GODS 10 COMMANDMENTS

Eric makes the following nonsensical claim..

quote:Bob said (already)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not a credible response to Paul's statement in Romans 8 that THROUGH the Spirit we "put to death the deeds of the flesh" and fulfill the requirements of the law by WALKING as the Spirit directs us.

And then Paul "contrasts" that with those who "DO not submit to the Law of God - neither indeed CAN they do so"Rom 8:7
[/quote]

Eric then "pretends" that "obedience" can only come by "man regenerating himself" in your effort to defend rebellion against the law of God... saying..

This has been repeatedly answered - showing that IN the Romans 8 text no such wild assertion is given any room at all - for it is through the Holy Spirit that the saved saint is "walking" in harmony with the Law of God RATHER than in rebellion against it. Rebellion that is a trait of the wicked according to 1John 2 and Romans 8.

I have addressed the point explicitly and have never made the argument you make above -- so you "make it up".

How does that help you - to simply make up arguments for me?

Particularly when I have shown the solution to your question "repeatedly" it is "never" the one you listed above.

Wrong.

Paul states in Romans 8 that the law IS fulfilled in those who ACTUALLY WALK in the Spirit putting to DEATH the deeds of rebellion against the Law of God - the deeds of the sinful flesh.

John makes the same point in 1John 2 even arguing that those who do not Keep God's Commandments are not truly saved. The notion of "blessed rebellion against the Law of God" is not to be found in all of scripture - yet you are taxing yourself in an effort to defend it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

AS for the Commandments of God being something to "really" keep rather than "pretend keep" or "keep by abolishing" or "keep by ignoring"...

We find ...

Instead of “less obedience” to each commandment of Christ the Creator – God calls for “more”.

Instead of “less obedience” to each commandment of Christ the Creator – God calls for “more”. No wonder Paul says --

So lets see. The law will not change in even the minutest way, till heaven and earth pass. Anyone who breaks the law, and teaches others to do so, will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Thinking about committing sin is now just like actually committing the sin. Ah, the law has been magnified. Christ came and fulfilled the law, observing all of it’s commands, even in thought, not just action.

Yes, lets let the scriptures speak for themselves.

Christ quotes from the 3rd commandment for the statement above.

Christ said that HIS commandment and the Father’s Commandment are one and the same

Notice that John promotes this theme not only with his recording the pre-cross statements of Christ the hCreator – but also the post –cross teaching.

Christ condemns those who would break the Commandments of God for the sake of man-made tradition –

Christ’s followers continue to keep the Sabbath commandment after His command that they should “Love Me and Keep My Commandments” John 14:15 (quoting from the 3rd commandment in Exodus 20)

Why do the Gospel writers take such care to teach us what Christ commanded them?

Notice that John does not try to “divide God” as if God’s commandments are not Christ’s

As for Law and Grace -- Pauls words in Romans 2:13-16 come to mind relative to "justification".

Here the "New Covenant" promise of the "Law written on the heart" is clearly seen.

Is it any wonder that Paul writes

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

And James 2 tells us to live and act as those "Who are to be judged by God's Law of Liberty".

God is not "calling for rebellion against His Law" as many Christians today "suppose".

Nor is He "abolishing His law" so that only the lost are guilty of breaking it - but the saved can freely transgress and in fact are commanded not to regard it at all. Rather God declares that the name of God is profaned among the wicked by the breaking of His law among the saints. (in Romans 2)

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, the details are really really hard to follow when you have 2 or 3 really really long cut and paste posts in a row. Is there any way you can make it simpler for us?

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We "already had this conversation" and I pointed out that the text of Heb 10 SHOWS the animal sacrifices to be complete and ended.

Your idea of "being confused on that point if I have to Honor Christ the Creators Gen 2:3 Holy Day" does not negate the clear fact that we can all read Hebrews 10 and see that the sacrifices ended. (IT just isnt that hard to see from the text).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is wrong. Obviously "you have no Heb 10" (or similar text for Hebrews 10) saying that "Christ died and put an end to His own Holy day".

You Have no Heb 10 saying "Christ died so mankind could eat pigs".

