GODS 10 COMMANDMENTS

At some point - after going round and round on this you would think they could figure out that..

#1. There really is only ONE Gospel.
#2. The Word of God is true - when it says Christ the Creator MADE the Sabbath FOR mankind.
#3. They would accept the Word of God when HE says of the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath Shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"
#4. They would accept the Word of God when Christ the Creator quotes the 3rd commandment saying "IF you Love Me Keep My Commandments".
#5. They would accept the Word of God when He asks us to consider "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In factd we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31
#6. They would "Accept" the Word of God when it says "There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath Rest for the People of God" Heb 4
#7. They would accept the Word of God as they witness the 4th commandment language AGAIN in Rev 14:7 at the end of time.

All this - turn turn away from - just to attack Christ the Creator's Holy day - made for mankind in Gen 2:3 as a blessing to be kept before sin - and continuing even into the New Earth (Isaiah 66).

There is just no way to delete these clear texts from the Word of God. Much better to just accept them as you point out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric responds

Maybe a more careful review of vs 10 and 11 then - eh?

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

NOTE: . This pagan practice is also condemned in the OT

Bible scholars have long recognized the pagan system being referenced here.

Even authors that “insist” on using Gal 4 as a method to attack Christ the Creator’s memorial of His creative act – and given as His holy day in Gen 2:3 (a blessing for all mankind Mark 2:27) – admit that their blind use of 4:10 as a reference to God’s Ordinances in His Word – is merely a preference not a fact dictated by the text.

Even those that presume that the only influence on the Galatian Christians are Jews – hoping even to limit it to orthodox Jews we find..

#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.

Lev 19 describes it in other Bile translations as –

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.
#2. God's Word did not command His people to "observe seasons or months".

#3. Using another word for “observance” -- The "observances of days" is mentioned in Romans 14 and the "Condemnation" there is against anyone who would "condemn" the "observances". Bending Gal 4 to point at the very practices employed in Romans 14 is a abusive example of eisegesis.

#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.

#5. Paul says this is “a return” and that they are “enslaved all over AGAIN” – these gentiles, these converted pagans – were never Jews. They are not returning to “salvation by keeping the Law of God” as something they “used to do”. This is simply “another” problem Paul is identifying among the Galatians that is in “Addition” to their problem with Judaizers


11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Here is the ultimate proof - this is a practice never to be defended (so it is not anything like the practices being defended in Romans 14) . It is a practice that invalidates the gospel, salvation lost for those who engage in returning to those pagan systems of worship - pagan practices.

The speculation that Paul defended this practice is Romans 14 as a practice not to be condemned - only shows the lengths to which some will go to launch an attack on the creator's own holy day (made holy by him when he created earth) - as he calls it the Sabbath day (not merely leaving it with a day-number God tells us the 7th day is the Sabbath of God).

Of course the fact that the Jews themselves - who lived in these pagan centers - had begun to incorporate these pagan practices into the Hebrew faith, only made the problem more difficult for gentile Christians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Do you mean like Miller, your spiritual parent, who observed 1844 come and go?

 

I keep looking in these posts now and then think Harley is going to "say something".

Guess not - eh?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I could follow your example and say nothing but make it take hundres of lines ...

 

I could answer you but what good would it do?

All you will do is twist my words to say something I am not saying, like you always do.

What's the point?

And don't be so rediculous to say that I can't answer you because I can, I'm just not going to, there's no point. </font>[/QUOTE]There is one God and one Saviour--the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the only God. But you don't accept that. Here is another example from Scripture:

17 They will come with fear to Yahweh our God, And will be afraid because of you.
18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.
19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:17-19)

God, (Yahweh) forgives sins.

AND

Mark 2:5-12 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Only God forgives sins. Jesus forgave sins.
Only God forgives sins. Yahweh forgave sins.

