GODS 10 COMMANDMENTS

Just funny, Bob, that when you are claiming something from the Law is no longer mandatory, you understand how Paul "is not condemning the law", but it is just "a man-made of error in judging regarding them". But if someone includes the weekly sabbath to that list (which the language used in the verse implies), then we spend whole thread of you accusing someone of saying that Paul condemned the law.

3 Angels said:

No it did not "stand" for eternity (at least not as something that was/is always expected of man, like the moral laws). Even though its original significance may have been laid down in the creation account, still, the manna episode was the first time it was ever commanded, or people condemned for not keeping it. This WAS one of the ordiances added because of sin, and then the additional restrictions were added on top of that (plus further restrictions the later leaders added themselves). The reason it was given, was to Identify Israel (Ex.31:13), but then the reason Israel was raised in the first place was because of the Fall and need to set up a plan of the redemption of the world.
Remember, as the 613 commandments (which would include the additional restrictions) hung on the 10, the 10 (including the sabbath) hung on the two. (love for God/Love for man). How these are carried out does not always follow the 10. When "the Law" is spoken of by Paul and others, it always means the whole 10-->613 code; it does not separate it into one or the other by themselves (i.e. the 613 when it saying "the law" is superseded by Christ, but only the 10 when an example of the law still binding is read.)

 

Here the point is made clearly - the act of judging others is not a sin "newly condemned in the NT".

Also it is clear - the God-ordained practices listed are not the things "in error" - but rather the text says "LEt no one JUDGE you regarding" those practices.

Col 2 is not an attack on the practices for it does not say "How dare you observe Feastivals, New Moons or a Sabbath day" as some here "had hoped to find" so their argument would be sustained.

You are simply confused Eric.

The point is clear. In Gal 4 it is the pagan "observance" that is condemned "You OBSERVE days, months, seasons and years". If your bias is to insert God-ordained times in there instead of pagan times - then STILL it is the "OBSERVANCE" that is identified in Gal 4 as being "condemned".

In Col 2 it is clearly the "JUDGING" that is condemned (just as we see in Romans 14) NOT the "observance". SO even IF you choose to include Christ the Creator's Seventh-day Sabbath in Col 2 - it is still the "JUDGING" "Let no man JUDGE you regarding..." that is condemned JUST as it is condemned in Romans 14 and just as it is condemned in Matt 7.

But in Gal 4 Paul is the one doing the judging regarding the OBSERVANCE - it works there "by contrast" since in the Gal 4 case it is pagan "days, months, seasons, years" condemned and in Col 2:16 it is God ordained "festivals, new moons, SabbathS" that are defended and for which no "judging" is allowed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Downsville - is that addressed to Eric?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric:
According to the Bible Pentecost was always the day after the Sabbath( Lev. 23:15,16). What day follows the Sabbath? I would like to know? What day is the first day( Acts 20:7). I would like to know? Since the first day and the sabbath are not the same( Lev.23:14,15, Acts 20:7), what is the first day? And, How do you know?

 

Eric:
It is a sound argument to post scriptures that describe those of the gospel dispensation meeting on the first day, not the sabbath ( Acts 20:7). It is a sound argument to post scriptures that teach what they were doing on this day. Acts 20:7). They were taking the Lord's Supper, preaching, giving, singing, praying ( Acts 20:7, I Cor. 16:1, Hebs. 2:12). It is a sound argument to use scripture that teach this was a continous pattern from Pentecost ( Acts 2:42).

This cannot be said for sabbath gatherings. Paul was a gospel preacher who went to synagogues, market places, town squares, even jails to teach the gospel of Christ. Paul became a Jew that he might gain Jews. The Bible says in I Cor. 9: 20  And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
Paul conducted himself as a gentile that he might win the Gentiles. The Bible says in I Cor. 9: 21  To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
Paul became all things to all people that he might win some. The Bible says in I Cor. 9:22, To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

This carried aout the purpose of Christ. Jesus said, in Acts 1:8, But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Jesus said In Mark 16:15,And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Jesus said in Mat. 28:18-20,And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Paul went to people in all the world to teach them. Jews, who had not obeyed the gospel of Christ, would obviously be meeting ina synagogue. Therefore, the commands of Christ would require him going into them to teach the Jew, Why? Paul states that the might save some ( I Cor. 9:20-22).