Lacking that "key text" - you "pretend" that JUST as we DO have Heb 10 saying that Christ "PUT A STOP" to the sacrifices of animals (after making a 2 chapter argument for the comparison of animal sacrifices to the sacrifice of Christ) -- so you claim you DO have such a 3 chapter argument or EVEN a one chapter statement "That Christ put a STOP to His own Holy day MADE for MANKIND".

Instead of "having that" all you have is that in the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Is 66.

(This post is a little shorter -for those who pretend they can not "read" longer posts. I hope that helps.)

In Christ,

Bob

 

A big thumbs up to you Bob Ryan on the "lengthy' post.

I took time to reaf it, and I agree with it whole heartedly.

If some don't understand it, well_ _ _ you need to really pray that God will remove the scales from your eyes that you might see the truth!!

I'm not trying to be ugly, I just really worry about some of you, who want to pick and choose what scripture they want to be true.

Tam,

 

Tamborine Lady --

Glad you enjoyed the posts.

The Bible is really pretty direct on this topic so it makes it easy.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Tam,

You said:
"I took time to reaf it, and I agree with it whole heartedly."

Do you realize that the emphasis was on "Obeying the Sabbath"? Do you still agree?


Singer

 

I didn't say you said that. What I said is that Sabbathkeepers often claim the rest of the church/world ignores it because "it doesn't make sense" TO THEM, (why the 7th day and not the first, or why any day at all) and it is true, that for people to reject something God commands because it doesn't make sense to them would be wrong on their part. (many now reject monogamy because it doesn't make sense to them why one should wait and be only with this one person for life). But then here you come trying to prove both the Sabbath and dietary laws (as well as sexual morality) purely in terms of "making sense"; that is having pragmatic "good health effects" as their basis --as if to prove to the unbelieving world that they do "make sense" after all. That is not why God gave either of them, but rather to illustrate spiritual holiness, as both Peter and Paul reused the commandment of meats as I cited above.

Uh, you're the one who asked that question, and I answered it by showing how your interpretation of rom.8 leads to that conclusion.

Still, you're interpreting "walking in the Spirit" as "following the Law of Moses". Paul's whole point contrasts the Spirit with the Law, and shows that the Law is fulfilled that way. It is for the hundredth time, NOT "rebellion" when God is the one who determines that we are not under the Law. This is like you saying we are not required to do sacrifices anymore because Heb.10 says so, and some cult who still believes in them (and there is at least one out there I know of, and a couple that maintain them in certain ceremonies! ) says "oh, so you are taking that scripture wrong; it NEVER means that. Christ fulfilling that part of the Law does not mean rebelling against that part of the Law!".

You say "the SPIRIT in us leads us to actually WALK in harmony with God's Law and put to death the rebellious deeds of the sinful nature" which is true, but you still do not get that this is what takes the place of the Law of Moses. The sabbath and other commands were given to do some of the things the Spirit now does (rest in Christ, focus on God, worship, etc), so once we had the Spirit, we are no longer under that schoolmaster. The purpose of the Spirit is not just to help us keep the OT laws better, because...

This places the "fulfillment" of the Law ON US --on our performance ("walking"). Even with the spirit, we do not keep the Law perfectly; we do not yield to the Spirit always, and we are led to GROW by the Spirit. No one is ever "there". If that's what the "fulfillment" was, we would still be coming up way short of God's perfect requirements! Once again, it is Christ's righteousness imputed to us, that "fulfills" the Law. Those who "walk in the spirit" are the ones who trust Christ, and then the Spirit tells us what to do, and of course, it lines up with the NT scriptures. Those who walk after the flesh, may either "rebel" against the whole law, or on the other extreme, be trying to keep it, thinking they are gaining righteousness and fulfilling God's standard.

