a NEW THING that is sorta like what you used to do"??

It is paganism at the start and it is "turning back AGAIN" to that paganims that pertains to those things which are not
god at all.

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's Word, God's Law, Scripture is never referenced as "a weak and beggerly thing" in all of scripture - much less by Paul.

God's Word never says that obedience to the Word of God "is a form of slavery":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric --
But if they were persisting in being legalistic

If they were being legalistic in the OT that would have been just as wrong - OT or NT.

We have "already established" that you are defining OBEDIENCE in the OT as the new "sin" of the NT for which Gal 4 is sending them to hell (or whatever you care to read as "labored over you in vain" to mean).

You need to stick with that to stay consistent.

So it is "not legalism" in the OT that is being practiced again in Gal 4 - because that is wrong in either OT or NT. You have ventured onto ground that say "faithful obedience" in the OT is now sin - is now 'turning back again' to paganism.

You have made God the author of paganism. Following scripture - the OT - is "turning back again" to paganism in your new view!

Or do you propose a "new definition" for "legalism" is "doing that which God commands IF in fact He has abolished his own law now".

Eric said

(doing) something God's LAW--God's Word, the scripture, no longer mandated, then they were NOT "obedient" to that LAW, and it now WAS slavery!

Again - you make the obedience of the faithful saints in Heb 11 " a sin against God" if it is practiced in the NT - and your view is utterly condemned by Paul in Romans 14 where he says that anyone who condemns them for merely practicing that which is faith and obedience "observing the day" - that "condemning" them for that - is itself to be "condemned".

Your view is hopelessly entangled in its own self-conflicted definitions. Paul is now condemning your definition above in Romans 14 - because you are defining the pure obedience of the OT to the LAW of God as the thing that is now condemned.

You just fell completely off the Romans 14 bus.

Eric said

Even when it was mandated and the people "obeyed", still, most were lost, because simply keeping "commandments" did not make them righteous

This is simply a smoke screen you are offering since even today "the many" are on the wide road to desctruction even in the church - that does not mean that "faith in Christ is bad" or "being a Christian is bad" any more than finding lost people in the OT means that obedience to God instead of rebellion has "always been a bad thing" as you seem to now suppose.

You have already come out and said that what was " faithFUL in the OT" is now condemend - the obedience of the OT saints is now "sin" in your new tactic.

But that idea is flatly condemned in Romans 14.

Furhtermore - Paul does "exactly that" in Acts 21 - taking on OT oaths and vows as PROOF that he still endorses the keeping of them!

You have walked yourself down a path were you must now condemn Paul himself for his Acts 21 behavior!

Why not just accept the Creator's Sabbath and the Creator's 10 commandments instead of trying so hard to abolish them and getting all twisted up in the doctrinal contradictions you are proposing?

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jan 10, 2004

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's Word never says "the New Moons feast days are made for mankind" - no are they included in the 10 commandments nor are they included in the pre-cross institutions given to mankind.

God's Word presents Christ the Creator's 7th day Sabbath as "Made for mankind" and "included" in the "10 commandments" as "continued even after the 2nd coming" in the New Earth and as "given before the sin of Adam" to all mankind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
New Moons are in your key "New Heavens" verse you take to prove something is eternal. But since it is not in the 3 other proof texts, then this COMMANDMENT can be discarded?

I did not say that.

I said that the case for Sabbath DOES have the context of "being made FOR mankind" Mark 2:27

Christ the Creator's Sabbath DOES have the context of being IN the Unit of 10 spoken by God (Exodus 20)

Christ the Creator's Sabbath commandment DOES have the context of being given BeFORE the fall of man and the need to point to sacrifices and sin solutions Gen 2:3.

None of that is true for the New Moons - and that is a fact that does not change when you object.

The point is just to note that you have TONS of evidence for Christ the Creator's Sabbath starting IN the Garden with Mankind and made "for mankind" and - and still "you seek to abolish it" how much easier time you would have doing the same with the New Moon.

Eric said --

Isn't Numbers 28:11 one of those "commandments" of the "Law" Christ spoke of that was still in effect pre-cross, and we would "keep" if we "loved" Him???