It is irrational thought to take the command to go into ALL the world and teach ALL and ignore going to where the people are. Paul went so far as to purify himself before entering the temple. He did so as a custom of the Jews, not as binding authority under the new testament. Why would he do such a thing. He became a Jew that he might save some.

No one defending the Old Law on this board keeps it!! No one! None of these folk go to Jerusalem three times a year, required by the Old Law.
None of them offer animal sacrifices, participate in the feast days and the many other obligations of the old law ( Gal 5:3,4). There position and actions cannot be defended by the totality of the authority of Christ under the new testament ( Hebrews 9:15-17, Col.2:14, Eph. 2:14).

 

As elsewhere, you add your own hypothesis. It does not say "the OBSERVANCE [of the days themselves] is condemned". For one thing, remember from the other discussion, that "observe" carries a meaning of "evil intent". THAT is what is condemned. (Oh, but then "evil intent" only means "paganism", so you fail to understand this). what is condemned is falling back into bondage, and the keeping of the days is only the MANIFESTATION of this problem, not what is necessarily condemned in itself.

It's the two of you who refuse to understand what the Bible means AS WRITTEN. You take your modern English understanding of and English trsnation of words and phrases, and then use it to try to prove your views on the Law, but that is not sound Biblical exegesis, so you can make your mockery of my reference to "typology" and "parallelism" all you want. Of course you don't get what I say, just like you don't get what the Bible really says. And once again, "commandments" doesn't really mean" commandments" to you, when it comes to sacrifices and other rituals.

 

Frank, I'm not arguing for sabbatarianism; I'm arguing against Bob and others. I'm closer to your side. But it's just to be consistent to show that you are using the some of same line of reasoning as they when any mention of the first day is taken to be an official Church "observance", just like they take the Gentiles' meeting in the Temple on the Sabbath and Heb.4 to be an official continuation of mandatory Sabbath observance in the church.

there were TWO types of "sabbath"; annual and weekly. The Pharisees and Sadducess had a conflict to which was referred to. The Pharisees said it was the annual sabbath, which would place the Firstfruits day (and the Pentecost which followed it 7 weeks later) on any day of the week. The Sadducess said it was the weekly Sabbath, making Firstfruits and Pentecost always Sunday. Christ said that the Pharisees had the right observance of the Law. the Sadducees were aberrant in several matters.

It also says they did these things every day (v.46). That would include this one particular first day of the week (which was actually Sat. night! --notice the reference to the coming "midnight", and "the morrow", and lights being on), when they did their daily routine of fellowship. there is no Command for Sunday here, just as there is no command for the sabbath in the passages you discuss in the Temple. The rest of what your post said was right about those, and I have argued on your side with them. But As I said, just to be fair and consistent, I had to point out the assumption about Sunday as well.

 

It seems you have taken the two truths he wrote and drawn your own conclusion.

Just my two-cents’ worth. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Well well well. What do we have here?

Interesting that you are located so close to him!

Anyhoo, he did indeed say that Jesus is HIS Sabbath, even though scripture doesn't support that position.

IF (big IF), what HE says WAS true, then that would make the BIBLE to say that Jesus was created BY GOD, because the BIBLE states that the Sabbath was made for man.

This isn't a faulty conclusion, and it isn't faulty logic to put 2+2 together and it equal 4!!!

He said Jesus is the Sabbath.

The Bible says the Sabbath was MADE for man.

According to HIS logic, JESUS was MADE for man.

Get it?

-Kelly

 

No it did not "stand" for eternity (at least not as something that was/is always expected of man, like the moral laws). Even though its original significance may have been laid down in the creation account, still, the manna episode was the first time it was ever commanded, or people condemned for not keeping it.</font>[/QUOTE]Ok, firstly the Sabbath WILL stand for Eternity regardless of how you understand the Bible because it CLEARLY states (and you cannot refute this) in Isaiah 66: 22-24 "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
24. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

Secondly, what exactly do you consider the 'moral' laws? I have always heard people call the 10 commandments the 'moral' laws. How can you accept 9, yet ignore (without Biblical support) the 4th?