On one hand:

Yet you are still saying:

So you try to prove the Sabbath is still in effect because pre-Cross, Christ said the Law will not change in even THE MINUTEST DETAIL, yet later, it is 'Oh wait, the sacrifices are an exception, because I have Hebrews 10, and you don't'. Make up your mind. You are using two contradictory methods of trying to prove the same thing. If the Law would never change as you say, the sacrifices are still in effect, and like me, you should not use Hebrews 10 or any other scripture to justify "rebelling" against the Law. It MUST mean something else-- perhaps pagan sacrifices or something (after all, God did say He 'didn't desire' them); ANYthing other than part of God's "holy and true Law". Or if Hebrews 10 does show that parts of the Law have been superseded, then all of your and Downsville's passages about "the Law", as applying to us, must be understood as NT law, not the OT Law, including its 10 point summary, even though some of them carry over. It HAS changed, and CAN be "fulfilled" without us keeping the physical ritual! With us "doing LESS" and not "MORE".

As for "not having a Hebrews 10", that is not true, because you have been given Romans 14, Col.2:16 and Acts 15 from the beginning, but you only reinterpret them (As I said), and then pretend they do not exist. If you want to interpret the first two as "annual days" (even though there is no such distinction in the first, and both are mentioned in the second), and Acts 15 "well Paul went and had the guy circumcised to please the Jews", then someone can take the same method of interpretation and do away with Heb.10. Actually, it does not even say verbatim "we no longer have to participate in sacrifice rituals"! It shows that "bulls and goats could not take away sins", and that "sacrifice and offering you did not desire", and that Christ's offering was the "once and for all". So by this, it is obvious that we do not keep the ritual any longer. But using your argumentation; "oh, He is condemning what God commanded all the faithful saints in the OT to keep?"; "He commanded to them what He did not desire?"; "If it didn't take away sins now, it still didn't back then, and didn't pre-cross when Christ said 'Keep My Commandments'; but they still had to obey. No change!"; "Christ doesn't take away our sins so we can rebel against/ignore the Law" Or as you just said above: "The Commandments of God and Christ are the same; God is not divided". Even v.9 "he takes away the first that He may establish the second" and v.18 "there is no longer an offering for sin" can be explained away by similar lines of reasoning if one really wanted to. See why all your argumentation ultimately doesn't work? You must stick to one principle, not change as it is convenient to your practice.

[ February 08, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Yes Singer, I know what the post was about. And yes I do still agree!!

Tam,

 

Once again, I'm not pushing or trying to defend a tradition. But your interpretations of scripture are.

Even that, written by the gentile Luke, shows that it was not viewd as something universal, but rather "after the commandment". You never see "He remained faithful to one wife after the commandment"; "He avoided blashpemy, and idols after the commandment", "He honored his parents and was honest and trustoworthy after the commandment". There are universal "commands" which all are expected to follow, and then there are the "commandments" of Moses, which are only observed when one is following the Law of Moses, as these Jews immediately after the Cross, but still before the Resurrection and the falling of the Spirit on the church.

Ad once again, which you have yet to answer, is the sabbath "written in the heart"? Would one of those gentiles who do not have the Law know about and keep by instinct the sabbath? What about all of the millions of Christians since the first century who do not keep the Sabbath, and may never have heard of your arguments? Has the Spirit been telling them to keep it? Does the Spirit even tell you to keep it, rather than you just following the Ten commandments?

No one ever said that is why Christ died. Funny how you would hypothetically reduce all of Christ's work to something like that because you don't like the idea that others eat it and you would not be any better than they. No, Christ did not die just so you could add His work to the OT Law either!

 

yes, that was before the Ten Commandments, but look, it was already mentioned in v.23, for the first time explaining v.5, showing it was not known why twice as much was to be gathered Friday; and this is the first reference ever to any sabbath command. So this does not prove that was always one of His "commandments and laws", but does prove that His commandments and laws change.

Once again, "the Ten Commandments" were the summary of the Law of Moses, not the first 10 of 613, with only the Top Ten carrying over.
God has not been convicting or chastizing anyone, in or out of the faith regarding the sabbath. I once kept it, but found it wasn't a true conviction, but I believed that "we should follow the Ten Commandments" because the Church always talked about it, but I found, wrongly interpreted the fourth as Sunday. So by keeping the 7th day, I was keeping this one commandment that "all those other Churches" were missing, and they were heading for the pit or at least 'deceived", and would have the mark of the beast, etc. Then, I was shown what the entirety of the NT actually taught on it.

