GODS 10 COMMANDMENTS

Once again, your whole argument rests on defining "made for mankind" as "all men are obligated to observe it". You accuse me of "retranslating"? You are the one reading things into it that are not there, and redefining what is there to match. I don't address the text? I am the one telling you what it does not say, while you steadily jumble them all up into some command for all men that is the point of none of them. You need the text to say "God rested the sabbath day and commanded Adam and all his progeny to do the same", and for Jesus to say "the sabbath is BINDING ON all men, and not Israel only" (but what would that even have to do with the debate He was having with them?)
Then you do the same with my words, with "making it at Exudus 20" . Noody ever said it was made then. It was just commanded then (well, first in ch.16). "commanding" it does not equal "making" it.

 

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In that display of confused logic you argue that GOD can not GIVE a command that BLESSES mankind IF that command obligates mankind to OBEY. Your argument is that mankind is only "blessed by rebellion" or by "humanist traditions" were mankind is free to "make up his own commands".

But in the MAKING of the 7th day of the week that we STILL have to this day - it is not MAN that makes it - it is GOD.

In the MAKING of Christ the Creator's Holy day it is NOT man that "blesses it" and that "sanctifies it" and that "sets it appart" it is Christ the Creator. It is the exact opposite of "humanism".

God "alone" is its author - and in SUBMITTING to Christ the Creator's Holy day - MANKIND is blessed.

Christ points out in Mark 2:27 that it is intended to BLESS mankind and that deeds of mercy and rest and being refreshed are in complete harmony with the day made FOR mankind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In your effort to miss the point - you missed the point so devastating to your case - as you charge to "God" the "commandments of men".

In Mark 2 - the Pharisees are speaking of their OWN commandments being violated and they claim that they have the right to alter the commandment of God - adding their own stipulations such as the one about walking too far - or picking up grain to eat along the way. (none of which is mentioned in God's Word - but those who enjoy attcking Christ the Creator's Holy day - seem to like treating the commands of men as though "they are God").

Christ points out that IT IS STILL good to do that which benefits mankind on Christ the Creator's Holy SINCE from the very beginning it was MADE for mankind and that principle STILL applies - it is STILL made as a blessing FOR mankind - which means that eating food (which is also a blessing for mankind not just Jews) should be allowed on Sabbath JUST as the Disciples were doing it.

It is the CONTINUATION of the Sabbath's INITIAL purspose that is the "point" of Christ's argument.

The very thing "you reject".

Notice how you can't "help" but attribute to the command of God - the errors of man (in your enthusiasm to attack Christ the Creator's Holy day)

Indeed they "could" and they "did"!. They argued that THEIR man-made commands were every bit as binding as Christ the Creator's and could be ADDED without doing damage to the initial command of God.

And you seem to be comfortable with that idea as well - when you consider "what if Christ the Creator's command was STILL BINDING on mankind".

Fascinating -

Indeed - Christ argues that the BLESSING which is the BASIS for the Sabbath was consistent even in the case of David AND in the case of the disciples.

So in this PRE-CROSS example of a time when "even your" truncated view of Christ's Sabbath MUST admit that this is binding on Jews pre-cross - Christ points out the ERROR of the Jews IN a time when the Sabbath is FULLY binding even by your own views.

You appear to be stuck here - again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the sun sets on Friday - my boss may WANT me to "work more" but I am "obligated" to go home and rest and enjoy time with my family and my God.

(Oh how terrible cries the humanist! Obligated!)

When Saturday morning comes I worship and attend church with my family but my boss wants to work overtime, worry, etc. My neighbor wants me to work in the yard and my own projects want me to go to the store and purchase items to continue home improvement. But alas - poor me - I am "obligated instead" to "rest" to enjoy time with my family in worship and mediation and to study the Bible. I am "obligated" to push all the world's pressures aside and enjoy my God without distraction.

Ahhh the day made "FOR MANKIND" how "awful" that Christ the Creator "MADE IT HOLY" and "BLESSED it" and "SANCTIFIED it" so that I am "obligated to honor IT" above all these other pressures - and so I receive the blessing FOR mankind as "awful" as that would be to a humanist way of thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting that you make the same charge against Christ the Creator's Holy day - that Pharoah made against Moses and the Hebrews asking to go and worship God.

How "unnexpected"

Who would have guessed that arguments against Christ the Creator's Holy day - would be so similar to the case in Egypt?

