protestants in denial

It was "instruction" to His people; but you have to take it in the context of who those people were, and when it was. It was not just a "preference", but these were Jews who had been keping the Sabbath all of their lives, and Christ is speaking before He died; of course. He was not then going to instruct these people "it won;t matter if your flight is on the sabbath, because it won't be in effect then".
For one thing, the period between Christ's death and the destruction of the Temple was a period of transition. I won't go as far as the preterists in saying that they were not really redeemed yet. But while the temple was standing, there was somewhat of an obligation put on them to keep the Law. You should understand this; after all, it was you who a couple of times cited Paul's instruction for someone to be circumcised and offer a sacrifice in Acts. This would prove what I am saying, not what you're saying.

And you're still putting my statements in your own words and accusing me of stuff I did not SAY.

GE added:

Paul MENTIONS their former practice, to compare it with the new tyoe of bondage they were being brought under. Once again; you cannot take a passage; even a chapter, in isolation. Let's look again at the WHOLE CONTEXT!

2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the
Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
2:4 And that because of false brethren unexpectedly brought in, who came in privately to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into BONDAGE:
2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compell you the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
3:1 O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that all of you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received all of you the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3:3 Are all of you so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are all of you now made perfect by the flesh?
3:4 Have all of you suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
3:5 He therefore that ministers to you the Spirit, and works miracles among you, does he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
3:7 Know all of you therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In you shall all nations be blessed.
3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that
continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. [i.e. keeps sabbaths but not sacrifices; does not keep the rest of the Law ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY]
3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that does them shall live in them.
3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree:
3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man nullifies, or adds thereto.
3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He says not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to your seed, which is Christ.
3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot nullify, that it should make the promise of no effect.
3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
3:19 Wherefore then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
3:22 But the scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
3:25 But after that faith has come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
3:26 For all of you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for all of you are all one in Christ Jesus.
3:29 And if all of you be Christ's, then are all of you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the ELEMENTS of the world:
4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
4:6 And because all of you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,
crying, Abba, Father.
4:7 Wherefore you are no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
4:8 Nevertheless then, when all of you knew not God, all of you did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
4:9 But now, after that all of you have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn all of you again to the weak and beggarly elements, unto which all of you desire again to be in bondage?
4:10 All of you observe days, and months, and times, and years.
4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
(Updated King James Version)

Here, we see the WHOLE THEME is Paul's past under THE LAW, and his current dealings with people trying to bring the gentiles under THE LAW!
This is no discussion ("specifically"; let alone!) of the "paganism" they were once under, before becoming Christians. Paul USES that as a comparison with the bondage they were being brought under.

There is NO MENTION of emperor worship. You cannot just add this to the text.

Both paganism and Judaism had this "formula" as you call it. Just read in the Law the practices of sabbath days, new moons, harvest seasons, and jubilee years! (In fact; we see almost this "formula" in the Col.2:16 passage GE and I were arguing!)

So you need to argue with Paul, instead of with me. Why not accuse him of "teaching God's Law is paganism"; and while you're at it; you might as well just go on and become a modern-day Ebionite!

 

True for paganism; but do you think God accepted the legalistic "worship" of the Judaizers as being genuinely done unto Him?...

...apparently so! But I read all over the OT and NT where God rejects their worship. "IN VAIN do they worship Me" Christ quotes from the OT and applies to His day. They are also said not to know Him. They knew "about" Him; at most. All of this, as Paul explains here and elsewhere; because true knowledgeand worship of God is by faith; not the works of the Law. So while they technically "worshipped God"; they still for all purposes might as well have been worshipping other gods; and were thus in the same state as the pagans who didn't even know ABOUT God; in addition to not knowing Him.

AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! But you keep ignoring this; to cast my argument as "the Law is the problem"; so you can dismiss me on that false ground. But you're not dealing with WHY some were lost while others were seen as worshipping the true God.

It was a problem BEFORE they became Christians. But afterwards, it those Jews who WERE "lost" (not those who truly worshipped God) who were now trying to bring them under THEIR bondage. And bondage is bondage; whichever form it takes.

But they were still considered under "bondage". Acts 15:10, "Now therefore why tempt all of you God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

No; it was their trying to be obedient to it for justification, AFTER they were saved. But "by the works of the Law shall no flesh be saved". so they would be in no better condition that if they had just remained in paganism!
Continuing in Galatians:
4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; [there go any ideas you may have of "flesh" only possibly referring to paganism!] but he of the freewoman was by promise.
4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which genders to BONDAGE, which is Agar.
4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in BONDAGE with her children.
4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, you barren that bear not; break forth and cry, you that travail not: for the desolate has many more children than she which has an husband.
4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. [Once again; Bob AND GE; these are NOT "pagans"!]
4:30 Nevertheless what says the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the
bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. [are you STILL going to say this refers to paganism?]
5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if all of you be CIRCUMSISED, Christ shall profit you nothing.
5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you,whosoever of you are justified by the law; all of you are fallen from grace.