 

So I restate what I concuded one of the other threads with (we should really wrap this one up because it is way longer than is usually allowed):

While there is no NT scripture that clearly says "the weekly sabbath is still binding" or "the weekly sabbath is no longer binding", we have to weigh the evidence for both sides. The sabbatarian's main evidence is "it was established at creation", "made for mankind", included in the 10 Commandments, and mentioned in Isaiah as being in the New Heavens. All but "made for mankind' are legitimate, as you have to change the meaning of that phrase to get it to support your view; Christ said "the sabbath was made for man; not man for the sabbath", rather than "the sabbath was made for [all] man; not only some men". But the other three together have a bit more substance.
Still, they do not really equal a command for us today; they are more inferential. The closest they can prove is that the sabbath has some universal significance. That in itself doesn't tell us what to do with it. Especially when you take into consideration the points on the other side, involving New Testament scriptures. Rom. and Col. tell us not to judge over days. This seems clear, yet you have to interpret it as referring to annual days. (But then those who believe the annual days are still in effect have other ways of interpreting them). Col. for one thing distinguishes "feast days" (annual sabbaths) from "the sabbath day". Even in Rom. there is no distinction between which "day" (weekly or annual) that is esteemed above another. You insist that there are, though I do not see it. Hebrews 4 interprets the true "sabbath rest" as a spiritual state we must "strive" to enter it, rather than a physical day of rest. You take it is referring to the physical day, though the context seems to argue otherwise. Then, of course, the Gal.4 debate.
So in all those cases, the evidence seems to weigh on the side of the sabbath not being binding on all. We must interpret the not so clear scriptures in light of clear ones.
Gen.2:3, records the instituting of the sabbath; Exodus 20:8-11 uses that account to establish its significance to the Israelites who were being commanded to "observe" it as a special day, Isaiah says it will be kept in the New Earth, but this possibly could be a conditional picture, as new moons and other facets of Israel are mentioned as well, and In Mark, Jesus simply tells the people that the sabbath was made for man, not made for the sabbath. Then we see gentiles meeting on the Temple in the Sabbath. This too does not prove they, let alone all "kept" it. They met on the day the synagogue or temple had its services. None of these are clear on the sabbath as being binding on all at all times. Only for Israel, or perhaps all in the new Earth. You must put these together and generalize them to conclude "it was always expected of man". But admit, they do not SAY that. Yes, other laws we see enforced or judged before they were recorded as commanded, but the fact that they even have such a first-mentioning is proof enough that God expected them of man, and perhaps they were universal laws. (This is supported by the human consience, which we are told, tells man what is right and condemns or justifies.) This we do not see with the sabbath until Ex.16. So the scriptures you have provided, while some of them being genuine "evidence", are not "clear" PROOF. Yet, there are these NT scriptures that seem to confirm that it was for Israel only, not for the church. These you say are annual days or pagan days. Paul teaches that we live by the spirit of the Law, not the letter, and Jesus had showed us how the spirit of the Law differed somewhat from the letter. Then Hebrews gives us a spiritual application of "sabbath rest". This seemed to echo Jesus' own words in Matt.11:28. You say "but the spirit of the other laws still means that the letter is kept, and they are magnified, not diminished (or "ignored" as you like to put it). But the sacrifices and other temple rituals are, and to you, the annual feast are. So taking Heb.4 in its context would allow for that principle to apply to the sabbath as well. And Col. and Rom. confirm that by telling us not to judge over days.