Christ - in Mark 2:27 does not say "the New Moons were made for mankind".

Even the John 14 quote of the 3rd commandment "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments" would affirm the 10 commandments as the primary reference and the entire "scripture" the OT as the secondary application. So if the New Moon was not "made for mankind" then who was keeping it in the John 14 context? And would they "continue" to keep it through to the New Earth? Possibly so! I don't argue against it as you are obliged to do for Christ the Creator's Sabbath.

You complain that these same devastating texts come back to abolish the views you have taken - but the bottom line is that you don't need to have that opposition to God's Word. Your "God's Law is abolished and that is the New Law that is Established! The law that says God's LAw is abolished" views have already been refuted.

Why not just accept Christ the Creator's words when He quotes from the 3rd commandment "IF you Love Me Keep My Commandments".

In Christ,

Bob

Eric B · Jan 10, 2004

The argument is becoming "more circular" and "twisted up", because you are the one doing the twisting and cirular arguments. I have said time again, and again, and again, that just keeping OT laws are not "condemned" IN THEMSELVES, bt that they were not binding in the New Testament, and trying to enforce them on other, or keeping them out of compusion as if Christ never came, is what os wrong. I said nothing about "faithful saints" in the OT or "obedience being sin". Those are all YOUR WORDS. If they obeyed "in faith", they were "faithful". But still, keeping days and the rest of the OT laws was not God's ultimate will, so Paul considers himself ill in "bondage" in Gal.4:3, which you STILL totally skip over. THIS is what the converts he is talking to are being brought under, Yes, "There is no "something else" in the Gal 04" THEN, when it was written. Paganism was in the past; and there is only one problem we see addressed there. If you think this would "make obedience into sin", or "condemns the faithful saints" then you have to take it up with Paul, not me, but you won't touch the verse. But of course, that is not what he is saying.

When Christ said "if you Love me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15 it was pre-cross and before 'anything' could possibly have been nailed to the cross. It was the pre-cross period in which perfect fulfillement and obedience to the Law of God was the example of Christ "by every measure"

But then new moons, sacrifices, etc. were also still in effect, and apart of "obedience to the Law".

In John 14:15 When Christ quotes the 3rd commandment where He stated at Sinai specifics regarding "Those that Love Me and Keep My commandments" Ex 20:7 - exegesis demands that we "confess" that point and that we confess that his Hebrew first century pre-cross audience saw that quote in the context of the 10 commandments given by Christ at Sinai.

OH, so it's because one of the Ten commandments is "repeated" here (in part, referenced to, at the most). So that is how we know that all those other commandments are not repeated here, so they are abolished and only the "ten" kept. "WHAT IS NOT REPEATED IS DELETED"! You have accused me of this over two whole long threads, but you use the concept when it is a law you think no longer has to be kept. (But wait, I thought it also had to be specified as "made for mankind". Whatever happened to that criterion?)
Once again, there never was any distinction between "the Law" and "the 10 commandments". the 10 commandments were a summary of the whole law, and they themselves are summarized by the TWO commandments.

If they were being legalistic in the OT that would have been just as wrong - OT or NT.

You need to stick with that to stay consistent.

So it is "not legalism" in the OT that is being practiced again in Gal 4 - because that is wrong in either OT or NT. You have ventured onto ground that say "faithful obedience" in the OT is now sin - is now 'turning back again' to paganism.

Or do you propose a "new definition" for "legalism" is "doing that which God commands IF in fact He has abolished his own law now".

By "legalism" I menat making it mandatory. In the OT it was mandatory, and therefore not wrong. But it did not save, so the people were still in sin. Now, Christ had given us salvation, so the Law that pointed to Him we are no longer under, but are under His Laws.

I see, so the new law of faith is "Abolish the law of God" and since that is the "new law" then by faith we "establish the LAw" since the "new law is abolish the law of God". As a result Paul can insist that we "Establish the Law of God instead of abolishing it"???

There's only one God, and Christ is God, so if God gives a Law through Moses in the OT, and then comes in the person of Christ and gives another law, they are BOTH the "Law of God", and one has simply superseded the other. God has the right to do this.