(STILL say that is paganism?)
All of this is so clear, I do not see how a argument like this could even go on for so long. I guess that's why the only recourse is to try to twist my argument into "the Law is paganism/weak elemental things of the world". But then again; argue that with Paul!

 

I'm glad I'm a Baptist and my church NEVER WAS A PART OF "MOTHER ROME". Baptists pre-date Catholics. We go back to John the (guess what) BAPTIST! Catholics go back to the third or fourth century at best.

daktim

 

Interesting. I would question the historicity of your position, dak, but it is a fascinating one...

 

I'm glad I'm a Baptist and my church NEVER WAS A PART OF "MOTHER ROME". Baptists pre-date Catholics. We go back to John the (guess what) BAPTIST! Catholics go back to the third or fourth century at best.

daktim </font>[/QUOTE]I think that is the reason that Chuck Swindoll calls him "John the baptiZER" instead of John the "Baptist".

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jews were NOT LOST "under the scriptures of God".

The Jews were NOT LOST because they worshipped the ONE TRUE GOD!

The Jews prior to Christianity HAD the ONE TRUE scriptures and worshipped the ONE TRUE God and comprised many of the saints of HEB 11. Even Paul himself argues for this in 2Timothy 1 speaking of "his forefathers".

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

The list Paul gives in Heb 11 are OT Jews who are NOT rejected - but ARE accepted and their worhsip IS accepted!

Using the error of some in Mark 7 and paint the entire Jewish people and history - is error.

The idea that Jews are lost because they keep Sabbath is not in Gal4.

The idea that the specific FOCUS on the Galatian problem in vs 8-11 is anything OTHER than the former paganism practiced by the Gentiles - can not proven in scripture -

It is clear - the pagan practices regarding "Those THINGS which are by NATURE not gods at all" in the observance of pagan "days, months, seasons and years" is the problem highlighted in vs 8-11.

Trying to bend it around to point at Jews who keep Sabbath for the ungodly idea that Sabbath might need to be kept - is totally foreign to scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As it turns out "nothing" in Col 2:16 actually "says" - days and months and seasons and years so you are challenged to "insert it" into the text "as if" this is what the problem was. However I am sure with some imagination and effort you may be able to bend Col 2 to your purpose there.

But in the quotes I gave we DO have the EXACT formula - but oh WAIT! - that would be about the ACTUAL problem that the gentile churches DID face regrading emperor worship! The THINGS that are by nature not gods AT ALL.

So obvious - so blatant - so clear - and yet you 'have to turn a blind eye' to it or admit that you see the error you promote.

It is "odd" that you are so quite on the D. L Moody thread I posted here. Are you uncomfortable with the text of his sermon.

A sermon ON this very subject of Sabbath and whether it is "option" or "an elementary thing of this world" or "binding"!

In Christ,

Bob

 

It's very hard to converse with you, Bob Ryan! It seems either I haven't got the brains to make myself clear, or you to grasp what I say.

Quoting you as saying:
"The Bible establishes fact and then builds on it. It does not establish fact and then abolish it."
This is precisely what I said, that the Bible begins at Mt.28:1 and ends with Genesis.

[I did not say Genesis is out, as you assert I said. Ah, hopeless case!]

In any way, what you said in these your words quoted, is just what I have said, in that before in ACT OF GOD in raising Christ from the dead and from the REALM of the dead - that is, from oblivion and hell itself - CREATION had not BEGUN yet. Jesus said, "I, AM, the BEGINNING, and the end."
IN THAT Christ rose from the dead, He FINISHED the works of God as He said He would! Before it: NO reason for Sabbath - Rest - of God had been "established"; NO basis for Sabbath Commandment had been 'created'!
Can't you see? This is URGENT!

 

Quoting Bob Ryan'
"... the book of Matthew which spends most of its time on the teachings of Christ pre-cross."

In Christ, and in God, there is NOTHING "pre-cross". The Lamb of God had been slain before the foundation of the world, it says.
If a mortal may speak like this, I would say that for God there is nothing but present time. And nothing is to God as present - as ever present - as Christ in dying and rising for to save and finish "all the works of God".