You say this cannot be, and your basis for that is the four scriptures you have given as proof that the sabbath is universal. So instead of weighing the evidence from both sides, you take your evidence as given clear "proof", and claim to "obliterate' my evidence with it. But both sets of interpretation of various scriptures are on the stand. You can't declare yours proven because we are still in the process of arguing it. I try to prove to you that your interpretations of those scriptures are mistaken first. I try not to say "it is wrong, because these scriptures [which I am using] say this", because you are not convinced that I am interpreting those right. I uses them as evidence, not conclusive proof. Then the debate swings over to the meaning of the scriptures on my side.
From the testimony of history, we see the the earliest Christians understood scripture more the way I do. Some still kept the sabbath, but there was liberty. Some then decided to change it to Sunday, and this eventally became the norm. There was no mass conspiracy that forced a strictly sabbatarian church to become strictly Sunday within a century. This shows there was liberty, though some abused and ultimately violated it to try to force out the Jewish day in favor of their new day.
So while you can have your interpretations of these scriptures, and we can go on forever about it, it seems to me that the evidence weighs in favor of liberty regarding the sabbath in the Church age. This by taking all the scriptures in their contexts, and understanding unclear ones (as far as proving the universality of a command for all men in all times) in light of clearer ones (giving us liberty today). So then by your last scripture, "To him who knows to do right, and does it not, to him it is sin", I cannot say that I know from scripture that the sabbath is still binding; because the evidence of scriptures taken in their context does not support it. You cannot accuse me of "attacking" the "creator's Holy Day", or even "ignoring" it, or "rebelling", or willfully "living in disobedience". If you think it is so important and pleasing to Him, then you can keep it unto the Lord. But you can't judge others on it. But then this right here goes along with what I have been saying regarding Romans and Colossians. So to me, it is unanimous.

Believe me, I have been through the gamut, of quitting jobs over the sabbath; another one took me and gave it to me off, but then got rid of me quicker because it was inconvenient to them. At the same time, I was walking around thinking all other "christians" were living in disobedience and deceived by the antichrist (though it wasn't officially his "mark" yet), and argued with just about very pastor and evangelist I met. I read Walter Martin and other apologists, and dismissed their use of Rom.14 and Col.2:16 looking for a valid answer (Armstrong said they referred to "fast days", and I just bought that) But when one evangelist really expounded upon Galatians, then then Romans, Col. and Heb4 in light of that, it was clear the evidence weighed in favor of it not being binding upon all. I could keep it unto the Lord, but man, it would no longer be "fun" thinking I was better than "all those churches" as Armstrong said in his story, that were "wrong". I then learned a valuable lesson regarding the Law and our fallen nature. It was then that I wrote My Sabbath and the Faith of Abraham page, and now, some 15 years later, decided to put it online. So I am defending no "tradition". This is what the acriptural evidence weighs in favor of.

 

Good point Singer. Though you read the post and agree with the use of scripture that it is making - if you step back and observe that it is actually supporting Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 holy day - that might change your view of it. At least be a reason to give it a more careful reading - after all that is a pretty bold step.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric said

No Doubt - "spiritual things are spiritually discerned" as Paul said in 1Cor 2 of ALL of God's Word.

When I argue that Christ the Creator's Holy Day of Gen 2:3 makes "perfect sense" I did not mean to say that the wicked that ALREADY view God's Word as foolishness - would somehow see Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day as "Logical".

Rather I am arguing that the Logic is apparent in both Marriage and Christ the Creator's Holy day of Gen 2:3 for the follower of Christ.

"Reasons" are apparent and obvious in those cases to those who follow Christ - just as in the case of health when it comes to diet - and the Creator of both Food and Digestive systems.

Recall that you were taking a spin off on that point saying that "reason" simply gives the wicked a "way out" of honoring God's Word as they find "other reasons" to cancel what little "reason" the accept with God's Law.

Well then... agreement we have!

But then you seem to "slip back again"

Eric said

Wrong - God's Word is "not pointless and arbitrary" rather it is "wise and leads to life" because it IS right, it is truth. God is not simply saying arbitrarily "jump off a cliff it will do you some good" as an arbitrary Law of obedience that is "otherwise pointless".

In Christ,

Bob

 

What I was saying was that if those were the only reasons God gave the Law, then the Law is void right there. You counter "well, if they cure one disease, then there are others they miss"/"people die of trichinosis and don't know it" or something like that, but there are people who live to a ripe old age who eat it. Being kosher or vegetarian will not lead to immortality! I also pointed out beef and chicken are said to be more dnagerous than pork now. Shellfish are among the healtiest food. The Law was not given for "health", though it's principles lead to health.