Why not just accept that if you want to keep the day, keep it unto the Lord, and if someone does not keep the day, not to judge them? Because men want to think they are more spiritual, or more "obedient" to God than others, and this is not worship acceptable to Him at all.

Eric B · Jan 11, 2004

said that the case for Sabbath DOES have the context of "being made FOR mankind" Mark 2:27

Christ the Creator's Sabbath DOES have the context of being IN the Unit of 10 spoken by God (Exodus 20)

Christ the Creator's Sabbath commandment DOES have the context of being given BeFORE the fall of man and the need to point to sacrifices and sin solutions Gen 2:3.

None of that is true for the New Moons - and that is a fact that does not change when you object.

The point is just to note that you have TONS of evidence for Christ the Creator's Sabbath starting IN the Garden with Mankind and made "for mankind" and - and still "you seek to abolish it" how much easier time you would have doing the same with the New Moon.

Christ - in Mark 2:27 does not say "the New Moons were made for mankind".

Even the John 14 quote of the 3rd commandment "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments" would affirm the 10 commandments as the primary reference and the entire "scripture" the OT as the secondary application. So if the New Moon was not "made for mankind" then who was keeping it in the John 14 context? And would they "continue" to keep it through to the New Earth?

So still, it is if you can rack up as many criteria as you can, that prives the commandment is still in effect. But nowhere does it say "only what is in the 'unit' of ten AND was made for mankind, AND was MENTIONED before the Fall (it was not commanded then), AND prophesied in the New Heavens is still binding". You have made up your own set of rules for determining what God commands for us-- once again, everything and anything but a clear NT reaffirmation of this partcular command, even to a church full of gentile converts who had never kept it; and no reproof for not keeping it. No other law is maintained by such specious reasoning.

BobRyan · Jan 11, 2004

Originally posted by Eric B:
[QB] The argument is becoming "more circular" and "twisted up", because you are the one doing the twisting and cirular arguments. I have said time again, and again, and again, that just keeping OT laws are not "condemned" IN THEMSELVES, bt that they were not binding in the New Testament, and trying to enforce them on other, or keeping them out of compusion as if Christ never came, is what os wrong.

In fact this is what you said --

Eric said --
And you keep ignoring my explanation of why lawkeeping was approved in the OT (and Rom.14), but not in the NT (unless it was personal devotion.)

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=002108;p=14

Eric said --

I said nothing about "faithful saints" in the OT or "obedience being sin". Those are all YOUR WORDS. If they obeyed "in faith", they were "faithful". But still, keeping days and the rest of the OT laws was not God's ultimate will

From your quote above "lawkeeping was APPROVED in the OT".

That "obviously" means that the faithful obedient lawkeeping Saints of Heb 11 are "approved" even in your own kind of theology - by your own statements --

Eric said lawkeeping was approved in the OT

Going back and denying that this applies to the faithful - obedient - saints of the OT - does your argument no good. It is already clear.

Futhermore you are "not" addressing "legalism" rather you adressing a faithful "obedient" practice in the OT and saying that it is wrong to do it exactly as it was done - if you are doing it in the NT. So (in this case) keeping Christ the Creator's Holy Day given to mankind in Gen 2;3 and keeping it AS God commanded in Exodus 20 - IF it is kept in the NT AS He commanded and BECAUSE He commanded - (God said it - I believe it - that's good enough for me etc) - THEN it is "wrong" in the NT. (At least according to you).

You claim that in the NT - IF you are to be "allowed" to keep it - then you have to keep it as "your own idea" rather than "Because God commanded it and you choose to submit to the Word of God in obedience".

My point was that EVEN the saints of the 1 Cor 8 example and the ones in the Acts 15 example regarding meat offerred to idols did NOT say "just because we happen to feel like abstaining". My point was that the Acts 21 case is ANOTHER one where the Jewish Christians are NOT saying "just because we FEEL like honoring God's Law" -- in fact nobody said that!

It is a clear case of - them commanding others (In the case of Acts 15) and "complaining" in 1Cor 8 - so that Paul changes his "preferred behavior".