 

I agree that this is his focus. The problem is that in the actual text of Gal 4 - Paul switches from the general problem of mankind being lost - to the "specific" issue of the Galatians worshiping false gods and now falling back into the superstition of emperor worship mixing that in with Christianity and basically negating the work of conversion that had been accomplished in them.

IT is fine to point out that all mankind in all groups can be lost if not truly converted - but Paul goes beyond that general idea starting after vs 7

Eric has "hisotrically" been trying to equate the obsrevance of "days, months, seasons" etc with "Sabbath keeping" AS IF the instruction in God's Word about keeping Sabbath is like paganism's "weak and elemental things of THIS World".

He has not been trying to get at the idea of those who keep Sabbath without being Christian so much as getting at the idea of Sabbath ITSELF in his approach to Gal 4 and the "days, seasons, months, years" etc. His argument was that if these gentile Christians were starting to keep Christ the Creator's Holy Memorial of Creation then they are in big trouble!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Affirmative! How nice for once! Yes Bob, you're quite right, and Eric B wrong!

Nevertheless, maybe - just maybe - Eric formed his opinion on impressions he not that long ago might have obtained from SDA writings. SDA's USED to teach that "days, months seasons, years" in Galatians 4 referred to Old Testament 'ceremonial' holy times.
Your own explanation is correct, but are not in agreement with your Church's, and Eric actually reasons from or against the standpoint of your Church.
Be that as it may, your interpretation is watertight and very interesting. You will find that I came to the very same conclusion more than ten years ago, and extensively dealt with this very issue in 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace' (book 4, 'Paul') (www.biblestudents.co.za)

You will especially I believe, find interesting the word 'paratehreoh' - the word Paul uses to describe the superstitious and pagan religious and holy practice of the "observATION" - not 'observance' - of these time-no-gods ("first principles") of the hellenistic world!
No sure, this is a knock-out for the Sundaydarians.
But Eric B is not a Sundaydarian - is plainly is an antinomian, and in that he simply goes against the Faith of the Church General.
I don't think Eric Bolden sees himself much in line with general Christianity himself. I may be wrong, but having conversed with him for so long, and having visited his website, he to me seems not very satisfied with the old time religion.
I hope I'm wrong - and eric B I hope is reading what I say, and pray he will come to the point where he will make his stand for truth and submit to the PRINCIPLE of 'Law' as and for essential Christian Faith.

 

Your error is in your two-gospels. If you would stick with the ONE gospel of Gal 1:6-11 then you would see that the ONE church of Rev 12 is in BOTH OT and NT. The ONE church of Heb 11 and Heb 12 is in BOTH the OT and the NT. The ONE Creator of Gen 1 is the SAME creator in John 1 and the SAME creator in Col 1 and in Romans 1.

Christ the Creator is THE SAME yesterday today and forever.

They are then - ALL Christians which is why in 1Thess 4 we find that ALL saints who have died are called "the DEAD in Christ" and in Rev 20 the FIRST resurrection (which is the 1Thess 4 resurrection) is that of the DEAD in Christ in 1Thess 4 - ALL saints in ALL ages - ALL having faith in the ONE Messiah - the ONE Christ - ALL Christian and ALL saved by the ONE Gospel.

Your Christianity - your Gospel - your Christ starts 4000 years too late for mankind and the sin problem.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Dear Bob Ryan,
Never have I been so FALSELY accused! Not that I care being accused falsely. I mention to show how shallow your thinking goes. You erect windmils then the mighty knight can demolish them to the great astonishment and admiration of poor satchmo.
I'll not go into detail, your remarks are not worth it.

 

I propose, for the sake of clarity and order, we start a new topic to deal with the question of Galations 4:10 in context

See you there!

 

Those Jews were saved in spite of the Lawkeeping, not because of it.

So now, on the flipside; these Jews were lost in spite of the sabbath; not because of it!

Man's keeping of the Law is "The cause" of neither being "saved" nor "lost". Man cannot keep it perfectly, and it is the lack of keeping that makes him lost. As I said' keeping the sabbath, (even adding a whole bunch of restrictions to it!) but then breaking the other comandments still leaves one lost! So no one can be saved by it. It is only by faith.
Now, for the problem of sabbath keeping conflicting with faith; as an example, look back at the last quote I made: 5:2 "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if all of you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you NOTHING.
5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; all of you are fallen from grace."
Is Paul saying people are without Christ for being circumsised? Wow! Most of us today are without hope, then!
No; the issue is the REASON they are circumcized. Once again, is it something by conscience they are doing unto the Lord? Or some other reason like the general health practice it has become today? Or were they trying to justify themselves through the works of the OT Law? The context shows that it is the latter. This just as much "basically negat[es] the work of conversion that had been accomplished in them" (as you put it) just as much, if not even more than some formerly pagan practice.