Is Jesus Yahweh, OR, Do you believe in two Gods?
DHK

 

Yes there is. It has already been defined and explained in 1Cor.15:1-4

#2. The Word of God is true - when it says Christ the Creator MADE the Sabbath FOR mankind.

Yes Christ said that. He said it before He died on the cross during the age of the Law when the Sabbath was still in effect. He was also speaking to Jews at the time.

#3. They would accept the Word of God when HE says of the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath Shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"

That is true, and it is also in future tense, not in present tense. That day is still coming. It will come in the Millennial reign of Christ, and has nothing to do with this present church age whatsoever.

#4. They would accept the Word of God when Christ the Creator quotes the 3rd commandment saying "IF you Love Me Keep My Commandments".

Where does Christ identify "If you love me keep my commandments," as the third commandment? That's news to me. Don't get me wrong. he does say that in John 14, but never does he identify it as the "third commandment." You're just making that part up. When Jesus said to keep his commandments He never mentioned the Sabbath Day, and the keeping of the Sabbath is never commanded in the NT. In fact, if anything, it is discouraged.

#5. They would accept the Word of God when He asks us to consider "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In factd we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31

Read the context, and please explain it to 3AM. What is Paul saying in the previous two verses? There are not two Gods! There is only one God! There is not a God for the Gentiles, he says, and a God for the Jews--there is but one God.
And therefore there is only one way to God, one plan of salvation, one gospel. That gospel must be accepted by faith, and faith alone.

Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
--No matter who we are, we are justified by faith.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
--Then the question is, if we are justified by faith, and not by keeping the law (like the Sabbath), does that imply that the law is worthless? No, not at all. Contrariwise, the gospel establishes the law. How?
The law demands perfect obedience. The penalty for breaking the law is death. One who breaks God's law will be lost eternally. The gospel tells how Christ died to pay the penalty of the broken law. He did not treat the law as a thing to be ignored. He paid the debt in full. Now, anyone who has broken the law can avail himself of the fact that Christ paid thye penalty on his behalf. Thus believing in the gospel by faith establishes or upholds the law. It insists that it demands be met, and they have--in Jesus Christ. Even the demand of the Sabbath.

#6. They would "Accept" the Word of God when it says "There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath Rest for the People of God" Heb 4

That is what the Bible says. We all accept that Bob. We don't all accept your spin on it. The rest spoken of there ultimately is heaven. The context in the first part of the chapter refers to the nation of Israel in the Promised Land. Even when they entered the Promised Land they did not find rest, not even on the Sabbath.
Only a believer in Christ can find rest. The law never brought Israel rest. Christ is a picture of the rest that is to come. He (in picture) is our rest or Sabbath. The perfect rest for the believer will be in Heaven, but until that time, we rest in the Lord.

#7. They would accept the Word of God as they witness the 4th commandment language AGAIN in Rev 14:7 at the end of time.

Are you serious here? What does Rev.14:7 have to do with keeping the Sabbath, unless you are reading to much of Ellen G. White.

Revelation 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

We are to fear and worship God, and God alone. The judgement of the Antichrist is drawing near (at this time in Rev.14). It has nothing to do with the Sabbath.

Please read Exodus chapter 31. The Sabbath Day was given as a sign to the nation of Israel. It was between them and Jehovah for their generations forever--a sign of the covenant between Israel and Jehovah. It was never meant for any Gentile, Christian, or the church. It is a sign between God and the Israelite. Please acquaint yourself with Exodus 31.

Exodus 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

What tribe do you belong to Bob?

We accept all those texts--in their proper context, without any preconceived ideas attached to them.
DHK

 

I haven't put any words in his mouth.

Well batton down the hatches folks, he's called in reinforcements!!!

Not trying to prove he believes that. I know DHK too, I've been arguing with him for over a year. I never said he believes it. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you did; check some of your earlier posts. Or should I quote them for you. You have said that he believes it and you have said that he said it. I read it with my own four eyes.

Obviously, he doesn't. Only a complete moron would miss that.

