protestants in denial

THE CEREMONIAL LAW
AND
THE TWO COVENANTS

The distinction between the Moral law of God (the ten commandments), and the ceremonial law is plain.
Look carefully at the difference in the two. The one with animal sacrifices was nailed to the cross, the other will stand forever.

10 Commandments

1) Is called the "royal law" James 2:8.


2) Was spoken by God.
Deuteronomy 4:12, 13.

3) Was written with the
finger of God. Exodus 31:18.

4) Was placed in the ark.
Exodus 40:20, Hebrew 9:4.

5) Is to "stand forever and ever.
Psalms 111:7, 8.

6) Was not destroyed by Christ.
Matthew 5:17 & 18.

Ceremonial Law

1) Is called the law contained in
ordinances. Ephesians 2:15.

2) Was spoken by Moses.
Leviticus 1:1-3.

3) Was written by Moses in a
book. 2 Chronicles 35:12.

4) Was placed in the side of the
ark. Deuteronomy 31:24-26.

5) Was nailed to the cross.
Colossians 2:14.

6) Was abolished by Christ.
Ephesians 2:15.

The two great commandments are "Love the Lord with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind." The second great commandment is "Love your neighbor as yourself." God's ten commandments are hanging on these two. The first four, on the first table, tell us how to love God with all our heart. (Have no other Gods, not worship images, not take God's name in vain, and remember His Sabbath day to keep it holy). the last six, on the second table deal with loving our neighbor as ourselves. (To honor our parents, not kill, not commit adultery, not steal, not lie, not covet).

THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS

The old covenant was ratified by the blood of animals (Exodus 24:5-8 and Hebrews 9:19,20) and based upon the promises of the people that they would keep God's law.
The new covenant is based on God's promise to write His law in our hearts and it was ratified with the blood of Christ. (Hebrews 8:10 and Jeremiah 31:33, 34).
Hebrews 8:10 — "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people."


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

Claudia Thompson
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.christiangraphics.org

 

In Lev 23 the annual feasts ARE called "Sabbaths".

In Lev 23 the annual feasts ARE centered in animal sacrifices and the NT tells us clearly that these SACRIFICES are shaddows of Christ.

A "clear" example of this is in 1Cor 5 "CHRIST OUR PASSOVER has been slain". This is the SAME author showing the SHADOW "predictive" nature of the annual Sabbaths that are fulfilled in Christ.

Then of course we have the SAME author showing us in Heb 10 that these animal sacrifices that point forward as shaddows to Christ - END at the cross!

This could not be more explicit or more obvious.

By contrast you "need" to insert Christ the Creator's OWN HOLY day created FOR MANKIND and created BEFORE any sin, BEFORE any animal sacrifices BEFORE the need to POINT FORWARD as a shaddow to the cross!!

Having said all that - it is abundantly clear that your "need" to do that outweighs the fact that you have no basis in scripture for doing so.

And that is the "easy part" to see in all of this..

And as Christ points out in Matt 24 - it is also "obvious" and "easy" to see that He predicts for His followers a concern and regard for HIS HOLY Seventh-day memorial of creation (and hence - THE WEEK that continues) for at "least" 40 years after the cross which is AFTER Col 2.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That was a good one. I believe that anti-Sabbath anti-God's-Law position was arguing that the acts of paganism condemned in Gal 4 is actually following God's WORD! The anti-Law view finally got soooo twisted around he took the position that God's WORD is paganism!!

What a historic moment THAT was!

Yes that idea of eating "rats, cats, bats and dogs" that people want to "claim" is blessed at the cross is always a fun one to rehearse - I agree!

Making the cross "all about the right to eat cats, rats, dogs, and bats" is the ultimate trivialization of the substitutionary payment FOR SIN that was given on the cross. It is such a wonder to see people so devoted to ending Christ's Word in the form of His Commands - that they are willing to make the cross all about eating "rats, cats, dogs and bats"!!

I am continually amazed by that!

Thanks for bringing it up again.

#1. You have pointed out NO area where I have changed the text - so you just "make that up".