Thirdly, the Sabbath commandment was given to the Hebrews because they had STOPPED keeping the Sabbath of Creation. They were reminded by God through the Manna account that they were not to work on the Sabbath. Which took place IMMEDIATELY following their exodus from Egypt (which represents, spiritually, what takes place in the life of each person who comes to Christ). NOW, if you can honestly reconcile with your own opinion and the Bible that God allowed people to live in a 7 day work week from Creation up to the Manna account and not once mention anything about it, KNOWING that the Sabbath was going to stand for eternity (as shown by Isaiah 66), then it is not within the pages of Scripture to convince you. Sadly.

Ok, so then you admit that PRIOR to the Commandments given at Sinai, working on the Sabbath was already a SIN. Therefore the Sabbath has been in place for ALL MEN since creation.

So you see, you are working this out! God chose Israel, a wicked and stiffnecked people, to represent Him in His plan. The FIRST thing He did to set them apart from the rest of the wicked and perverse people in the world was to give them a REMINDER of His Sabbath. He didn't 'make' the Sabbath for Israel at Sinai. The Sabbath was made for all Mankind at Creation. He gave them the Commandment because EVERYTHING that He gave them through the course of His plan was to point to Christ, and the ultimate plan of the New Heaven and the New Earth, which INCLUDES the Sabbath, for eternity!

You are further along than I thought. The Ten Commandments hang on the Two. Are the Two abolished as well? What was nailed to the cross?

How WHAT is carried out? The TWO? I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you elaborate?

Interesting. So according to Paul, who kept the Sabbath, who was led by Christ, who kept the Sabbath, who was given to us by God, who created the Sabbath, the Sabbath is just part of the 'laws' that were KILLED by the supreme Sacrifice of Christ?

Great logic buddy!

So, along with breaking the Sabbath, we are free to rampantly commit adultery, kill one another, steal and worship idols?

Not to mention eat as much pork, and shellfish as we want even though God calls that an abomination, fornicate uncontrollably, and lie with every breath we breathe!!

???????????????????

How do you reconcile that with every verse that the Bible has in it that admonishes us to KEEP the Commandments of God?

How do you 'rest' in Christ knowing that you have done spite to the Spirit of Grace by ignoring, and 'rationalizing' away the very Commandments that God has given us to keep?

How can that be 'rest'????

God Bless,
Kelly

 

Thy Word is a hammer (Jer.23:29)
Jesus is the Word. (John 1:1)
Jesus is a hammer.

Yeah, right Kelly. Hammers are made by man to break rocks in pieces too. Your logic is faulty. Nowhere in Scripture is Jesus called a hammer. This is the twisted logic you are using--taking two true statements, and drawing a false conclusion.
DHK

 

Thy Word is a hammer (Jer.23:29)
Jesus is the Word. (John 1:1)
Jesus is a hammer.

Yeah, right Kelly. Hammers are made by man to break rocks in pieces too. Your logic is faulty. Nowhere in Scripture is Jesus called a hammer. This is the twisted logic you are using--taking two true statements, and drawing a false conclusion.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Your TWO verses above conclude that Jesus is a Hammer. Sure. I can deal with that. It's a metaphor.

The so called TWO true statements that you claim I am coming to a false conclusion with are NOT TWO true statements!

One is YOUR FALSE STATEMENT and the other is a TRUE statement from Scripture!

It is with YOUR false statement that I am showing how YOUR faulty LOGIC is making the BIBLE to say that Jesus was MADE by God.

Nothing you can say will ever make it appear that I am claiming Jesus was MADE by God.

How much easier can I make this for you?

YOU are saying Jesus is the Sabbath, which is a LIE.

The BIBLE says the Sabbath was MADE for man.

So by putting YOUR LIE, with the BIBLE TRUTH, we now have a NEW LIE, that Jesus was MADE.

It is what YOU ARE SAYING.

So either STOP saying Jesus is the Sabbath, or accept that you believe Jesus was made by God.

Because no matter how many times you say I am being blasphemous, it is YOU who is saying Jesus was made by God, by saying He is the Sabbath!!!!!!!!

Not me.