Well, let's see, since I never said he BELIEVED it, it's really not my problem to try and prove to you that he said it, now is it? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it is your problem to prove it, because [gasp] you made the accusation. Besides, he doesn't have to prove something he never said, even though he has been kind enough to tell you over and over again that he doesn't believe such a thing. So why do you keep on this little hobby horse of yours? It's better just to drop it; he said he doesn't believe that Jesus was created.

Now we are getting somewhere. For a minute there are I was wondering if you were even reading this thread at all!

Which accusation would that be?

The one that doesn't exist?

Do they have a court of law for that?

For the imaginary crimes committed on Message Boards on the internet?

I bet DHK has a commentary about it, why don't you ask him </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the accusation does exist. I have read it several times. If you like, I'll even quote them out for you, tell which page I read it on, all that stuff. And whether you like it or not, you and everyone else (including me) who post on this board are being judged. So, if you're going to say that someone believes something or has said something, you really need to have some evidence. The evidence in this post has been clear: DHK denies that he believes that Jesus was created. (I can quote that, too.)

 

And no, you don't know DHK; I've known him for over 20 years. One year is not long enough to say you know him. </font>[/QUOTE]Yup that's what I said, didn't quote him, didn't say 'you said'. So my last post still stands.

I feel sorry for you that you've had to be around him for 20 years, but none the less, discussing doctrine for over a hear does give me liberty to say I know him.

But since you say I don't I think I'll cry myself to sleep tonight.

</font>[/QUOTE] Don't feel sorry for me; I don't. Oh, and it's obvious you don't know DHK; you still think that he believes Jesus was created.

 

Greetings, to all!!

For all those of you who believe that sunday worship is the way to go, here's a site where you can make a quick $1,000, if you can give him the right answer.

www.abundantrest.org

Go see what the question is and see if you can answer it!!!

Tam,

 

DHK -- said

I for one am happy to see somone other than a Sabbath keeper post in favor of the ONE Gospel of Gal 1:6-11. Several have come out strongly in favor of "more than one" on this board and it "appears" that Sabbath keeping Christians are the only ones to challeng them on that.

Happy to have someone else willing to "stand up and be counted" on that point.

DHK said Yes Christ said that. He said it before He died on the cross during the age of the Law when the Sabbath was still in effect. He was also speaking to Jews at the time.

Ahhh - there comes that "other gospel" sneaking back in on someone that "said" he only believed in "one".

However - DHK - you seem to be saying that the Words of Christ either don't apply to you - are they are no longer true. But surely you would admit that IF it was true then - that the "Sabbath was made for MANKIND" then MANKIND was obligated to obey rather than rebel against Christ the Creator's Holy day "made FOR mankind".

Yes? Was that what "mankind" was supposed to do "back then in that other gospel?".

If so - is mankind now free to rebell against Christ the Creator's Holy day made "For Mankind"?

DHK said That is true, and it is also in future tense, not in present tense. That day is still coming. It will come in the Millennial reign of Christ

Agreed - the "New Earth" doctrine introduced in Isaiah 66 refers to the events of Rev 21 and the "New Earth" we see further defined there. It is future. The Sabbath BEGAN as created by Christ the Creator "for mankind" and in the New Earth it continues to be honored by "all mankind" for "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL Mankind come before Me to Worship" Is 66.

And as you point out - even in John 14:15 when Christ said "if you Love Me keep My Commandments" quoting the 3rd commandment - it was before the cross and He was speaking to Hiw "own" - followers among the Jews.

But - if that is simply "another Gospel" one that we don't have to worry about in the church-age-Gospel time then we could ignore it..

As DHK says , and has nothing to do with this present church age whatsoever.

"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God"Rom 3:31

So instead of a "church ages that ignores and abolishes" God's Law in a new kind of church-age-gospel. It is ONE Gospel and the SAME obligation to "MY commandments" as shown in Exodus 20 (3rd commandment vs 7) and in John 14:15 among Chris's followers - continues in the "ONE" Gospel model EVEN into the New Earth.