#2. I have "shown" the shaddow "explanation" that THE AUTHOR of the SAME text gives in HIS OWN writings. You have NOT shown that in the Gen 2:3 text Christ the Creator's "OWN Holy day MEMORIAL looking BACK on creation" was only a SHADDOW predicting a FUTURE sin and salvation related event.

Yet you "pretend" to have done it "anyway". How instructive.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Once a Shaddow meets its antitype - its fulfillment in the cross - (Heb 10 and feasts centered in animal sacrifices for example) it does NOT "come back again".

By "contrast" those "prescriptive laws" are forever.

SO - in Isaiah 66 we see "ALL MANKIND" coming before God in the New Earth and New Heavens "From Sabbath to Sabbath" TO WORSHIP longgggg after the cross.


In Matt 24 Christ calls upon HIS FOLLOWERS (to whom He also said "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments") to PRAY with regard to HIS OWN Holy Sabbath Day for 40 years AFTER the cross which is AFTER those other Sabbaths - those Shaddow Sabbaths are mentioned in Col 2.

It is so obvious and easy to see the Sabbath continue "FOR ALL MANKIND" after the cross that even those who oppose Christ the Creator's own MEMORIAL of LITERAL creation - have to admit the "ALL MANKIND" aspect of the day in Isaiah 66 and in Mark 2:27.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Laws in Leviticus.

Civil laws - End when the Theocracy ends. National laws can not be enforced without national sovereignty.

Health laws - remain in effect.

Ceremonial laws - annual feasts end when the SACRIFICES they center upon are ended - Heb 10:4-9 shows the end of those sacrifices.

Moral laws - continue to show ALL mankind as "sinners" and in need of salvation.

Bottom line... NO LAW is "nailed to the cross" other than the "sacrifices" of the ceremonial law. What IS "nailed to the cross" is our "certificate of debt" (Col 2:14-17 NASB) DEBT still defined by the MORAL LAW!

Hence as Paul said in Romans 3 the LAW of God STILL places ALL MANKIND under sin showing us that EVERY PERSON needs salvation.

IF the LAW had been ended THEN Paul would NOT argue "Do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God!!" Romans 3:31.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You acknowledge the sacrifices ended, yet Paul still said "Do we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God!!"

You have not shown that any of the law was "health".
You have not shown any separation of the weekly sabbath from the annual ones; except that it was mantioned in creation, and Isaiah; and it had been pointed out over and over that the Gospel looks forward to new creation; bot back to the old; and that Isaiah was conditional; as other "ceremonial" laws that you admit were ended are mentioned there.
(Jesus was speaking to Jewish believers then; who would still be keeping the Sabbath during the destruction of Jerusalem, which was a type of the future tribulation)
You just hurl out the same ridiculous statements over and over:
That people are trivializing the Cross to be just about eating rat, cat and bat
That I made God's Law paganism in Gal.4. (This is where you DID change the text to try to make paganism the subject. The fact of the CONTEXT that Paul was speaking to those who "desired to be under the LAW" (not under paganism) you ignored, and just repeated your claims. At least GE, here tries to go to the grammar to prove his reading. And it differs vastly from yours. Once again; who is right?)

Let anyone go back to those discussions and see who had the Biblical facts; and who had proof texts that did not fit; while distorting or ignoring the texts that did pertain. Whose logic was "the dietary laws must be in effect today; because if they aren't; then that just reduces the Cross to eating rats, bats and cats, and therefore trivializes it? No inbetween; it's either those laws are about "health", and are eternal' or the Gospel is just about a "rat sandwich". And you think that logic is proving something scripturally??? All that is is the last cry of someone completely out of arguments. Just say any ridiculous thing that comes to your mind.