Indeed as God said

So the trichinosis from Pork - was not "theirs" for example. This is why in Lev 11 God says that the distinction is to identify that which is "edible" from that which is "not".

Notice that if my boss was given the argument "well I know you would like me to work on this late this evening - but I traditionally don't do that. I prefer not to. I have whim urging me to take some time with my God and with my family to rest this evening."

Even HE could see the fallacy in such a "basis".

As for God never "inconveniencing humanist plans" notice that on the plains of Dura Daniel's three friends did not have the "option" of saying "HOW inconvenient it might be to get tossed into the fire - lets all tie our shoes when the trumpet blows".

But "as expected" - Eric responds

IF only Daniel's three friends had made that argument!

In any case - humanism is a poor second fiddle.

So... God was in "error"?

Or is this the part where you attribute to God - the humanist-additions of man-made-commands?

Adam was not "Given the Sabbath to lead to Christ" - Rather Christ the Creator Gives Adam the Holy Seventh day made FOR mankind - as a blessing to a pre-sin mankind.

And in the post-sin mankind of the New Earth - once again we see it continues on "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship".

The entire myth that "once you come to Christ HIS Holy day MADE FOR mankind becomes useless" is missing from scripture. RATHER it is "ESTABLISHED" Rom 3:31 and not "Abolished".

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the "Certificate of Debt" as that which is the DEBT that we owe - fully consistent with the Col 2 text about "forgiveness of sins" and totally INCONSISTENT with "obliteragint the holy just and true - SPIRITUAL LAW of God" described in Romans 7.

Totally CONSISTENT with the Isaiah 55 concept of "Taking the stroke for us TO WHOM the stroke was due" and totally INCONSISTENT with "Abolishing the LAW by our faith" Rom 3:31.

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

Actually - Rom 7 says "Is the Law sin? Absolutly not! Rather it is the sinful natur of man - enslaved to sin".

The very thing you would "blame on God" turns out to be - "a flaw in man".

God is the "author of His Law". In Romans 7 Paul says "the Law of God is spiritual but I am carnal sold to sin".

You have twisted that around to "God's Law is what makes us sin" by saying "Law actually made man's rebellion worse"

So let's take the case of Christ the Creator's Holy day- by HAVING it - God did not "make us rebel against it" - however because people DO choose to rebel against it and attack it - they have a need for forgiveness - for a savior. Just as they rebell against Love for God and rebell against Love for their neighbor etc.

These Laws are not "making them wicked" - people are a born with sinful natures - and sin is "Transgression of the Law of God" 1 John 3:4

So in Chapter 8 of Romans Paul shows that those sold into bondage under sin - "DO not submit to the Law of God - neither indeed CAN they do so"Rom 8:7

And in Romans 8 it is "Actualy doing" actually "walking" in harmony and obedience by an act of the Holy Spirit - that is contrasted with the rebellion of those who "do not submit to the Law of God indeed they can not do so".

Romans 8 does not say that the actual text - the actual wording of God's Law was "abolished".

Rather Paul continues to quote the exact wording of the Law of God - not only in Romans 7 but in Romans 13, in Ephesians 6:1-4, etc.

James quotes it - word for word in the examples of it that he gives in James 2.

What you "abolish" the Apostle says "is ESTABLISHCED by our faith RATHER than abolished" Rom 3:31.


The entire point of Romans 8 is life IN HARMONY (in actually WALKING in obedience) to God's Law - fulfilling by actually DOING - that is contrasted to those who "DO not submit to the Law of God - indeed they CAN NOT do so" Rom 8:7

But Eric said

Indeed - the heart set on the sinful nature and without the spirit of God "DOES NOT submit to that Law of God".

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You already admitted that the "commandment" is given BEFORE Exodus 20 in Exodus 16 (at the very least) so your entire effort to discredit the pre-Exodus 20 commandment failed even by your own confession.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have shown that it was MADE FOR MANKIND long before ch 16.

It is "you" that must "assume" that "Adam lived in the dark" - I do not.

And the point of "REMEMBER" shows that it ALREADY existed - as even Exodus 16 shows - it can not be denied.

