GODS 10 COMMANDMENTS

It is mentioned all over as 'blasphemy', and there is no set of passages calling it into question by saying not to judge over it.

So what you're doing is pasting Mark and Isaiah together. One is saying what "all mankind" will do, the other it is something made for mankind as opposed to man being made for it. You still can't change the meaning of one passage because another one uses the same word.

And here's your mangling of the two texts playing itself out.
No, I am not contradicting Mark, because I am not saying man WAS MADE FOR the sabbath. IT does not address "all men"/"some men".
No, adam wasn't a Jew, and he was not given the Law of Moses, either.
The sabbath as a day of worship was not revealed until Moses. You just do not see it there. God rested, but He did not tell everyone else until Moses to rest like He did. It is just not there!

And the 10 commandments were a summary of the Law He gave to Moses, which included the universal precepts that He always expected of men.

Because that's the depth of your exegesis of these texts (pasted together and often changed in meaning)

What editing and deleting? Just read it, and then see God refer back to it to Moses, and the most clear conclusion is that God rested on the day, and when the time was right, He rasied this nation, and gave them a memorial of His act. This says nothing about all the people before that. No, it's editing and ADDING that you are doing! Still just as bad.

And the Sabbath was one of them. But it doesn't specify WHICH day is observed. Suppose one chooses to observe Passover, but not the weekly Sabbath, then. But before you accuse me of changing my position again, if one simply takes the verse for what it says, and not adds their own preconceived ideas, then "one day above another or all days the same" means some keep some or all of the days, and some do not. You have to once again add some distinction that is NOT THERE to try to get the weekly sabbath out of it. But once again, he does not specify that while one day is mandatory, but the other ones are optional. He does not say "annual days" or "feast days" or "days accompanied with a sacrifice" or "days that were not established in Genesis, made for all mankind by Christ in Mark, apart of the Ten commandments, and will be observed in the New Earth". You use those four premises to interpret the text instead of just letting it speak for itself.

But we no longer look backward, but rather forward to the New Creation. And the feast days WERE "sabbaths", not "included" them, except for the week of unleavened bread.

Once again, you mistake the spiritual application discussed here for the physical, and then conclude "no change". But that's the point. the sabbath is being applied spiritually here, and this says that the INTENT of it is "fulfilled" by resting in Christ. It is something we must "strive" to enter in, and the context of "ceasing from our workS", is about trying to justify ourselves, not literally refraining from physical work on a day of the week. Just like there remains a sacrifice for us. We don't do the ritual anyomre,but it has been fulfilled for us. "Yea, we ESTABLISH the Law!" You didn't even address where I discussed that some more.

Then you say

You take Christ's words to say "judging was always wrong, even pre-Cross", but now you see that dyas CAN be judged. Why? for "evil intent"! (Does not say "paganism" here!)

I clearly showed what "observed with evil intent" means (the same as the way the Jews "watched" both Jesus and Paul to "trap" them. You still insist it is paganism, but everything speaks unanimously against this. The context-- "those who desire to be under the law", the Greek meaning of the words and its other uses in scripture. All points to the legalizing of something God now declared there is liberty to. this is the "judging" Paul speaks against in Col. and is itself judged.

 

Because what you are doing is worse than even speculating. You are just adding something that is not there and chaging the meaning of the text to suport it.

Because you are so sure these four passage all total up to a sabbath command for all Christians TODAY, you don't see why those questions can be asked. Once again, you are not weighing evidence, but rather assuming these passages fused together in meaning instead of letting each speak for itself, prove your point. No matter how much wrangling you do, you cannot read a command for us today into this.

The most this proves is that they became accustopmed to meeting that day, or perhaps it was when they knew they could catch Paul who was traveling around. It says NOTHING about them "observing", "resting", making it a command for all, et. Once again, you read into the text. I used to buy this argument, but then had to admit to myself that is twas totally shallow.

Much of the controversy of that doctrine was because of the misunderstood language of the creeds. Before those CATHOLIC creeds, it was even understood a bit differently. But that's a whole other issue. Funny, how I often see Calvinists bringing this point up when trying to justify some of their "inferential" teachings!

Still failing to see that the Ten Commandments were a summary of the 613 that included the universal commands, which thus could be cited, and not "the Top Ten" of the list which carry over. the Bible is much more clear on "substitutionary atonement" than the sabbath being kept in the NT. This is not about which "words and phrases" appear in the text or not.