#4. They would accept the Word of God when Christ the Creator quotes the 3rd commandment saying "IF you Love Me Keep My Commandments".

As it turns out Christ is the "I AM" of the OT - (see John 8) so when He speaks from Sinai - Christ the Creator says...

</font>[/QUOTE]

DHK said --
When Jesus said to keep his commandments He never mentioned the Sabbath Day,

Not true. He was on commandment number 3 - and number 4 was coming up next.

In John 14:15 when "Again" He says those same words spoken in Exodus 20:6 - it is pre-cross to Jewish Followers. They "would" know a quote of the 3rd commandment when they heard it - and "yes" they knew what the commandments were.

So you are "now claiming" that "obedience to God" was "discouraged" before the Cross - by Christ - speaking to His Jewish followers?

Even worse - you are claiming that whatever commandments are not listed - pre-cross are "abolished" and so - in your view - the Sabbath ends even in Malachi.

Even worse -- there is no such "Rule" in all of scripture as "when God's Law is not fully repeated in a given book - it is deleted" the "Not-repeated, then-deleted" crowd would love to hear your willinginess to "Delete the Laws of God" pre-cross, for The Jews - in the Gospels.

"IF anyhtinng" DHK says that obedience to Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day - memorial of His creative act - the day made "For mankind" was "discouraged" even before the cross in John 14!!.


#5. They would accept the Word of God when He asks us to consider "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In factd we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31

Hey wait a minute! We are agreeing. What's up with that?

Hey wait a minute! We are agreeing 'again'. What's up with that?

The ONE Gospel fully functioning in both OT and NT did not "Die in the OT each time someone obeyed Christ the Creator and entered into the blessing of the Sabbath made FOR mankind" as many have supposed.

So Paul points out that the FAITHFUL are not finding ways to "Abolish God's LAW" as if THAT is the secret to salvation. Rather Paul is attacking those who make that claim. Paul is saying that the FAITHFUL are the only ones actually HONORING and OBEYING God's Law for "It is not longer I who live but CHRIST that LIVES in ME"[b/] Gal 2:20

So Paul asks the pointed question "in that context" "Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God"Rom 3:31

DHK said Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. --No matter who we are, we are justified by faith.

And so... we agree again!



Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God

So far so good DHK.

Happy to see this much "agreement".

When the Law says that mankind is to continue to keep Christ the Creator's Seventh-day as a continued "blessing" made "FOR mankind" - the Gospel is the only way to "keep the day Holy" for we ourselves are sanctified and set apart for obedience to Christ - not rebellion.

The same is true with Lev 19:18 loving our Neighbor

The same is true with Deut 6:5 Love God with all our heart.

The same is true with Exodus 20:12 Honoring our parents.

Real obedience to the Real law of God because "It is no longer I who Live but Christ that lives IN Me and the LIFE I LIVE in the Flesh I LIVE by faith in the Son of God"

So that anyone who "Says he has come to know Him and yet does NOT keep His commandments" is a liar. 1John 2:4

In fact John calls us to "observe" those who walk in rebellion against Chris the Creator - ..

DHK Said

All True DHK.

We agree "more".

Yes indeed - the demand that we suffer and die - the second death is MET - because Christ did that for us - in our place He paid our debt for sin.

But more than that - He makes us into a "New Creation" with "The LAW of God written on the heart" Heb 8 - in fact on the "Tablets of the Human heart" 2Cor 3:3.

And so by the Spirit we put to death the deeds of the flesh (Rom 8) and we LOVE Christ and we KEEP His pre-cross COMMANDMENTS for "Christ is the SAME yesterday today and forever" Heb 13:8

The Establishing rather than Abolishing comes in the form of PAYING the debt the LAW demands AND walking in harmony and obedience to the LAW of God - rather than in Rebellion against it.