Once again, I never said it was "arbitrary". It is not "health" OR "arbitrary" and no other choice. God's laws were to teach them holiness, as Paul and Peter used the commandments to illustrate.

 

Sort of like "no scripture that says -- the command not to take the Lord's name in vain is not longer binding, and no scripture that says after the Gospels - that taking the Lord's name in vain is still binding".

What we "do know" is that it is a commandment of God and in 1John 2, in Rev 12 in 1John 14:15 we are commanded to Keep God's commandments.

So although it "looks like a real tough puzzle" for some traditions - it is actually very simple.

Ok.

In faovor "Honoring Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day" -- we have.

#1."it was established at creation" as the Creator's Holy day - Gen 2:3 IN FACT it remains to this day the ONLY reason given by God for a 7 day week.

#2. It was "made for mankind" according to Christ the Creator as He tells us in Mark 2:27. Not only "Made for mankind" at the Gen 2:3 "making" but "still binding in that mode" in Mark 2:27 as Christ argued "from that fact" to justify His Mark 2 teaching. 4000 years later.

#3. God included the Gen 2:3 Sabbath in the 10 Commandments, and did so in a way that focused exclusively (read the text) on the Gen 2:3 facts alone.

#4. God declares that EVEN in the New earth - Post OT age - ALL MANKIND observes the day as a day of worship "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship". Isaiah 66.


And on the other side what is the response given by those who choose NOT to honor Christ the Creator's Holy day?

That means that "all but" mark 2:27 and Isiah 66 are "legitimate" in the minds of those who choose not to honor Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 holy day "made for mankind".

That about summs it up.


In an effort to further rationalize your tenuous statement above you have added

So - when we see the "making" of Christ the Creator's Holy day in Gen 2:3 Are proposing that "it is NOT made for mankind"? ( a direct contradiction of the Mark 2:27 text) and then need some "spin doctoring" to get it to come out in favor of your preference?

Are you proposing Adam was a Jew?

Are you proposing that it was MADE in Gen 2:3 - and mankind given a 7 day week - but "kept secret" until the Jews came along?

Are you suggesting that Christ "should have said" it was "MADE for some of mankind"?

Are you suggesting that God Himself is in error when He considers the scope to be "ALL MANKIND" in Isaiah 66?

Should we just "ignore the Word"?


God has placed many different ways - no escaping EVEN to the point of including it as a commandment within the 10 commandments themselves.

Eric said

Again - "that about summs up" the depth of the response to those text.

A lot of "editing" and "deleting" of God's Word would be needed to "pretend" that God does not identify the REST of Gen 2:3 and that God does not identify this as a day of "Worship".

That is "a lot of pretending" needed on the part of those whose traditions choose not to honor Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day.


Eric said

Indeed - Matt 7 Christ tells His pre-cross Jewish followers it is "wrong to judge others" and this is in FULL harmony with the obligation of the Sabbath that "even your view" can not deny for them.

Romans 14 makes no mention of the Sabbath at all.

It speaks of "Some who OBSERVE one day ABOVE another while others OBSERVE all the days" given to the Jews.

Your "rework" has suggested that maybe they "OBSERVED" all days given to the pagans or "ALL DAYS" given to some group other than Jews in God's Word. Sort of an "undefined" vague reference in the model you select.

The problem is that ALL the annual feast days - included annual "sabbaths" and only the annual feast days constituted "Shadows" of the cross.

The Gen 2:3 Holy day of Christ the Creator was made as a memorial pointing back to God as Creator - not FORWARD to God dying for sin. Hence Exodus 20:8-11 specifies no animal sacrifice for the day. UNLIKE the Lev 23 list of annual Sabbaths.

"But this is just the details".

Having said that - the "judging" of Matt 7 pre-cross was still "wrong" in Col 2 "post cross" even for the weekly Sabbath "in both cases".

Hebrews 4 represents the day in a way that applies EQUALLY to OT as well as NT. "No Change".

Hebrews 4 represents the day in a way that applies equally to OT as well as NT. It forces the observation of the fact that there is "No Change".