You keep building your own verbal straw man, which I never said, nor implied. It's NOT "think up on his own", it's what was written in man's conscience (Rom.2:14,15)

"Commandment"? You have yet to show where it was a "commandment" at its making. You take later events-- Israel and the New Earth, plus Christ saying it was mad for man as opposed to manbeing made for it, and read all of that into this. So, no, one is not sure from that. You are forcing this together that do not fit together to form your view. You are not letting each passage speak for itself. Yeah, what dedication to an unbiblical system of eisegesis!

His examples right there didn't, but He later shows gathering ears of grain to feed immediate hunger, and David eating the Showbread, and of course, His sacrifice ending our obligation to bring animal offerings. You point up "man's additions" to the Sabbath, but if you really want to go by the strict letter, plucking grains to eat on the sabbath, did technically violate the letter of the Law. But as He referred to the ox in the ditch, they knew that there were exeptions for the sake of mercy. That is one reason right there why the letter "kills" and "was against us" and was never God's final will.

No, you keep thinking that, but I still maintain what I said before that this might be a conditional view under an eternal Ol Covenant, and never abandoned that possibility. I just allowed you the benefit of the doubt to prove that that still would not prove it is mandatory for today. But give you a benefit, and you try to conclude I have abandoned the argument because it crumbled! You never proved it was not an Old covenent condition.

I remembered afterward your statement on another thread with the Catholics about the Eucharist and baptism that you mentioned "persecuation" as to why the sabbath changed. So to answer that, yes, there may have been persecution over it, but the Church willingly suffered persecuation over so many other issues; so why would they suddenly wholesale do an about face on that one? What we would have had, is some compromise and give in, but many more would still hold on to it.

No, you're the one using tactics in interpreting scripture, and answering my posts. I'm just taking the scriptures for what they say.

I admit what the Scriptures SAY, not what you read into them, all mixed together. There is a big difference. You are arguing against Paul, but of course, you reinterpret him to.

Nobody is. It's the universal commandments and NT practice, in which it is in question.

 

Hey Singer! I finally came back in and read your post. I can say that you and I are alike in a lot of ways.

When I witness I don;t mention days or churches or any of that stuff!

The important thing is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ! Yes I do believe in Sabbath worship, and I also speak in tongues. But getting people to accept Christ as their personal savior is the important thing.

Then I pray for them that the Holy Ghost will lead them and guide them into all truth.

If people ask, I tell them what I believe. But they don't have to believe the same way if they don't want to.

The bible says that each one of us must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Working for Him,

Tam,

 

What you really meant is what you said to Carson, right? If they don't believe the same as you it's because they're close minded and never read the bible!

Wow, just imagine what the world would be like if everyone thought just like you! Wouldn't it be great!

 

Singer said

I don't see where my post above accuses people of being Catholic if they choose to ignore Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy Day.

What am I missing?

I agree -- they would view us as being wrong.

Calvinists would view me as being "wrong" since I am Arminian.

Those who believe in Baptism of infants (Catholics, Lutheran, Presbyterian...) would see me as "wrong" for insisting on the Bible model.

I could give more examples.

However - all that does not mean that Baptism is "not important" or that "Free will" is "not important" or that Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy Day is "not important".

I am sure that a great number of people felt that Noah's big-boat-idea was "Wrong" and I am sure he was open about telling them that their plan for staying out of the boat was "wrong".

In the end it does not really matter what you or I "think is wrong" - the real deal will come down to what actually "is right" vs wrong. In 2Thess 2 we read about "strong delusions" for those who do not "receive a Love of the Truth".

If we each determine to embrace a strong Love of the Truth - then the "Spirit of Truth" and the one Who IS the "Way the Truth and the Life" will be ours - and we will continue that long walk towards "the right" all of our lives.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wow, I've never met a tongues speaking, Sabbath worshipper.......but I do witness just like you do. I would rather not even know a person's church affiliation nor do I ever mention one.
You're right; the person needs to accept the Lord and let the Lord handle it. My strong beliefs have never led me to a church, however.

Singer

 

I take it you do just that with the sacrifices, circumcision, other temple rituals, and if you are an SDA or similar group that keeps only the weekly sabbath, the annual feasts. Even if you try to say "well, there's a scripture (Heb.10, etc) that clearly says they've ended", still, when Christ said not one jot nor tittle would pass from "the Law", that included all of those things, yet we do not keep them today, because Christ has fulfilled them. There is a difference between ceremonial law, and the universal moral and spiritual laws, which are the ones that became greater. It does not say "not one ot nor tittle will pass until heaven and earth pass away". The qualifier is "until all be fulfilled". Nothing will pass away unless it is fulfilled.