Gen 2:3 is the very EVENT that the Exodus 20 statement REMINDS them of. Read the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Christ didn't say that David violated only "man's added laws", but rather did what was not lawful to do". Buy you're now saying that "what benefits man" is the criteria. Oh, so "we make up our minds" what not to do on the sabbath, based on what "benefits" or "blesses" us? (Like you accused me of saying regarding which laws are on our conscience today). So then where do we draw the line? You speak of the "initial purpose", which I "reject", but this principle is what I have been saying all along, but you interpreted it as "rebelling against Christ's holy day". Yet you get to pick and choose what is not "beneficial". Fine; that is why Paul tells us he who observes the day, observes it to the Lord, and he who does not (to the extent of the one who does), is not to be judged.

Of course there are times when we must make sacrifices to obey God. But if the sabbath is still yet another one of them (and a big one for certain workers), then is it really something "beneficial", made for us, or is it a burden we are made for, once again? The principle of the NT is that the sabbath is no longer such a burden. The burden of the OT was to remind rebellious unregenerate Israelites of God. We today have His spirit. This is not "rebelling against Christ's hoy day", it is living the very "purpose" of it you spoke of.

If they learned how to cook it properly (like we do today), then they would not get tichinosis (like most people don't today), and then would the Law be void? No, the diseases in that passage are not necessarily physical results from the meat, but rather curses placed on them by God specifically for disobedience, whether they thought the meat, or adultery, or homosexuality, or what ever other sin, was good or not. Not all sins caused disease.
It is so funny that you keep speaking of "humanism" now, but your arguments are purely humanistic. My evolutionist father was one of those who told me when I stopped eating pork "oh, those laws were given because of the diseases". Just like "adultery was forbidden to protect women, and because of the venereal diseases". In other words, it is not really any God demanding holiness, but rather human survival, and survival of the "fittest", and using this God figure to control people. God's laws, when followed, will certainly not go against health, but you cannot argue "health" to promote the perpetuity of laws like this, because then you are playing right into the hands of the naturalistic skeptics. But this pragmatic view of the Law is perhaps one of the reasons why you can't understand the transition to the NT principles and the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

No, more laws/restrictions were added because of sin. Not just man's own additions (which didn't come until later). Yet, they missed the true intent, leading them to add all their own restrictions. They rebelled against the Law at first (as we see in the Law and much of the prophets), then when they saw this only brought curses, they went to the opposite extreme. Either way, they did not get it, and this was the lesson God wrote through them.

You still have not proven Ada

 

Christ didn't say that David violated only "man's added laws", but rather did what was not lawful to do". Buy you're now saying that "what benefits man" is the criteria. Oh, so "we make up our minds" what not to do on the sabbath, based on what "benefits" or "blesses" us? (Like you accused me of saying regarding which laws are on our conscience today). So then where do we draw the line? You speak of the "initial purpose", which I "reject", but this principle is what I have been saying all along, but you interpreted it as "rebelling against Christ's holy day". Yet you get to pick and choose what is not "beneficial". Fine; that is why Paul tells us he who observes the day, observes it to the Lord, and he who does not (to the extent of the one who does), is not to be judged.

Of course there are times when we must make sacrifices to obey God. But if the sabbath is still yet another one of them (and a big one for certain workers), then is it really something "beneficial", made for us, or is it a burden we are made for, once again? The principle of the NT is that the sabbath is no longer such a burden. The burden of the OT was to remind rebellious unregenerate Israelites of God. We today have His spirit. This is not "rebelling against Christ's hoy day", it is living the very "purpose" of it you spoke of.

If they learned how to cook it properly (like we do today), then they would not get tichinosis (like most people don't today), and then would the Law be void? No, the diseases in that passage are not necessarily physical results from the meat, but rather curses placed on them by God specifically for disobedience, whether they thought the meat, or adultery, or homosexuality, or what ever other sin, was good or not. Not all sins caused disease.
It is so funny that you keep speaking of "humanism" now, but your arguments are purely humanistic. My evolutionist father was one of those who told me when I stopped eating pork "oh, those laws were given because of the diseases". Just like "adultery was forbidden to protect women, and because of the venereal diseases". In other words, it is not really any God demanding holiness, but rather human survival, and survival of the "fittest", and using this God figure to control people. God's laws, when followed, will certainly not go against health, but you cannot argue "health" to promote the perpetuity of laws like this, because then you are playing right into the hands of the naturalistic skeptics. But this pragmatic view of the Law is perhaps one of the reasons why you can't understand the transition to the NT principles and the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

No, more laws/restrictions were added because of sin. Not just man's own additions (which didn't come until later). Yet, they missed the true intent, leading them to add all their own restrictions. They rebelled against the Law at first (as we see in the Law and much of the prophets), then when they saw this only brought curses, they went to the opposite extreme. Either way, they did not get it, and this was the lesson God wrote through them.