All so you don't have to admit that you're no better than anyone else; no more "obedient", not any closer to God than others through the Law.
In fact; you're disobedient, in bearing false witness against (supposedly) your brother, in accusing me of SAYING that God's Word was paganism, and that the Gospel was only about rat, cat and bat. It is a LIE! You cannot find anywhere where I say those things. (What I SAID was that the Law was bondage; similar to paganism; because under either; man was condemned; unable to keep the Law, which is otherwise "good and holy and just". That is NOT the same as "the Law is paganism". I said the meats were not health laws; but spiritual, and we avoid unhealthy food (whether mentioned in Lev. or not), not because of any SPIRITUAL "uncleannes". This has nothing to do with "the Gospel is only about rat sandwich"). You twist my argument (just like the scriptures) to say that to prove your point. So you create a lie--slander--defamation! (I hope you don't ever go to court and argue like this! You'd get yourself into some big trouble!) So you broke one of the Commandments. Your sabbathkeeping will not do you any good; because you broke another commandment; and one which we can find clearly in the NT, and all agree it is sin.

Haven't you heard; "Talk is cheap". You can say anything; but it doesn't prove a single thing from God's Word on its own. It doesn't make sense to resurrect this argument with you here. I'm debating GE now. Why not go back to those old discussions and add something of substance, this time.

[ March 12, 2005, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Because PAUL SAID that the Sacrifices ENDED in Heb 10:4-11 we "know" that the sacrifices ended.

(That "again" is the easy part).

The LAW INTENDED to point to the sacrifice of Christ DID point to the sacrifice of Christ. By showing that the event IT PREDICTS actually DID HAPPEN we are upholding it.

How great THAT contrast with the Law about loving God (Deut 6:5) and the levitical law about loving our neighbor (Lev 19:18).

Prescriptive laws CONTINUE so we see references to the SET of laws in places like James 2, Romans 13 and in Eph 6.

Notice in Eph 6 "Honor your Father and Mother" is the FIRST commandment IN THE SET that has "a promise".

Even the atheists at the CDC can "tell" that laws against eating "rats, cats, dogs and bats" are "health related".

It is amazing to me that Christians will sometimes go to any lengths to pretend not to see what even the atheists can easily see.

I am amazed!

Hmm the WEEK is a WEEK ONLY because of the 7th day.

Hmm the WEEKLY Holy Day was MADE a Holy day in Gen 2:3 at a time when NTHER holy day existed.

Christ's OWN WEEKLY memorial of HIS creative act in creating life on this planet is applied to "ALL MANKIND" and NONE of the others listed in Lev 23 are --

Christ's OWN WEEKLY memorial of HIS creative act in creating life on this planet is in the 10 commandments and NONE of the ANNUAL Sabbaths listed in Lev 23 are included there.

Christ's OWN WEEKLY memorial of HIS creative act in creating life on this planet was spoken directly by God, written with God's own finger and placed INSIDE the ark of the covenent --and NONE of the ANNUAL Sabbaths listed in Lev 23 are included there.

The 10 commandments are given as a single UNIT "And God added no more" in which ONLY Christ's OWN WEEKLY memorial of HIS creative act in creating life on this planet - is mentioned.

Hmmm I "guess" that is your way of seeing "NO distinction".

Who are so blind as those who refuse to see of their own free will?

You should tire of exposing the weaknesses in your own argument as your form of rebuttal to the obvious fact of Christ the Creator's Holy Day.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric admits that Christ the Creator's OWN Holy Dayt - HIS memorial of HIS creative act in making life on planet earth was mantioned in creation, and Isaiah;

But then as Eric casts about him for a way to get out of honoring that day he comes up ...

So it is IN the New heaven and IN the New earth that we see ALL MANKIND coming before God TO WORSHIP from "Sabbath to Sabbath".

The "Seals the deal" for anyone confused on that point.

"Again" you simply highlight the flaw in your own argument as your form of "rejection" of Christ's Holy Day. How come that approach is so attractive to you Eric?

Then you go on to paint yourself into such a small corner - that you are finally reduced to claiming that WE should ignore the Words of Christ to His followers spoken to us - given to us - via the Gospel writer accounts of WHAT Christ taught!!!

EVEN though in Matt 28 Christ said that the Gospel commission is to GO AND TELL others what HE taught - you now are reduced to telling us to IGNORE what Christ taught in the Gospel when speaking to His OWN followers!!

He tells HIS followers "TO PRAY" regarding the Sabbath when that tribulation period should come at the fall of Jerusalem 40 YEARS after the Cross!

Christ instructs HIS OWN followers to have concern for HIS OWN HOLY DAY pre-cross AND also 40 years AFTER the cross.