Having all this in agreement - was more than I could have asked.

In Christ,

Bob

[ January 21, 2004, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

No there are only 12 tribes, unless you are referring to the heresy of replacement theology. Israel will always be Israel, distinct and separate from the Gentiles. Paul says very definitively that there are three groups of individuals in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Which are you: an unsaved Jew, an unsaved Gentile, or a Christian. A Gentile leaves his pagan background and becomes a Christian when he gets saved. A Jew leaves his Judaism and becomes a Christian when he gets saved. This how the Church of God exists. It is composed only of saved individuals whether they have backgrounds that are Jewish or that are pagan. We are one in Christ.

However, just as there remains in this world today pagans; there remains in this world the nation of Israel. Until Christ comes we are obligated not only to pray for the nation of Israel but to witness to them and try to win them to the Lord.

Some day they, as a nation, will turn to the Lord and be saved (Rom.11:26). This will happen at the Second Coming of Christ, at the end of the Tribulation Period, also called Jacob's Trouble.
To say that the nation of Israel does not exist is to close your eyes to all of history, and the current events that flash by on your TV screen. God promised the Jews the promised land of palestine, that someday they will occupy peacefully. That promise has not been fulfilled yet. But when Christ come, it will be fulfilled when He sets up his Millennial reign. Israel still exists. The church in no way has replaced it.
There are and will be 12 tribes. No Gentile can claim to be one of those tribes, or an extension thereof.
Or, have you converted to Judaism, rather than Christianity?
DHK

 

Yep, too much agreement. I'll have to sort through what we don't agree on. But it will take me some time. I am sure there will be plenty enough though.
DHK

 

And they also had ceremonies attached to them. That is what is meant when "new moon" is referred to. just like "from sabbath to sabbath" refers to a certain practice done on a regular basis. --unless you want to suggest "from sabbath to sabbath" also only marks the keeping of time, which you go against your argument.

But you're using this as proof it is mandatory now.

I meant the millennial and/or eternal Kingdom, finally established on earth, that the passage is speaking of. Yes, God may have planned for their to be a New Covenant, but still, as He worked in time with Israel, it was based on the premise that that would be the lasting covenant. Of course, God was writing the lesson in history that Christ and His New Covenant was necessary.

Not as a "commandment". Torah scholars, like they have done with the 613 laws of Moses, have compiled the Noahide laws. (see www.noahide.com/7laws.htm). these are the laws we see God expecting man to follow from the beginning (against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual perversion, eating live meat/blood and the mandate to establish courts of justice). Some of these are the same as the 10 commandments.

Also, they are the laws on man's conscience. Man knows (as we see beginning with Cain, and including those who reject God) that these things are wrong. Not so with the Sabbath. It is not a universal law.

But if He's not commanding it now, then it is not the same as "ignoring" all the others.

Once again, not commanded then. You have to PROVE that first, not assume it and then use it as proof itself.

So does that mean we are supposed to participate in Temple rituals like He did? Those were "commandments" as well. The universal laws mentioned fulfill the two. The 10--&gt;613 was a temporary addition (because of sin--breaking the 7 we had before that), until Christ came.

This is such non-sequitur logic. Once again, you ARE setting church practice based on what you read in Isaiah about the New Heavens.

The universal laws, that is. And when people broke them, God was angry, and we see an issue made of it. The sabbath was not apart of "the Law" until Israel. You're taking your assumtion that the Sabbath was always mandated to "the faithful" to prove that wherever you see "the faithful", means it was kept. That is a cyclical argument.

"Mixed up"? Are we buying into modern scholarship that claims it is all mixed up between "J" and "E" accounts that who-knows-who wrote, and then men put it all together and claimed it was divine revelation?