Instead of saying "It USED to be given by God as just an external act but NOW it is an internal spiritual relationship with God" - the text argues that the same Sabbath principle of all OT saints remains (that would be "all" according to list of Heb 11 not just Jews) is still in play.

The text of Heb 4 does not argue for "a change" it claims that the Sabbath "remains" today as it was in the OT - just as God intended it "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the People of God". It does not say "we now have a NEW kind of Sabbath very different from what God gave in the OT - that one does NOT remain - a NEW one is now instituted".

But those who choose to ignore Christ the Creator’s Gen 2:3 Holy day sometimes ignore this disconfirming aspect of Heb 4 as it does not fit the tradition they have chosen.

Eric said --

Indeed. There it was clearly seen that those who would even dare to "return to paganism" as Paul said "return AGAIN to the weak things of the world" to which the pagans were once enslaved - is "condemend" and judging them is "the rule".

Instead of the Romans 14 argument that "not judging" is the rule - when "Observing" one of God's ordained holy days - Gal 4 shows that "Judging IS the rule" to be followed if one is in fact turning to pagan days.

We saw in the discussion that one example of a pagan system of "days, months, seasons and years" was the cult of the Emperor in Asia - in Galatia.

What a contrast to the "feasts and Sabbaths" -- the annual Sabbaths - of Colossians 2. In every instance of the Annual Sabbaths the rule is "not judging".

But in the case of pagan practices "The rule is judging"

The contrast could not have been more clear.


So in all those cases, the evidence seems to weigh on the side of the sabbath. As can be seen in the review above.

The choice to honor Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day "made for mankind" Mark 2:27 according to the words of Christ - could not be more "clearly" called for.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed "possibly could be".

But why settle for "possibly could be" speculative views - when the text so clearly shows us WHEN Christ the Creator MADE the day Holy and HE Himself says HE made it "For mankind" Mark 2:27.

More than this - it is impossible to escape the scope GOD puts on the day for in the New Earth b"From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship"

Your response has been to deny and obfuscate each part of God's statements on this subject.

"All mankind"? No (you say) I am not really sure it is all mankind.

"New Earth? No. (you say) I am not really sure it is the same new earth.

"Worship"? No. (you say) not really worship as we think of it today - perhaps some unknown idea that we will only understand in heaven. Nothing for us to "do in honoring the day" today.

"There REMAINS a Sabbath rest"? No. (you say) RATHER what WAS in the OT is "abolished" and "NOW we have a NEW kind of Sabbath rest - the old one does NOT remain".

In Acts 13 it is "Sabbath after Sabbath" Bible study meetings EVEN in the case of Jews REJECTING the message -- still the gentiles urge that the message continue "on the next SABBATH" instead of "on week-day one" which would be readily available to them outside of the synagogue.

Eric said --

"All mankind"? No. (you say) not "really ALL mankind".

[/quote] Eric said -- Only for Israel, or perhaps all in the new Earth. You must put these together and generalize them to conclude "it was always expected of man". But admit, they do not SAY that.[/quote]

As in the case of the Trinity - the complete doctrine consists of a number of texts "line upon line" rightly dividing the word of truth. But in fact the "word Trinity" is not found.

So also "substitutionary atonement".

So also many other foundational doctrines of the Bible. The fact that you have to "Read more than one text" and the fact that "God clearly makes this one of mankind's 10 commandments" and the fact that James and Paul quote from that UNIT of 10 showing that "we ARE to be judged by it" - is undeniable.

#1. You argue from "humanism" saying that you will accept a real commandment as long as you imagine mankind could think of it on his own.

#2. But when it comes to Christ the creator's Holy day - you ignore the MAKING of it recorded AS the 7th day of mankind's seven day week. You ignore the explicit commandment God shows it to be - and claim "it is not clear to me".

What dedication Eric.

And even you admit that the Sabbath is in existence BEFORE Exodus 20 -

In "no case" does Jesus show the "spirit of the law" violating the actuall text of the LAW. RATHER all His examples show INCREASED scope and INCREASED obligation - going BEYOND the written text. (read the text of Matt 5-6 for examples).

Correct.