Now that IS in a case where you and I happen to agree (meat offerred to idols) with Paul that in fact that is "nothing" of real substance. But even THEN - He is 'compelled' by command and by the urging of others to "conform" and "he does".

That flies right in the face of your rule for when something is to be condemned.

But "worse" - you have applied the Gal 4 condemnation to the "same practice" as the faithful saints of the OT - when "you say" that Gal 4 condemns the SAME OT practice if done in the NT the SAME way as in the OT - as "commanded by God" rather than "I just happen to FEEL like it".

Eric said
--
And you keep ignoring my explanation of why lawkeeping was approved in the OT (and Rom.14), but not in the NT (unless it was personal devotion.)

Clearly the argument in Acts 21 was to "prove" that those OT laws were not being done away.

Clearly the argument in Acts 15 was to "command" the meat offerred to idol law - and yet when we see it in 1Cor 8 - it is "not PAul's preference" nor his "personal devotion".

Eric - your argument is "stuck".

In Christ,

Bob

Eric B · Jan 11, 2004

"I just happen to FEEL like it".
"just because we FEEL like honoring God's Law"

Once again, you create a sensational "straw man" effect by plugging in your own words to what I am saying. It is not "because I FEEL like it", it is "keep it UNTO THE LORD", or "personal DEVOTION" as I put it;. not even "your own idea". Those are two different connotations. 1 Cor. 8 says defer to your conscienctious BRETHREN who are "weak", not to apostates coming from without.

BobRyan · Jan 11, 2004

Eric said

If they obeyed "in faith", they were "faithful". But still, keeping days and the rest of the OT laws was not God's ultimate will, so Paul considers himself ill in "bondage" in Gal.4:3, which you STILL totally skip over.

Galatians 4
1 Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,
2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father.
3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.

Paul does not class faithful obedience to God WITH paganism (as many hope in this text) – rather he say “WE” while “we” were children we were held in bondage (slavery) to the “elemental things of The World” not (of God). This is both Paul and the Gentiles – (Paul as Saul – the lost). The “things of the World” are NOT the “Law that is Spiritual” Romans 7:14. Paul is grouping lost Jews and lost gentiles both under the condemnation of the law of God – both outside the family of God and “needing to be adopted” and both needing a savior. He is saying “nothing” about the “Spiritual, holy just and true Law of God” being “the elemental things of this world” as may today hope.

4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,
5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Paul makes the argument that instead of Christ coming and “dumping God’s Law so that people would follow a different law” – Christ comes “under the LAW” of God and perfectly complies with it. In fact in Matt 5 Christ condemns anyone who “teaches others” to ignore the Law of God. Certainly something we might expect God to be saying in Gospel as Christ perfectly serving “under the Law” to redeem those who are under the condemnation of the Law discussed in chapter 3.
6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "" Abba! Father!''
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
This is the “conversion” moment – when the lost becomes born again – an adopted child of God. It is a ‘contrast in faith’ between the lost state and the saved stated. It is not a contrast between the saved OT saint and the saved NT saint as many have vainly hoped in recent years.
7 therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

Eric said

THIS is what the converts he is talking to are being brought under, Yes, "There is no "something else" in the Gal 04" THEN, when it was written. Paganism was in the past; and there is only one problem we see addressed there.

As with all of Paul's letters over 2 chapters in length - they all deal with more than one issue - so Galatians is no exception.

AS noted above - it is the lost state contrasted with the saved state - is not the "unspiritual, unholy, unjust, untrue Law of God" contrasted wtih the "abolished law of God" as you seem to "assume".

In fact when it is Paul's purpose to contrast the REAL Law of God - the Scripture - the LAw of the OT regarding the Jewish nation and membership in it -- with Gentile restrictions that we see in the NT - it is always a matter of "circumcision" that represents the "difference" it is never a matter of "not committing adultery" or "rebellion against Christ the Creator's Sevnth-day Holy Day" or "keeping Seasons" (something never commanded in the OT) or even the evil for form of "observe" used in Gal 4.