Is that really so amazing to you???

I just can't believe you go to the lengths you do -- for the sole purpose of violating HIS Holy Day!

What does that get you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Sorry - no changing of the text there. When Paul warns them about returning to paganism - it is pretty obvious.

Here it is "again".

Paul writes to the predominantly Gentile church of Galatia - a church composed primarily of Gentiles saved out of paganism.

It seems “obvious” that Paul would not class the faithful obedience of OT saints (as we see in Heb 11) in the same category as godless paganism ( yet many Christians today still “hope” to find such atrocity in this text). Suppose for a moment that Paul is intending to lump “what was approved of in the saints of the OT along with outright paganism of the gentiles in Galatia before their conversion. What are the options then?

#1. If this is a condemnation of the entire OT period and the NT period after the cross – lumping them all in with pagans and saying of ALL of them “we were under bondage to the elemental things of this world” – then the Approval we see in Heb 11 of those OT saints refutes all such speculative “grouping” with paganism and Paul is made to contradict himself. For paganism is “not pleasing to God” but in Heb 11 we find that the OT saints were “pleasing to God” and gained approval by faith – continuing as examples of faith EVEN to the NT saints. The other problem this poses is that instead of the Law being “spiritual” as Paul said in Romans 7 and instead of it being “holy just and good” it is really just ” the elemental things of this world”

#2. If we ignore the entire OT period and pretend that this “while we were children” statement of Paul “really” only covers a few decades after the cross – then Paul is only lumping post-cross obedience to the Scriptures – the Law of God as given in the OT – along with paganism classing them both as ‘bondage under the weak and elemental things of the World”. But that means that the Acts 21 example of taking a Hebrew “vow” to prove support and endorsement of the OT code was “Paul sinning and in bondage to the elemental things of this world”. It means that the “observing the day” subject of Romans 14 is really all about “paganism” if they are really observing the same OT days in the NT as in the OT. It means Paul was wrong to claim that they were “observing it to the Lord” for in fact they were “observing the elemental things of the World”. Obviously this option is also “refuted”.

Vs 4 “But when the fullness of time came God sent His Son” makes the “time centered options” #1 and #2 bound to just “pre cross” time.

So what is the meaning?
“WE” while “we” were children we were held in bondage (slavery) to the “elemental things of The World” not (of God). This is both Paul and the Gentiles – (Paul as Saul – the lost). The “things of the World” are NOT the “Law that is Spiritual” Romans 7:14. Paul is grouping lost Jews and lost gentiles both under the condemnation of the law of God – both outside the family of God and “needing to be adopted” and both needing a savior “until faith comes” as we see in Gal3 and each then become members of the faithful line of Abraham (as chapter 3 points out).. He is saying “nothing” about the “Spiritual, holy just and true Law of God” being “the elemental things of this world” as may today hope.

Clearly “in the fullness of time” points to the fact of Daniel 9 and Mark 1:15 showing the time of the Messiah’s ministry “The time is fulfilled” Mark 1:15.

Paul makes the argument that instead of Christ coming and “dumping God’s Law so that people would follow a different law” – Christ comes “under the LAW” of God and perfectly complies with it. In fact in Matt 5 Christ condemns anyone who “teaches others” to ignore the Law of God. Certainly something we might expect God to be saying in Gospel as Christ perfectly serving “under the Law” to redeem those who are under the condemnation of the Law discussed in chapter 3.

This is the “conversion” moment – when the lost becomes born again – an adopted child of God. It is a ‘contrast in faith’ between the lost state and the saved stated. It is not a contrast between the saved OT saint and the saved NT saint as many have vainly hoped in recent years.

Clearly Paul addresses the gentile churches in Galatia and mentions that in their lost state - before becoming Christian they were worshipping false gods. The Hebrew nation-church by contrast was established by the one true God of creation who was to send his only son as messiah-Christ-savior was known by the Hebrews and Paul agrees to this in Romans 3:1-3 as well as his reference to Timothy's up-bringing.

Clearly Paul refers to going back to practices of the pagan system - returning to be enslaved by the pagan superstitious practices - again.

1. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) calls obedience to God’s Word – “Slavery”. Yet some Christians today prefer to think of it that way.
2. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) refers to God’s Word as “The weak and elemental things of this World” – yet some Christians do.
3. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) says that the Word of God is “worthless” and “pertaining to that “which by nature is not God”.

Rather – when it comes to abuses of the Word of God – Paul speaks of God’s Word as “Holy Just and Perfect” and as “condemning the sinner” – it is not the Law or the Word of God that he condemns – it is always the sinner that IT condemns. Yet some Christians today – want to so much to abolish Christ the Creator’s Law – that they are willing to turn the text of Gal 4 as it addresses the pagan lifestyle of the gentiles in Galatia and their practices – and attribute to God – the authoring of paganism..

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

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

You have equated the Word of God with "emperor worship" that is being condemned in Gal 4 - and you do this to get God's Word condemned as a "Worthless and elementing thing OF THIS WORLD" for the SOLE purpose of launching an attack on Christ the Creator's OWN Holy Day!

Why do that Eric? Why go to such lengths?!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

At this link

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2920/8.html#000119

You say "again" that the NT Christian does not need to obey the scripture regarding the eating of rats, cats dogs and bats.

Your claim on that thread was that Christ died on the cross and that eliminated the Scripture that speaks against eating rats, cats, dogs and bats.

Then after denying that you consider the paganism condemned in Gal 4 to be the word of God - you add

How instructive.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul probably didn't write Hebrews.

 

Paul "probably"?

So I am guessing that you do not have an eye witness account of Paul writing Hebrews or a video.

Maybe I should have said "God said in the book of Hebrews"...

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul said

But Eric said

Paul said

But Eric said

Paul said --

But Eric said

Paul said

But Eric said

I think I am starting to see a pattern here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Christ - speaking before the cross (which is the worst possible time to speak of God's commandments for some Christians today) - said this..

But Eric said

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I SAID was that the Law was bondage; similar to paganism;

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


God speaks His Law through Moses and says

But Eric said --

The King of the Universe has a Law that is binding -- it defines sin, it describes what righteousness is, it tells us we need to repent and to have the Savior cover us with His blood.

Then under the NEW Covenant the LAW IS WRITTEN on our hearts -

But Eric said --

In Christ,

Bob

 

There were 613 commandments in the Law. You do not keep probably even half of them. If you're going to play this way; then you have to show in the NT where ALL those you do not keep are EXPLICITLY said to be ended.

And what you refuse to understand, is those are NOt "two" out of 613 (2/613), or even two out of ten. The 613 commandments HUNG ON the ten; which in turn HUNG ON those two. Christ says they ARE "the law and the prophets". THIS is what we follow today; not necessarily the letter of all the laws that hung on them. That is why:

You're NOT seeing whole "sets" there! You're seeing aspects of those TWO commandments that are universal.

There may be some "health" benefit to them; but we're talking about God's SPIRITUAL law. And many of those health officials do not say pork is always unhealthy. Shellfish is actually usually considered healthy! These are the meats that are in question; as are what most people in this society eat (but I haven't been!). Byt you keep throwing up rats, cats and bats; something so ridiculous that no one here (on this board) eats; and are nly eaten as delicacies in far away places like China and Haiti; and this originally stemming from severe food shortages. So if you go over there as a missionary; is the first thing you preach to them going to be to accept Christ; or is it going to be to give up their rat cat and bat? We may cringe at that diet; it may not be that healthy; but WE CANNOT SAY THEY ARE BREAKING THE SIRITUAL LAW OF GOD. THEY ARE NOT JEWS UNDER THE OLD COVENANT!!!
But still; you use these sensational claims to prove your point. If you want to go argue against rat, cat and bat as unhealthy food; then go find someone who eats rat, cat and bat. (but once again; don't preach that before preaching Christ!)
This is why debating this stuff with you is so aggrivating!
Meanwhile; there was recently a controversy here in NY with Jews; when it was found that the tap water has microscopic crustaceans in it! I also saw a show on the making of honey. There are tiny BEE parts that wind up left in it! So if you or they think you have been keeping "kosher" all of these years, and this is the necessary "Commandments of God"; then you are condemned byond all hope. Obviously; the purpose of those laws could not literally be absolute purity of the human dietary tract from all but bovines; non-prey birds, fin & scale fish and the grasshopper family.