I give you the entire BODY of the context in the surrounding THREE chapters (a total of 75 verses!); and rather than "proving" it; these four verses wipe all of that away? I guess the argument is between Paul and himself, then! Before you make some claim like this; you have to deal with all the rest of that passage and prove that all those references to Jews trying to get gentiles to live like Jews, and how this was seen as "bondage" somehow has nothing to do with v.8-11. Else; you have just justified ripping those four verses right out of the epistle. They should have been their own separate book, then.
No; the pnly way it fits together is what I have been saying: it is a COMPARISON, that the gentiles allowing themselves to be brought under the bondage of legalistic Judaism would SPIRITUALLY be the same as a return to paganism. Once again; the Jews were NO BETTER (Rom.3:9ff) than anyone else; just because they had Laws that originally came from the true God! (In fact, they were worse off, because "to whom more is given; more is expected"!)

I said "almost". Not "exactly". "...in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or
of the sabbath days...". Here you have two of the four; omitting "years", and "days" represented twice. "years" and "seasons" were probably left off here; because the harvest seasons were once a year; and "sabbath" years of the ground for planting were every 7, and the jubilee was every 50, and would not have been as much of an issue of "judging" from the Jews since these were less frequent occasions that may not have been occurring then.

So still; all of this does prove that not only pagans had "days and months and seasons and years". The fact that the "formulas" were so similar shows a parallel between the state of the Jews and the pagans. Though the Jews' "times" may have been authorized by God; they still had no more merit in salvation than the forbidden practices of the pagans, and could become a stumblingblock or barrier to the freedom they had in Christ; if they were done for the wrong reason; hence "Observe"="watch with evil intent"!

I have not noticed that thread. I am too busy on this thread to notice much else.

[ March 18, 2005, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

No; I got it from the Torah; which includes sacred or at least special/significant "days, months & new moon observation, seasons and years". I would have thought the SDA would say that those were pagan days, as the other sabbathkeepers (such as Armstrongism; which I was more familiar with) teach. But then, the SDA's have been changing some of their doctrines.

Once again; we should have gone to the old thread from last year. There; I showed all the other uses of paratero--"inspect alongside"; or "note insidiously"; which is also translated "WATCHED" in Mk.3:2, Luke 6:7, 14:1, 20:20; Acts 9:24. NONE of these have anything to do with "pagan no-gods" or the emperor. (But most do involve the sabbath, though indirectly, and all involve the Jews!)
So sorry; you can't just take the statement "observe days, months, seasons and years" and just move it over to the pagans just be3cause they have similar practices; when neither the context, not even the word used fits.

"Antinomian" (lit. "against the name") generally is used for a nominal: one who is Christian in name only; but lives "against the name"; meaning immorally; unchristian.
I do go against traditional Christianity (which is why I got caught up into the whole sabbath moverment in the first place), and apparently so do you; as nearly all other "church general", and Reformed (which you said you were) either do not have this sabbath concept of yours; OR apply it to sunday. So you are more "out there" than I am.
But I did learn that while traditionalism may be wrong on many issues; they are not then automatically wrong on EVERY issue. On the sabbath; they clearly showed me from Gal. Col. and Rom. where it is not binding on all today. They were wrong then to try to install Sunday as the new day (based on MENTIONS of "the first day of the week" in the Resurrection accounts, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor.16:2, and the ambiguous "Lord's Day" of Rev.1:10). So I stand against both errors.

The principle of "Law" in the New Testamant is clearly spelled out; and does not necessarily continue every "law" from the OT. So as Pauk says; "Do we then MAKE VOID the Law through faith? GOD FORBID! Yeah; we ESTABLISH the Law!"

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list Paul gives in Heb 11 are OT Jews who are NOT rejected - but ARE accepted and their worhsip IS accepted!

Using the error of some in Mark 7 and paint the entire Jewish people and history - is error.

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

John 14:15 ”If you love Me keep My commandments”

These are the Words of Christ the Creator as He quotes from the 2nd commandment.

But what exactly did these pre-cross words of Christ “mean” to His Jewish followers – the “primary audience” that exegesis would have us consider?

Lets see if we can discover that by looking at some more statements found in God’s Word.

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)

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

But some have argued that these saints under persecution keeping God’s commandments are a select few – and not really the larger group – of all Christians – in God’s planning. Is that true?