Eric said --
If you think this would "make obedience into sin", or "condemns the faithful saints" then you have to take it up with Paul, not me, but you won't touch the verse. But of course, that is not what he is saying.

Look again at the detailed coverage of that vs - and the clear teaching in Gal 4 that this is the "lost state" not a statement about the "Spiritual holy just and true Law of God" in its "unholdy, unjust, untrue, unspiritual" form of "elemental things that pertain only to The World" and not god at all.

It is precisely "because" Paul ALWAYS holds the Law of God to ALWAYS be "Spiritual" where man is "sinful" and to ALWAYS be "Holy Just and true" where man is rebellious and to ALWAYS be binding so that we are to be "DOERS of the LAW are justified before God" Rom2:13 that Paul can say "Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31. How embarrassing for those doctrines that say "YES we do ABOLISH the Law of God - NOW we just keep the commandments of Christ - an NEW LAW not that old LAw of God".

In Christ,

Bob

[ January 11, 2004, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

Eric B · Jan 11, 2004

FINALLY, you deal with the verse! Only now, you're mixing it with v. 8, just like you were doing with v.9:

Paul does not class faithful obedience to God WITH paganism (as many hope in this text) – rather he say “WE” while “we” were children we were held in bondage (slavery) to the “elemental things of The World” not (of God).

Paul doesn't say "we [Israelites] served things which were not god" here (which you kept accusing me of saying), because they followed the true God, where the pagans followed things that were not god. "lost" and "serving what is not god" are not exactly the same thing, so you can't interchange them between v.3, 8 & 9 like you keep doing, because though all who serve what is not god are lost, it is possible to go as far as to "worship" the true God and still be lost (Mark 7:7; and it's usually you sabbathkeepers who always quote this verse; Matt.7:21,22) Both were in the same spiritual state of condemnation, and even for the gentiles to switch pagan gods for the Law, would do no good, as both were in the same state, as you even point out:

This is both Paul and the Gentiles – (Paul as Saul – the lost).
Paul is grouping lost Jews and lost gentiles both under the condemnation of the law of God – both outside the family of God and “needing to be adopted” and both needing a savior.

6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "" Abba! Father!''
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
This is the “conversion” moment – when the lost becomes born again – an adopted child of God. It is a ‘contrast in faith’ between the lost state and the saved stated. It is not a contrast between the saved OT saint and the saved NT saint as many have vainly hoped in recent years.

It is precisely "because" Paul ALWAYS holds the Law of God to ALWAYS be "Spiritual" where man is "sinful" and to ALWAYS be "Holy Just and true" where man is rebellious

This is ALL I've been trying to say.

He is saying “nothing” about the “Spiritual, holy just and true Law of God” being “the elemental things of this world” as may today hope.

AS noted above - it is the lost state contrasted with the saved state - is not the "unspiritual, unholy, unjust, untrue Law of God" contrasted wtih the "abolished law of God" as you seem to "assume".

Look again at the detailed coverage of that vs - and the clear teaching in Gal 4 that this is the "lost state" not a statement about the "Spiritual holy just and true Law of God" in its "unholy, unjust, untrue, unspiritual" form of "elemental things that pertain only to The World" and not god at all.

But I've never said any of this stuff. All I've been saying in as far as the two different states, is the same exact thing you've just said. But we wasted so much time because you kept putting in my mouth all these derogatory words toward the law, in order to try to make my position look bad as you possibly could. I even answered you with Romans 7:14 "the LAw is spiritual, but I am carnal". THIS, I said, was the common state of "bondage" to "weak and elemental things" shared by Jew and Gentile alike. Where we differe is in God's remedy for this condition.

Paul makes the argument that instead of Christ coming and “dumping God’s Law so that people would follow a different law” – Christ comes “under the LAW” of God and perfectly complies with it. In fact in Matt 5 Christ condemns anyone who “teaches others” to ignore the Law of God. Certainly something we might expect God to be saying in Gospel as Christ perfectly serving “under the Law” to redeem those who are under the condemnation of the Law discussed in chapter 3.