And the ten hang on the two. Even the ten changed in application as Christ showed on the Mount. You cannot find your categorizations in scripture; of which commandments are eternal. The dietary laws were left off of the 10 and outside the ark too! Oh, but then the criteria changes. It's whatever is universal from Genesis (creation/flood). Then the argument about the ark is unnecessary. And sacrifice goes back to Genesis too; even to the skins God provided Adam and Eve. But then; because you find a scripture that says sacrifices ended... But thren I find two scriptires telling us not to judge each other over sabbaths and dietary laws, and what do you do? Explain them away! --to practices you ignore; so you are protected by the scripture; but you still get to judge those who do not keep days or diets that you do. Wow! I guess God wrote the Bible just to suit you!

Because many of the Jewish believers did continue to observe the Sabbath. Especially; as I have been learning; as long as the Temple stood. So for THEIR sake; HE said pray not that the siege was on the sabbath day. This says nothing of any obligation of all aafterwards.

This is just the point I made (which you quote from me in part--below). The Jews were lost under tha Law; and gentiles under paganism. So you acknowledge then, that Paul COULD be referring to his past life under the Law as "bondage".

But Hebrews were under bondage too, before Christ. For some to go to the gentiles and try to get them to "live like the Jews" would be seen as bringing them BACK under "bondage"; though a different type. Look what Paul says in Acts 15:10; and even to Peter in Gal.2:11-19. And this is the CONTEXT that leads us to chapter 4! All of your lying, twisting rhetoric can not change these simple facts.

And I clearly showed on the other thread that "observed" means "WATCH with EVIL INTENT", and it is the SAME WORD used for when the Pharisees "WATCHED" Jesus and Paul to see if they would break what else; but the Sabbath! It is never used in the NT for pagan "times". You can't always just transfer an English translated word from the Greek NT to the Hebrew OT like that; because the languages are differenf trom each other and from English! You couldn't answer that, but now try to sweep it all under the rug like it's a proven deal that was never answered. Just reiterating this stuf over and over again does not make it any more true. And scholars are wrong too. Do you believe Luther's teaching on the will?

 

Eric pretends that "we need to be confused" about the sacrifices and ceremonies of the OT if we refuse to use his idea of just tossing God's Word out the window (including the Words of Christ pre-cross if we take Eric's view of Matt 24).

But Bob said --

Actually if YOU have a complaint then YOU will have to show that I am not consistent in something - I do not need to show that.

I have already stated stated that the CIVIL LAWS are NOT enforcable without the Theocracy of Israel in place.

(Just stating the obvious)

I have already stated that the Ceremonies that CONSIST of sacrifices are ended when those sacrifices are ended.

(Just stating the obvious)

I have already stated that Christ came to pay for sin NOT to help us eat "rats cats dogs and bats". So "Health" and human biology - "did not change at the cross".

(Just stating the obvious).

The moral code (ten commandments for example) - CONTINUE to be MORAL and "Holy Just and Good" as Paul says.

And that is the summ of all of them. These account for your 613 commands. IF you think otherwise - please show it.

Enjoy.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Don't you just love it when Eric gives only a "snippet quote" where the point is missing??!!

Indeed - "the scriptures" of Christ day consisted of the Law and the Prophets (Sometimes broken down to the Law the Psalms and the Prophets). SCRIPTURE as given by the God who IS LOVE is BASED ON the foundation principle of LOVE for God (Deut 6:5) and Love for our fellow man (Lev 19:18).

Scripture (as it turns out) is not something "to abolish".

And Please note - those commands for Love that were IN THE MOSAIC LAW (please go to those texts and read if you doubt it) and were quoted PRE-CROSS as authorotative - CONTINUE as does SCRIPTURE.

(Just stating the Obvious).

Trying "not to see the obvious" again?

When Paul says it is "THE FIRST commandment with a promise" he is recognize that there exists a SET of commandments IN SCRIPTURE.