You still have not proven Adam was "given" the Sabbath. God resting the first sabbath, and "giving" it to man are two different things. And once again, what we will be doing in the New Earth also does not define our practice today.

 

But that's what Paul says, and I also said it was because of man's flaw, the Law was good, but it is us who are carnal, etc. But you must pretend I said it was God's fault.

So basically, man regenerates his own nature by following the Law. So what was the problem before when men had the Law but were still unregenerate? They had the LETTER (flesh), but not the SPIRIT! What chapter 8 says is "What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son...that the righteous requirements of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" (v.3,4) That doesn't mean "OK, your debt is now canceled; you have a clean slate, so now start over and keep all the Laws of the OT, and hopefully, if you do it right this time, you must have been regenerated".
The Law being "established" does not mean we keep all 613 commands of the "text" of the Law. You do not even attempt to do that. So the principle or purpose of the Law is "established" even though we do not physically keep all the laws. This is what you are not understanding.

You're still misinterpreting "made for mankind" as "all mankind is bound", and "remember" meaning "all of mankind knew this from the beginning". You are the one not reading the text, but rather reading things INTO it.

 

Eric said

No matter "what" God Himself says about the "connection between those two things"?

No matter "what" Christ the Creator said about the day being "MADE for mankind"??

In Christ,

Bob
our practice today.

 

#1. The Law does not say that Trichinosis is the only disease it is designed to prevent.

#2. People DO get trichinosis every year AND they die from it in many cases. The "problem" is that trichinosis masks itself as many other things. The way they "Find" it in many cases is in doing the autopsy and examining the muscle tissue.

The idea that you can continually disconnect the Word of God from the obvious meaning - such as the connection between "What is edible" (Lev 11) and "All these diseases" defies reason, science and scripture.

Ever the hopefull optimist Eric.

It is not "all-or-nothing" the diseases were a result of rebellion against God NOT ONLY in diet but in other areas as well.

Your "hope" is that sickness and disease is simply an arbitrary judgment of God - and NOT really the sure result of violating the laws of health set down by the Creator (as logical as that would be).

In the same way - when the Creator SAID that HE made His Holy day FOR mankind - well that can't be right can it? Or if He is right about that - surely He did not actually "Tell" mankind about it - right? What would be the sense in actually "telling" Adam?

Instead as you say - these were just curses - not the sure physical result of eating anything that moves.

Eric said

Surely not eating rats, cats and bats (oh yes and pigs).

Surely not homosexuality or adultery etc..

None of those things could "possibly" cause disease!

I don't know why I didn't see that before.

The fact that God's laws "make sense" and are not "arbitrary" can not be used as an argument "against them" Eric.

In fact - until you know "all the diseases" or "all the negative impact" of rebellion in any given area - you are not wise to toss it out the window.

The fact that we know of SOME ways to keep up the health of prostitutes does not mean "all negative effects of prostitution have been abolished" so now we don't need to worry about that as "a Law of God".

Notice how the humanist reasoning is always to "box God in". He SAID He made the day Holy and FOR mankind - but He could not really have TOLD mankind about that -- could He?

In your view - if the Law of God is purely "arbitrary" then abolishing it in the NT - "leads to no consequence" at all. Then all you have left to do is find a way to define "by Faith We ESTABLISH the Law of God" as being followed with "And by ESTABLISH I mean ABOLISH".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Pharoah complained that Moses' request to "go and worship " was really just "an excuse to get out of work".

Eric makes that claim about honoring Christ the Creator's Holy day -

quote:Bob responds--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting that you make the same charge against Christ the Creator's Holy day - that Pharoah made against Moses and the Hebrews asking to go and worship God.

How "unnexpected"

Who would have guessed that arguments against Christ the Creator's Holy day - would be so similar to the case in Egypt?

As for God never "inconveniencing humanist plans" notice that on the plains of Dura Daniel's three friends did not have the "option" of saying "HOW inconvenient it might be to get tossed into the fire - lets all tie our shoes when the trumpet blows".

IF only Daniel's three friends had made that argument!

In any case - humanism is a poor second fiddle.

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

Eric said

Humanism could not phrase that point any better.

"Mad FOR US" means "Never inconveniences us in a sinful world".