So what you think, was that well, the Jews had the Law, but they were "under it", so it only condemned them. Now, we have Jesus, and we no longer have that problem, and continue with the [same] Law. In other words, just ADD Jesus to the Law, now we are "OK". But that is not what the rest of Galatians or Romans teaches. As I keep pointing out, you do not even keep all the laws that were in effect when Jesus said "not one jot nor tittle shall pass, and anyone who teaches otherwise...". So then you go into this assumption, that it is only "the first ten" that are kept, because some of them are repeated elsewhere. But there is no such distinction anywhere between the 10 and the rest. The 10 summarize the rest (the 613 were APART of the 10!), but the ten themselves were summarized by the TWO. So then you come up with this system that if the commandment was in the unit of 10, and mentioned at Creation before the Fall, and said to be "made for mankind", and prohesied to exist in the future Kingdom, THEN it was what He was talking about. But these systems are just not expounded in scripture.
God's eternal law is the two, and the principles that hang on it. He gave Moses the Ten and the 613 that hung on it, but that passed with Christ's work. The letter can be quoted as a guideline for us when the eternal principle more closely coincides with the letter. But there was just no expectation that anyone mandatorily keep the sabbath. God didn't just add Jesus to the existing Law, but returned to the original universal law, only now, magnified to its spiritual intent. This did not include the sabbath. The Law of Moses was our "tutor", which was "added because of sin" (the Fall, which then led God to start His plan with the covenant with Israel and the Law of Moses.) You think the old Covenant simply transferred to us, with only the laws that do not meet your four-prooftext requirement not repeated.
Just look at WHY Paul kept saying "Do we make void the LAw, God forbid, we Establish the Law." Because what He was teaching looked like at first glance that He was totally trashing out the Law (like you accuse me), and that's why people would accuse him of it. But what He was showing was that In Christ, even though we do not keep the Law of Moses, we still do ESTABLISH the eternal LAW of God. The Law of Moses was only one temporary phase of it.

NOW we just keep the commandments of Christ - an NEW LAW not that old LAw of God".

That's what Jesus says (John 13:34--in fact, if I use your line of reasoning, this was a direct replacement of the sabbath, because in the OT, God said the sabbath was the sign that they were His disciples!!!) Also 1 John 2:8, 2John 5. He is God, so one is just as much "the Law of God" as the other.
Don't say, "But that was always expected, even pre-Cross when the faithful kept the Law", because then you're making Jesus' words meaningless. Yes, John also calls it "an old Commandment...from the beginning", but what means is that this is what God originally intended for man, and now it supersedes the Law of Moses. Jesus preached this pre-Cross to prepare them for the new covenant after the Cross. Yes, it was really always expected, but with the Law of Moses, the letter overshadowed it to their limited fallen natures, and THIS was one of the problems that caused the bondage of OT Israel. (along with them not having the Spirit)

Now we've finally made some progress. Please let go of the "you're calling God's law unholy, beggarly things that are not god" rhetoric already and deal with these points.

Frank · Jan 11, 2004

Bob:

There are no examples of any Christians in the age of the new testament who kept the sabbath day or the ten commandments as per Moses and are approved for so doing. This information may only be found in Acts - Revelation.

Mark is not of the church age. His writings consist of the life of Christ during the old testament and before the church age. The church did not begin until Jesus died and paid for the church ( Acts 2:38-47;28:20).

Jesus kept the sabbath as one who kept the law (Mat. 5:17,18, Luke 24:44-46 ). In Mark, he provides the correct application for the Jews. The seventh day was for the good of the whole man, both body and soul. The context indicates Jews under the old law are in view here. Gentiles were not allowed into the temple, tabernacles to eat, touch, or to offer any thing holy to God. As one who wants to keep the law, I thought you would know this. I agree with the affrimation of Mark. The sabbath was made for man.

The law consisted of the commandments, statutes, judgements, feast days etc. ( Neah. 8: 9,13,14; 9:13-15,29). Paul, by inspiration, says these were nailed to the cross ( Col. 3:16, Eph. 2:15).

GODS 10 COMMANDMENTS

New Member

<img src =/3mom.jpg>

<img src =/3mom.jpg>

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member