(again - just stating the obvious).

The SET where that command is found - is ONE and is well established in SCRIPTURE. It is called IN SCRIPTURE the TEN COMMANDMENTS about which Moses said that "God added NO MORE".

The "set" is explicitly identified IN SCRIPTURE and in Eph 5 Paul makes reference to the SET where the 5th commandment is found. As it turns out he is "right" that is the FIRST commandment in THE set with a promise!

I am enjoying your attempts to turn away from the obvious so far. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to expose your position like that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric then "pretends" that injunctions against touching decaying carcasses and against eating "rats cats dogs and bats" as found in Lev 11 are NOT "Health laws".

To which I responded --

Hmmm - so you are saying that munching on a decaying animal corpse and munching on rat sandwiches "just so happens to be unhealthy" but our Creator God was not trying to address that fact when He talks about "what IS EDIBLE" in Lev 11.

Is there "any limit" to what you will pretend not to get on this particular point Eric?

#1. The chapter on health laws and "what is edible" goes far beyond the list "you" wish to consider (as it turns out).

(Just stating the obvious).

#2. Filter feeders like Shell Fish have about 100 times the concentration of impurities that you find in the water around them. That is one of their primary "functions" in the eco system
of the seas (as it turns out).

However "figuring out all the ways it is unhealthy" was never a pre-req to "obedience" in scripture.

(as it turns out).

If you think that rats are now ok to eat - take it up with God.

IF you think that cross had anything at all to do with shrimp or rats in your food - take it up with God.

Indeed Tai - Vietnam various contries in Asia find these to be very tasty. The fact that you have your treasured list to eat in violation of God's Word on "what is edible" and they have their OWN favored list -- changes nothing.

Either the chapter on Rats, cats, dogs and bats is about "health" or it is not. Either it is CHANGED at the cross or it is not.

The fact that you're interested on in SOME of the violations and not others - changes nothing.

Indeed just because God SAYS not to do it - does not mean we really SHOULD NOT do it!

Indeed just because God SAYS not to commit real literal, physical adultery does not mean we "actually" should not do it - since it is in the SCRIPTURE that some "abolish".

Indeed just because God SAYS not to REALLY, physically, literally EAT rats, cats, dogs and bats does not mean we should actually OBEY - after all that would be bondage!!

Just because God SAYS not to touch the decaying rotting flesh of diseased animals does not MEAN we should ACTUALLY obey - that would be bondage to obedience!

For in Eric's world ONLY JEWS have to "really" OBEY what the word Actually says - everyone else is to "spiritualize it away"!

"Again" you miss the point. The very fact that Christians here DON'T have the "NEED" to argue FOR eating "rats, cats dogs and bats" is the VERY REASON they should NOT be arguing for rebellion against Lev 11. I am trying to make it "easy for you" to get.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric congratulations!! Spoken like a true Pharisee!

They strained the water to filter out the gnats. Christ "PRE-CROSS" condemns them (and your idea above) saying "you strain out the gnat and swallow the camel".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes; everyne follow that link; and see whether or not Bob really proved his viewpoint; or just twisted both me and scripture (like he is doing here!) A perfect example:

A mighty case of "catching" me iun the act of denigrating the Law of God; right? But you didn;t quote the REST of it:

(What I SAID was that the Law was bondage; similar to paganism; BECAUSE under either; man was condemned; unable to keep the Law, which is otherwise "good and holy and just". That is NOT the same as "the Law is paganism".

You can't even quote me right; and you don;t handle scriptural contexts any better! I hope this is not to harsh; but you are shoowing yourself here to be a chromic LIAR. If you were in a court case; and you snipped out little bits of the evidence to make it distort what the other side said or did; you would be guilty of perjury-- tampering with the evidence. I would think that if you were in the Jewish court of the OT and ou did this; you would end up getting stoned. I do not even see how you can dare come around here talking about "Law of God" when you so blatantly trample it under foot like that! You cannot find a single NT scripture saying the Sabbath remains in effect, or breaking it is condemned; yet there are dozens condemning lying; and remember; it is not just fabricating something out of nowhere; but also lies (sins) of "omission"; and omitting part of my statement to make me out to be denigrating the Law is a LIE, and is slanderous!. This is just what the Jews who didn't like Paul's teaching on the Law, were doing to Paul, as he reports in Romans.