So IF the laws regarding FAMILY are "inconvenient" or require "sacrifice" then is MARRIAGE too - not "made for mankind"?

I guess there is a "way" to view any of God's blessing as "a curse".

He causes the sun to shine on the righteous and the unrighteous - but some people get "sun burned" so is that "really a blessing FOR mankind"?

Some live in the dessert and have no water - is the sun really blessing them?

The Sabbath is "really made FOR mankind" as Christ said in Mark 2:27.

There is no way to "edit" his statement and HE makes the statement PRE-CROSS. In the PRE-CROSS fully "obligated" structure of the law that "Even you" can't deny pre-cross, Christ said that EVEN THEN - the Sabbath was "MADE for mankind".

Your argument appears to be with Christ the Creator on this point.

You appear to argue with Christ the Creator "oh no - not FOR mankind because here we are before the Cross and has Jews we MUST keep Your Holy day. That is a burden to us - not a blessing - so how can you claim it is a blessing.

Only if we can do-as-we-please when it pleases us - is it a true Blessing"

Eric said -

So in your "oh no Christ not a blessing" argument you would also add "In fact You made it to curse us - to remind us that we are rebellious rotten people".

So as you have done with Paul in Rom 3:31 - you now do with Christ in Mark 2:27. He said "The Sabbath was MADE for mankind" and you say "AND by that I mean - MADE to be a BURDEN for mankind so that mankind would see himself as worthless and rebellious".

And to think - I was just reading the Words of Christ as they are in the text - without all that "MADE for mankind - means really that it was made as a BURDEN for mankind until the Cross".

Eric - your arguments appear more like short-sighted "dodges" of the Word of Christ to avoid His Holy day - rather than well thought through positions. Are you sure you are comfortable with all the "details" that refute your position here?

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in Romans 8 it is "Actualy doing" actually "walking" in harmony and obedience by an act of the Holy Spirit - that is contrasted with the rebellion of those who "do not submit to the Law of God indeed they can not do so".
[/quote]


As for the letter of the Law "Done away" - as Eric claimed ... Bob said

 

Happy Sabbath Downsville!

I hope you have wonderful joyful celebration of Christ the Creator's Holy day today. What a blessing to choose to Honor Christ's Holy Day! To enter into His Sanctuary in Time created for mankind in Gen 2:3 as part of our eternal Isaiah 66 Sabbaths in the New Earth -

"Even so Lord Jesus - may Your second coming be soon"

In Christ,

Bob

 

That's right, there's nothing there about Adam, nothing pertaining to the discussion of Christ with the Pharisees about whether the day was made for man, or man for the day, and applying it to the scope of mankind involved. You simply read all that into the text.

Millions of people at pork today and do not get diesases. (I am not one of them, though). The raising of pork has improved to the point where it is now said to be heathier than beef, which many are saying is now dangerous for you. Lamb and veal are much more fattier. Chicken is now the one that you must cook perfectly well, or get even more dangerous diseses. If more people used protection, then all the sexually transmitted diseases would be stopped. But none of this determines whether it is right or wrong. Yes, some of the unclean meats or practices may be unhealthy, but the kosher laws and sexual morality have nothing to do with "health", unless you are a pragmatistic humanist who does does not understand the Holiness God was teaching the people through those laws. (2 Cor.6:17, 1Pet.1:15)

Why the 7th day and not any other day doesn't "make sense", and this is one of the objections you all address alot. This is supposed to be the "test commandment", because to the "human mind" it doesn't make any difference WHICh day is kept, as Armstrong used to say. But it was because God established the day, so your point of laws always "making sense" is counterproductive to your argument.

That would be the logical conclusion of the defenses you are using-- that these laws are only about health. If the health issues could be avoided, then the law would not be needed anymore. But if the Law was given by God regardless, then it doesn't matter whether man finds a way to override the health problem.

Who said anything about "arbitrary"? I've been trying to show you all along that He gave these laws for a spiritual PURPOSE, which is clearly revealed in scripture. If the purpose is fulfilled, then by God's authority, we do not have to keep the letter of that law, and yet the law is "established" in us. You are the one trying to tie God's holy, just law to pragmatic HEALTH instructions in order to try to prove certain commands were "universal" and always in effect. You've thrown out the entire spirit (basis) of the law to try to maintain the letter of some of its commands.