I have shown how your arguments do not stand up to close review of scripture. I have shown that what you claim is unclear and obscure is in fact very clear - even explicit.

You struggled at first to deny that the Sabbath would be kept by all mankind in the New Earth - and then at times seem to yield to the clear statements in God's Word on that point.

Your own argument has crumbled as it has been held up to the light to "see if" it really held up.

Eric -- in every case your argument is from a "maybe possibly could be" and just when you want to claim "there is no commandment" oops - there is.

Just when you want to claim "Sabbath does NOT remain" --- oops - it does "remain" -- no change.

Just when you want to claim "10 commandment unit NOT referenced" - it turns out that both Paul and James do reference it.

Just when you want to claim "for Jews only" God says "ALL mankind".

Just when you want to claim - "day, months, seasons and years" means "sabbaths" it turns out there is no mention at all of Sabbath in the entire book of Galatians=.

Just when you want to claim that Romans 14 and Gal 4 are BOTH addressing those who would "observe the Sabbath" of Christ the Creator - ONE shows that "NO judging is allowe at all" while the other shows that JUDGING is ALWAYS insisted upon. Because ONE is the observing of God's Holy days - in HIS Word while the Gal 4 case is MAN's holy days - paganism -- "always to be judged".

Actually I think you were the first one in this dialogue to claim "That has already been refuted".

No question that the more the system transformed itself into the errors of Catholicism - the practice of Honoring Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day began to fall off. I agree.

But note - that INSTEAD of it being a dotrinal initiative coming out of the Acts 15 Jerusalem headquarters - it is the Jewish Apostles and Christians that are "most noted" in history as still keeping Christ's Holy day. The evolution of the error was from the pagan Christian churches moving INTO the Jewish center of the Christian faith in the NT.

Ignoring the persecution of the Jews by the Romans - and the confusion in Rome of Christianity as being "A sect of Judaism" just as is claimed in the book of ACTs - fully explains what you claim is not found in history.

It is re-assuring that you will accept that approach when it is done in favor of support for your traditions. I am simply urging that it also be used in support of Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day as well.

Indeed you have cast doubt on many direct statements - I fully agree. I also don't claim to know where the Holy Spirit is convicting on one point vs another in your case. But I think that the tactics you have had to use in a number of cases should be sufficient to at least raise a flag of question in your mind. Something to think about.

You freely admit that it is in the 10 commandments, that Christ said (pre-cross) If you love Me keep My commandments (quoting from the 2nd commandment) and that ALL MANKIND is going to be honoring the "From Sabbath to Sabbath" cycle with some kind of worship (as much as you will allow yourself to accept the idea of worship in such a cycle).

So when you argue "Against the commandments" as "The Law abolished" --- you find yourself deep into "double-speak" saying "Well I mean ESTABLISHED but in an ABOLISHED kind of way".

In Christ,

Bob

 

There is no way to "delete the Sabbath" of Christ the Creator from His 10 commandments.

But having said that - we could not argue that those who choose to ignore it are lost or are not Christians. They are simply "wrong" and to the extent that they must turn a blind eye to the text of God's Word, and yet willingly choose to do so -- they are "dangerously wrong".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

You said (concerning the Sabbath):

"But having said that - we could not argue that those who choose to ignore it are lost or are not Christians. They are simply "wrong" and to the extent that they must turn a blind eye to the text of God's Word, and yet willingly choose to do so -- they are "dangerously wrong".

I do not worship or rest on Saturday nor do I belong to the Catholic Church.

Your quote above reminds me of the advice I've received from Catholics who tell me that I turn a blind eye to the "church that Jesus established" and that I am an incomplete christian for my actions. I'm sure they think you and I are "dangerously wrong" in our misconception of what they see as applicable today and they have volumes of historical proof to expose us. The sect I was raised in also thinks I'm "dangerously wrong" in leaving the only way to heaven (their group). A Mormon advisor thinks I'm "dangerously wrong" for turning my back on her church.

I'm glad that "dangerously wrong" people go to heaven on the graces of God through faith or we'd all go to Hell.

Thanks for your input and your faith,

Singer