Isaiah 66 makes it clear regarding the “New Heavens and New Earth” also identified in Rev 20 -- “From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL Mankind come before Me to Worship”

How can Christ the Creator call for ALL mankind to honor Sabbath as a day of Worship like that in the New Earth? Surely the Sabbath will NOT be for all mankind since in fact it WAS only for the Jews – correct?

Christ the Creator addresses the point head-on

“The Sabbath WAS MADE for Mankind” Mark 2:27

From the very “making” of Christ the Creator’s Holy Day – it was “made for Mankind”

Ok – so “when did Christ the Creator MAKE it?”

Notice - Christ the Creator gave mankind the 7-day week in Gen 2:3. For it was ” Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made”. A 7-day week - not a 6-day week for mankind. Christ the Creator makes his holy 7th day memorial of His creative action in making mankind – “for mankind” when he MAKES it “holy” – sanctified in Gen 2:3 before the fall of mankind.

When God speaks directly to His people in Exodus 20 and summarizes that same Gen 1-2:3 event notice what Christ the Creator says of His own Holy day – Made Holy at HIS making of this planet and life on this planet – and mankind.

Exodus 20:8-11 summary of the Creation week "event" shows it to have been made holy, sanctified and blessed by virtue of God’s own act of resting – that “alone” is given as the basis for the command. The commandment is in the format “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy…For in Six days God…. Therefore He Blessed, sanctified and made holy the Seventh day”.

Here it is in full as – God framed it at Sinai speaking directly to the People of God, He said

In Christ,

Bob

 

So does this mean that all those Jews who kept all "the commandments" of the Law, but rejected Jesus loved Him; then? Once again, is the Law the mean by which they are saved, or is it faith, which would be manifest by keeping commandments; but not necessarily all the same ones given in the OT?

"More obedience"? "Not in the minutest way"? Well; you don't keep the sacrifices! But you say "Hebrews says they are superseded". Still; from what you are now saying; that would still contradict "MORE obedience/NOT IN THE MINUTEST WAY". Hebrews is contradicting Christ; then! Now, this is just like the double standard the Sundaykeepers have that we are discussing in the Moody thread! Are all laws equally kept, and even MORE rigourously; or are some superseded; yet "YEA; we [still] MAINTAIN the Law" (spiritually)? You can't have it both ways; just like they can't. (are we free from the 7th day sabbath because the sabbath is abolished; or because it is still in effect, but only the day changed?). If the law literally (i.e. in the letter) changes in not the minutest way; then all the sacrifices, circumcision; annual feasts, temple ritual are still in effect. Nut if some of those are superseded; as Hebrews teaches, then others can be as well. Only not the MORAL law; which is of course magnified as Christ taught.

But you again cite Isaiah; which mentions those other practices we do not keep, such as priests; Levites and new moons.

 

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

John 14:15 ”If you love Me keep My commandments”


These are the Words of Christ the Creator as He quotes from the 2nd commandment.

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

Maybe He is just "saying it wrong".

Go ahead and write Him your letter - let Him know that Keeping HIS commandments is really a "bad idea".

I am anxious to see how the King of the Universe goes for that idea.

Let me know what you get back.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is fallacy to pretend to be confused by HEb 10 that says that Christ's sacrifice ends all sacrifice -- just so you can argue for abolishing God's Word as the only "reliable" way to know that the sacrifices have ended.

You use that ploy - but clearly you don't believe your own argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No; it's to YOU that maybe He wrote wrong; because you're quoting Him as saying not one single jot nor tittle shall pass from the letter of the LAw; but then Hebrews says that some of it DOES pass after all. So you should say that it is Hebrews that says that Keeping HIS commandments is really a "bad idea".
It's writer must not really believe his own argument!

No matter what you falsey accuse me of; it is your doctrine that makes scripture contradict itself. But if the sacrifices do end, and are superseded by Christ's work; then maybe other parts of the Law are as well. But they you dispute and try to change the meanings of those scriptures; as we are discussing in other threads. So the scriptures always end up saying what you want them to say.

 

Your argument seems to have run aground.

How in the world can you twist Heb 10 around to say "hey - keeping God's Commandments is a BAD idea"??

In the mean time here is what it ACTUALLY says about eh sacrifices.

Instead of "imagining" that Hebrews "might" be addressing the 10 commandments and saying we should rebell against the Creator's Law - what we DO find is that Hebrews SHOWS us the end of the predictive laws about animal sacrifices that point to the death of Christ.

Obvious point I know - but still, it has to be said.

In Christ,

Bob