Once again, you're arguing based on a prior assumption. Did God "need" to mention that murder was wrong, or idolatry? No, but whatever man did was recorded, and God's anger regarding the commandments that were binding on man at the time, all of which they broke. If the sabbath was so universal, and in fact the most important thing, as ome seem to make it out to be, tyou would see it mentioned more than anything else. And it being the first thing commanded to Israel says nothing of this either. Remember, it was to give them their identity, so in beginning to establish the newly freed Israel's identity, He gave it to them early.

I didn't say they forgot God. What I meant, was it was commanded as a binding set of restrictions, to enforce them coming together, worshipping, thinking about God, and not their own pursuits. Today we live by the Spirit, who keeps us focused like that. The Law was a "schoolmaster".

You're not keeping all of the sacrifices and other temple rituals. That was also "the letter", but Christ fulfilled them, spiritually.

He fulfills us because He gives us "rest" (the root of "unrest" is spiritua;, and we see that "cease from work as He did" is applied to "works" (in justifying onesself), not physical work. That was the "end" or "gaol" the Sabbath was foreshadowing. It was not a universal moral or spiritual law like the others, so you can't compare them just because it was included with them in the 10.

And you ignore where I clarified that this was TYPOLOGY, so you could carry on your accusatory rant. Why be so angry like this? If we are sinning, God will judge us. But if you are wrong that everyone else is sinning while you are keeping "all" of the commandments, then that is a blow to human pride. I used to keep the Sabbath thinking it was commanded for all, and that everyone else was false, and I know the emotional reaction when shown the truth that it does not make one more "obedient" than others.

[ January 22, 2004, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

It is generally accepted that they were written by Moses. The accounts of the Sabbath and clean and unclean were inspired to him, to set the practice for Israel. We cannot say Adam or Noah kept these laws.

God may have sent Noah only two of those animals, but Noah didn't necessarily know why. And in Gen.9:3, you are not one of the creatures mentioned in the previous verse (And "all that moveth on the face of the earth" is in the Leviticus unclean list used to represent animals!)

Still, you have to prove that the sabbath is still binding on all (NOW, not in the future Heaven), in order to say that not keeping it will be "sin", or the sin of the end-time church, the mark of the beast, etc. All of the NT prophecies go on to describe the actual sins that will be prevalent on earth in the last days, and the sabbath is NEVER such an issue.

Once again, this was conditional on the Old Covenant being in effect. And you had earlier suggested that the priests and Levites of v.21 was before the New Heavens, and did not apply, but that is mentioned after the swines'flesh reference. Clearly, it is all apart of the same scenario. If the sabbath and unclean laws are in effect NOW, because of this, then you should also be keeping temple ritual and new moon ceremonies. Remember, "Not one jot nor tittle" "If you break one..."

It IS commanded "be fruitful and multiply", which is much more of a command than the simple mention of God resting on the sabbath. Not in the 613 commandments, but the argument was on something mentioned at creation before the fall, "made for man" proving it is mandatory for all.

It wasn't commanded for all, or at all times. Now, you take Christ's statement to try to prove it was commanded for all of man, when that was not what He was talking about. Not WHO it was for, as opposed to who it was not for, but whether it was for man, or man was for it. Even you next admit "In fact I know exactly what He was referring to when He said that. People imposing MAN MADE rules on people". Once again, this has nothing to do with all men being commanded it.

You for one, are trying to make it an issue of "obedience" (when the NT does not), thus binding men, as if man really was made for the Sabbath after all (wasn't man made to 'obey' God?). It was an issue of obedience in the OT, but Jesus is setting the principle, not just of eliminating manmade additional rules, but that is is not something to be "binding" on us.

Yes I did address it. You're placing some sort of restriction on God that He must have revealed it from the beginning if He was going to reveal it later, or that he would have to command the sabbath if He revealed the 7 day week to them; else it wouldn't make sense. That's God you're arguing with, not me. As I said, He is free to reveal things when He wants, not when you think in order to maintain your system.