How's that for a hammer?

-Kelly

 

Apart from this entire conversation, Kelly, that is your belief anyway. Isn't it?
You believe that Christ is a created being; that He is not God.
Is Jesus Christ God?
Answer this statement with a straight yes or now, and don't avoid it.

Is Jesus Christ the one and only true God of the Bible? Yes or No.

I'll await your answer.
DHK

 

No, it isn't a lie; it is your failure to study the Scriptures.

Colossians 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Before we look at these verses let us consider verse 14:
Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Believer’s Bible Commentary
DHK

 

I am still waiting.

 

There are many things that I fail at, but studying the Scriptures is NOT one of them!

Interesting enough, you can only quote 2 verses here to prove from HEBREWS 4 (your previous claim) that Jesus is the Sabbath (your lie).

Nope, no mention of Jesus being the Sabbath. If Christ being the 'body' of the 'shadow' means that He IS the Sabbath, then He is ALSO, LITERALLY 'meat, drink, all holydays, and new moons'.

And how does that verse make Jesus the Sabbath? Sorry I must be having a moment of illiteracy, because unless it's in there in French and really tiny, that verse doesn't say Jesus is the Sabbath!

You prove nothing.

You believe and promote a lie.

You are making Jesus like unto Satan.

According to you He was made by God, like Satan, and is Lord of Himself, like Satan.

Are you sure you aren't a Jehovah's Witness?

 

I am still waiting. </font>[/QUOTE]now

 

New moons, too? Also, priest and Levites bringing offerrings? (previous verses). Obviously, this cannot be taken as a blueprint for Church practice. It was a conditional prophesy, had Israel remained faithful, the Old Covenant remain, and God had established His Kingdom through her.

The last five were the moral law, regarding how man behaves on earth toward another. The first three are spiritual, regarding our relation to God. The fourth would fall into this category too, but is more ceremonial, and not in the original universal laws given to man. Thus, to answer your objection:

Your side insists that because we say one doesn't have to keep the Sabbath because we are not under the Law, that we are "throwing out ALL LAW". But the moral and spiritual laws that have always been expected of man are still in effect, and now magnified to their full intent (Matt.5). Those are the "commandments" the NT talks about. What was nailed was what hung on the two: the ten, plus the 613 that hung on them. ("the Law") When someone asked which of the 10 was most important, He said the two were what was really important.

How they break down will include some of the ten, which can be reiterated when referencing the moral/spiritual laws, (and also magnified beyond what the letter of the ten actually said). but we don't assume then that the sabbath must be includes as well. It is never commanded for Christians.

Where does it ever say man was keeping it, and the Israelites (out of all the people) STOPPED??? It is not there. It is assumed based on the reference to the Sabbath in Creation, but God was free to establish it there, but not command or mention it to anyone until His timing as apart of His plan. Man was breaking all of God's laws before Sinai, and of all the things God was condeming man for, sending floods and raining fire and brimstone down, not once did He mention the sabbath. Do we assume they kept that alone perfectly, while breaking everything else? (Likewise, in endtime prophesies, we see every other sin condemned, but never not keeping a sabbath. Will people start keeping it perfectly in the final rebellion?). Same with kosher meats (and all meats were allowed after the flood (Gen.9:3), and only to Israel were the kosher restrictions commanded.

That's not what I said. It was "added" at the time of Sinai, both for the reason I gave (Israel's identity), and because of sin, they neeeded a strict reminder of God, and a mandatory day to focus only on Him. Today, the Spirit, through Christ accomplishes that for us. That is why Christ fulfills the Sabbath. I had explained before that "Christ=Sabbath" was only biblical typology, not literal, but one on your side simply mocks that idea, while you still accuse DHK of making Christ a Created being (He identified Himself with the Sabbath by saying He was Lord of it. Has nothing to do with "It was created, so He was Created". Sabbath was MADE for man; Christ CAME for man).

As I have said elsewhere, marriage was also made for man, who was commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" in the Creation, and forehadows the eternal reality of our union with Christ, but not every person is obligated to participate in marriage. I don't see how you thing "made for man" equals some sort of binding of all men. That's precisely the type of thinking Christ was speaking against when He said that.