Yet on, and on, we get lies and accusations:

[Note: CHrist "commandments" were the TWO after His death. Before His death, His followers were bound to the sacrifices as well; so those would be apart of the "commandments" (not one jot nor tittle) as well!]

Once again; Col. and Rom.14 says DO NO%T JUDGE; let no one JUDGE. You and GE HAVE to change that around, because you are blatantly violating it here. Nobody here is judging you like that. ut you're the ones always doing the judging! So how can you say those passages do not apply to you? You are so busy trying to tell the entire church they are disobedient to this one command that you cannot see you blatant disobedience to the commandments!
The entire purpose and even title of this thread "protestants in denial" is accusatory! "denial" of what? That we're deceived by the Roman Catholic Church in a great Sunday conspiracy!
Well, for such Catholic dupes; we're sure being harder on them than we are on you. They have been barred from using this board to try to indoctrinate people, and several have been banned. Sabbathkeepers, however, are continuing their accusing and attempt to indoctrinate; and perhaps we should start cracking down on it too.
You really should not even be on the internet on the Sabbath! Internet boards are a hobby; and with the time and mental energy it consumes; it definitely is a type of work! The only work allowed oin the sabbath is evangelistic. Now; if your purpose for being here is evengelistic; then you are within God's rules; but outside of this board's rules. (And thus outside God's rules by virtue of not following man's laws that are put in place to keep order, and are thus from God as Paul says).

So either way; you are a lawbreaker, and you need to see yourself as such, instead of judging everyone else.

IT should be so clear how this whole sabbath issue is nothing but carnal pride. You and GE are advocationg the sabbath; but you have disageeements among yourselves; and accuse each other of "having no way out of it"; once again; like this is some trial. GE then says that we do not have to quit our jobs and we can work on the sabbath; so when I say "what is the disagreement, then?" he still maintains his accusations of me teaching lawlessness and "scheming to escape from being convinced of truth", and all that stuff. So what is this about; then? Are you all really keeping a day unto the Lord? Is your sabbath really about service and defvotion to the Lord; or is it just something to prop uo hungry egos looking to be better than others; even when they agree on the sabbath? Do you really think God accepts this; especially when you are more than willing to break other commandments to win the argument?

Just to note; the reason I am so heated now; is because first of all; it was already a stessful debate with GE over the meaning of Col.2:16, with complex Greek grammar appealed to, and accusations sometimes thrown out. Now, Bob has to get invoved, after 2 tiring debates last year; which became cyclical arguments of accusation. Then, all of this is such an insult to the intelligence. Like we are that stupid to be convinced of this stuff using these tactics, and you keep trying it and repeating the same untrue stuff over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. (Just like your "scenario of a mother seeing her child go to Hell" on the Calvinist forum. I'm on your side in that debate, and tfind it annoying! If I were a mod. I'd get tough like Larry and start deleting!) You really thing I or anyone else is dumb enough to think that we are proven wrong on the diet; because we all secretly want rats, cats and bats for food. Or that because I point out that Jews lost under the Law were in bondage (like Paul says); that I'm insulting God's Law.
It's like I do not even know what I say, think or desire. Bob has to tell me that I desire rat sandwiches, and that I think God's law is pagan.

Wow! I guess I really should go and quit my job tomorrow after all! (but at least I can spend all that time on Sat. on the computer!)

"Please forgive me, God, for calling your holy Law bondage or paganism. Please cure me of my morbid cravings for rat, cat, bat; dog, frog and hog!"

Now, are you happy?
This is such a waste of time. It's nice that you have so much time on your hands (esp. on the sabbath day you claim not to work or do any pleasure on!) to pick apart my statments and twist them into your arguments. Maybe you could better use the time on your face before God repenting of your tactics, and asking Him to show you what His Word really teaches; rather than "Desiring to be [a] teacher of the Law and understanding neither what [you] say; nor what [you] affirm (1 Tim.1:7, and note "vain jangling", v.6)