[ January 22, 2004, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

As for this whole Deity of Christ issue, I read the Babylonfallen site 3 Angels linked to somewhere and said it was similar to her beliefs. It is not SDA, and doesn't seem to be an Armstrong offshoot either. Perhaps some other offshoot of the Church of God.
Anyway, there were several antitrinitarian pages, which spelled out their theology.
Basically, they see Christ as "proceeding forth from" God (biblical language) as the "Son of God". "God" to them, they apparently reserve for who trinitarians would call the Person of the Father, so the Son is distinct from "God". (making it look like they deny the Deity of Christ) Yet they do see him as apart of the divine essence (like the trinitarians affirm). I myself at first was reading and thinking "are they Arians or what?", but they condemned Arianism for saying Christ was created as a being separate from the divine nature. Remember, "proceeding forth" in this case does not equal "created", because the divine nature was eternal, and nothing is being "added" to it.
This theology is actually very close to the pre-Nicene orthodox position of Tertullian and others of that era. The difference is that to them, "God" represented the whole Godhead or divine nature, so they would affirm, like the later Nicene Trinitarians, that "Jesus is God".
So no, nobody here believes Christ was created; neither because of His generation from the father, nor because He fulfills the purpose of the Sabbath made for man.

 

Once again, you're just pasting the same already answered and refuted charges. But here's even more if all of that weren't enough.

The more you study this, the more the real meaning of "paratereo" (watch with evil intent) supports what I've been saying, and is a big strike against your view. I don't know why I didn't do this when I first looked it up; but the best way to get the true definition of a Greek word is to see its OTHER uses in scripture. In this one case in Galatians, it is translated "observe". Elsewhere, it is simply "watched".
Mark. 3:2 "they watched him closely, whether he would heal on the sabbath so they could accuse him
Luke 6:7 the scribes and Pharisees watched him closely, whether he would heal on the sabbath so they could find an accusation against him
14:1...as He went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees to eat bread on the the sabbath day, that they watched him closely [once again, to accuse him for healing]
20:20 they watched him, and sent forth spies who pretended to be righteous, that they might sieze on His words, and deliver him to the power and authority of the governor
Acts 9:24 [Now after many days were past, the Jews plotted to kill him]. But their plot became known to Saul. they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

So in all of these cases, it refers to the Jews' plots to kill Jesus, or the newly reformed Paul. (Wow! in most of these cases, it even involves God's Sabbath!) How did they do this, Bob? Oh, let me guess, they hired stargazers, or read a star chart to find/see Jesus or Paul. Or maybe it was a crystal ball, or incantations. After all, "watch with evil intent" can only mean ASTROLOGY and OCCULTISM! Clearly your definition of the term (and any scholars who take this view) falls flat. "In addition to "watch insidiously (evil intent), it also adds "or scrupulously" (strictly, principled, strict regard for what one considers right; moral or ethical standard that acts as a restraining force or inhibits certain actions). The two meanings coincide, because the "evil intent" lied in the strictness in which they kept the days. So all we see here is that they were keeping days, strictly. Factor in the whole context of them "desiring to be under the Law" and the rest of what the letter was dealing with, and no speculation of additional pagan influence of backsliding into it is necessary. Romans 14 instructs us to keep the day unto the Lord if we so choose, and not judge. But the Galatians were going way beyond that. As you said; "these gentiles, these converted pagans – were never Jews". So then, why were they all of a sudden keeping Jewish days like this? Not for any good reason (as in Rom.) So yes, they were different, and that's why one is condemned, and the other appraised. So yes, it is as you said; "The 'OBSERVANCE' is what is condemned". Yeah, the observance, NOT THE DAYS in themselves that were evil. Else, he would have used the other word for "observe", since the day itself is evil, not the "intent" in which they are observing it. In Lev.19, "times" was translated from a word meaning occult practices. It has nothing to do with Galatians, (evan though they are translated similarly in English) and your constant repeating of this shows you cannot refute the facts.
We have spent so much time arguing on this, so it's time to let it go. It just does not mean what you say it does.