And that explains it perfectly. Christ met the requirement of those ceremonial laws. Their full potential was met in His death, and the new life He gives us. They are SATISFIED.

Righteousness was a universal eternal virtue, not a ceremonial law that pointed to something else.

 

Christ did come to fulfill the law perfectly. And even pre-Cross Christ not only perfectly fulfilled but also promoted the Lev 19:18 Law of God "Love your Neighbor as yourself".

He perfectly fulfilled and strongly promoted Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart and soul".

If "fulfill" means "Abolish" - and if "Establish" (Rom 3:31) means "Abolish" then we have some "huge problems".

Fortunately - they do not have that meaning at all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

god didnt have 10 he 13 commandments

if you dont think so read the bible more careful this time

MAN being above god said we thu jesus has 10

god never said 10 he said 13

go count them if you dont count 13 ill tell you them

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric said --
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,

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


:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

bob

good post friend

 

Thank you.

In participating in this detailed discussion on the subject of the Sabbath - I am also refining the statement for the case for Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day in my own PC files.

Here is the summary for the Genesis "commandment"

=============================

Christ the Creator says that His Gen 2:3 Holy day was “made for mankind” Mark 2:27.

However in the traditions of some churches – tradition does not support the idea that Christ the Creator actually “made” His Gen 2:3 Holy day “for mankind” – rather He “made it for Jews only”. Obviously the Mark 2:27 statement of Christ can not go “unchallenged”. It is therefore asserted that in the Gen 2:3 “making” of the Holy Day “for mankind” mankind was “kept in the dark”.

Proof for this is given in the text of Genesis – noting that the “reference” for the Holy Day is in Gen 2:3 but the “detail” is first given in Exodus 20:8-11 – to the Hebrews.

The anti-Sabbath view “needs” Adam to spend his first Sabbath confused about the number of days in a week, alone and in the dark - we have no reason to believe that mankind had that kind of relationship with the Creator before the fall.


This anti-Sabbath “proof” is flawed on a number of counts.

#7. In Exodus 20:8-11 God tells us that the Gen 2:3 facts “alone” are the heart of the case for Christ the Creator’s Holy day. Notice the Logic of God’s statement “FOR IN 6 days the Lord MADE… and Rested the Seventh day…THERFORE the Lord blessed it and made it holy” [/b] gives as the “reason” – the sole reason – the Gen 2:3 facts “alone”.

Those that oppose Christ the Creator’s Holy day argue against that the Gen 2:3 “facts alone” are “insufficient” and “do NOT” conclude any thing of the sort. For them there can be no “THEREFORE the Lord Blessed.. and Made it Holy” based on the Gen 2:3 facts “alone”.
</font>[/QUOTE]In Isaiah 66 Christ the Creator’s Gen 2:3 7th day is one of "worship" for “All mankind”.

In Lev 23 the 7th day Sabbath is one of "Worship" and in Exodus 20 and Gen 2:3 it is one of rest - but specifically and explicitly a "Holy Day" of rest.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, your whole argument still hangs on "made for mankind" meaning "every single man is bound, not only some men", rather that "the Sabbath was made for man, NOt MAN FOR THE SABBATH", then pasting this together with Genesis, Exodus and Isaiah. On that faulty foundation, your whole argument crumbles. Then you come with the hypothetical arguments (they type of thing you are accusing me of), such as "Adam being "kept in the dark", "confused about the 7 day week", "this was not an exhaustive list of everything", etc. When it comes to what God expected of man, He was pretty exhaustive, because it was so serious. We see no commands, not judgment over the breaking of sabbaths and dietary laws, even though the foundations of the later commands may have been there. You are the one who has God "hiding" something, saying that all of this stuff was commanded/expected of man, yet it is not recorded, like every other command. As Paul said, "desiring to be teachers of the law, and they do not understand what they teach". Who would know better about the Law than Jewish scholars (even though they may reject/ignore how it points to Messiah). They claim that there were universal laws back in the days of Noah and Abraham, and that the sabbaths and dietary were given to Israel only. We have a clear command right after the ark that all meat can be eaten, and that is far more clear than your "clean/unclean was mentioned, so then it must have been commanded back then, but not mentioned because this is not an exhaustive list".