Where does it show up? Not in scripture, but in your interpretation of it. You include the part oabout those who "do not submit to the Law of God". How does one get out of that class, and into those who "walk by the Spirit"? You suggest, essentially", "by keeping the whole law": (in actually WALKING in obedience) to God's Law - fulfilling by actually DOING - that is contrasted to those who "DO not submit to the Law of God . But do you keep the whole law? No. It is our fallen nature Paul is decribing there, that "does not submit to the Law, and CANNOT". So how can one be saved? By faith. Then, we are given the Spirit, who teaches us what to do, and we have the New Testament as our guide. Those who It is not reading the Law of Moses and trying to follow all of its precepts.

And your one-dispensation theory simply pastes Christ onto the Law. Yet, contrary to what you read into scriptures, Abraham, Enoch and those others did not have the Law of Moses. They were justified by faith. With the Law, men continued to be justified by faith, but many, even following the Law to a T, and beyond, did not have faith and were not justified. Accordng to you, they should have been, because it is only "doing" the Law that makes one walking in the Spirit.
Today, rather than just individuals having the Spirit by faith, God pours out His Spirit on the whole body (the Church) and this has taken the place the Law had before.

You simply keep taking your bias that the Law is still in effect in the letter, and that not keeping it is "rebelling" against it, but if it is true that by God's own authority, this law is not binding, then there is no rebellion, except in those who still try to use it to make themselves better than all other believers.

 

You too still take "the Law" as "the Law of Moses except most of the other 603, which we admit do not carry over". "The Law" is whatever God commands for the dispensation He is working in, which nclused universal spiritual principles. In a particular sense, it is the Law of Moses, which were summarized by the 10 Commandments. Once again, before Moses, they had the universal laws, plus certain added ones like sacrifices, but not the whole Ten Commandments. Those who keep more of the Laws than you (annual feasts, circumcision, etc) will say the same things about you.
And now you're suggesting we are not saved, and going to the pit (Hell, which you guys really deny, but use the word now); but Bob has been denying this. Make up your minds! If you think you are saved because you keep this one law you think everyone else is breaking, then salvation is by the works of the Law. (Graven images is one of the universal ones, but I am not RC, so I never said that was OK). But then, are you REALLY keeping all the Law? The Jews thought so, but Jesus showed them that they weren't. And then, yes, if you break one, you've broken them all.

 

Like I addressed in the other thread, because you have a clear scripture saying sacrifices ended, you admit that they are not in effect. But the same principle, which CAN be gelaned from other scriptures, would extend to the sabbath and dietary laws. Only, you reinterpret these scriptures.

Paul does show how the Law was "against us", and that it was our tutor to bring us to Christ. Just like the sacrifices, which you admit were a shadow.

Only to you is it only either a "burden", OR "do as you please", nothing in between. But still, you cannot refute the fact that Christ was speaking of which was made FOR which, not how many were "bound". You are the one taking the meaning of Christ's words and changing it to something He was not even discussing.

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that God's laws "make sense" and are not "arbitrary" can not be used as an argument "against them" Eric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong.

You have not seen a single quote from me saing "Christ the Creator's Holy day does not make sense".

So you seem to "make it up".

Rather - I would argue that like Marriage - Christ the Creator's Holy day makes "perfect sense".

But the all-the-reasons are not immediately known just as today many still die of trichinosis and don't know it until the autopsy shows it. And when we find a way to reduce the risk to that ONE problem - what about the NEXT and the NEXT and the NEXT disease, malady ill-effect? Humanism will continually "pretend" to have found "The last one" and "argue NOW we can rebell without cost" - but I think it is safe to say - "humanism will always be in error on that score".

So also the ALL the benefits of Marriage between one man and one woman and ALL the benefits of Christ the Creator's Holy day - even today ALL the benefits may not be fully fathomed nor ALL the risks in open rebellion against them..

The fact that WE DO see in them strong logical arguments though -- can not be used as an argument AGAINST them as though "Well if I can negate the obvious arguments THEN no other benefit exists and so I can resume Rebellion against God".

Recall -- I am not the one arguing "Sabbath does not make sense".

Rather I argue that God is WISE and that humanism "pretends" to find "ways to abolish God's Law" and find "reasons for NOT needing to honor Christ's Holy day" but "those reasons" are in fact - flawed.

I am arguing the very opposite point that you are claiming.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You're right about that. But you don't believe it because of scripture. You believe it because you accept the oral tradition oozing from the the false prophet Miller, as you already acknowledged that you are a follower of an offshoot of that rotten vine.