God is totally free to reveal something whenever he sees fit, as well as to supersede it with a bigger, more spiritual blessing. He has many mansions for us, etc., but they are in effect, being "hidden" or "kept from" us now, who "only see in a glass darkly". It is amazing how you can make such a statement about what God must do and when.

Downsville, your whole argument is about "the Law = righteousness", but as I keep showing you, you do not keep all of those laws (i.e. the whole Law) that were in effect when those OT scriptures were written. So then, as Paul shows, the righteounsness that is being referred to does not come through the letter of all of those commandments, but rather the spirit. For some (universal moral and spiritual laws), it may may mean the letter plus more. For others (ceremonial), they pointed to spiritual realities in Christ, and are no longer mandatory.

 

True enough.

My understanding of God's Word allows me to simply accept Christ's statement that the Gen 2:3 "making of the Holy Seventh day" was in fact "Making it for Mankind".

Your traditions take the statement "The Sabbath was made for mankind" and changes it to "the Sabbath was made for someone among mankind".

I don't "have" to employ such a tortured edit of the text - my understanding of God's Word does not "need" it - yours obviously does.

In Isaiah 66 when we see "ALL MANKIND" honoring God's Sabbath in the New Earth - it is obviously "consistent" with the GENESIS of the Sabbath - "MADE for Mankind" as I accept the reading of the text of Mark 2:27.

For your view "this is yet another challenge" to be "overcome".

Then in Exodus 20 when God Himself argues that the Gen 2:3 facts "alone" establish the binding nature of Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day - AS a Holy Day - Sanctified, Blessed and MADE -- my view "accepts" those details of the Exodus 20 statement.

In your traditions - it becomes yet "another challenge".

This is repeatedly brought to your attention - why not deal with it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

The first half of that statement is "devestating" to your traditions so you "urge" that it be ignored.

The 2nd half of that statement is "equally devastating" to your views if you were thinking clearly. Christ is arguing that from the very start - in Gen 2:3 it was a blessing FOR mankind. In Mark 2:27 He argues that it is STILL true. (no change).

This means that your vaccuous "blessing without actually honoring Christs day" falls flat. Even in your view - they were "really keeping" the Sabbath in the pre-cross era. If Christ is arguing for continued "blessing" then it was in "real keeping" not in "clearly ignoring" Christ the Creator's Holy day.

Furthermore - in John 4 Christ said "Salvation is of the Jews" - he never says "Salvation is of mankind" as a way to identify "someone in mankind".

Again - your preferences simply get in the way.

Eric said --

So then "the details" of the "Criteria" for "clean vs unclean" ARE recorded "exhaustively" in Gen 6 so that mankind would know which animals to bring in by sevens?

Please - point to the text and Prove your "exhaustive" text assertion.

No text?

I thought not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So - though we can show that Christ said it WAS made "For mankind" and it is stated clearly in Gen 2:3 as BEING the 7th-day of Creation week itself - you are arguing that "since God was not killing Sabbath breakers" it must not have been there?

Do you only "admit" to the Word when you see rebellion against it? This is an "odd" form of "proof".

We have no record of mankind "taking God's Name in Vain" in those pre-flood years - are you saying that was "because God did not care about it"?

What about the "exhaustive text" regarding that matter?

Or do you think that the evil of mankind - so terrible that the earth was destroyed by a flood - did not "Take God's Name in Vain"?

Admit it - your argument is simply grasping at straws.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Argument from Humanism. We deny what Christ said was "made for mankind" but we honor what "mankind dreams up on his own".

Eric said

Laws that God gave or that man "made up"?

Exhaustive laws written out for Noah - distinguishing a clean animal from an unclean so he would knew which one to bring in by "sevens"?

Eric Said --

True enough - but for us to actually benefit from them - we must live in them. Being kept in the dark - and living in mud huts here on earth - is not our way of "benefiting". But in the Garden in Gen 2:3 Mankind received its 7-day week with the 7th day being Christ the Creator's Holy Day.

Nothing "distant" about it -

No need to "presume the dark" for Adam as you do.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, you have 6 of the last 9 posts in this thread. I had a relative who talked to herself. She got help, you can too.

It's interesting that you criticize Eric for reading "possibly could be" into scripture, when Adventist scholars readily admit that investigative judgement is "ain't no way could be" in scripture. I'm all in favor of double standards, don't get me wrong, but don't you think you should hold yourself to the higher one?