For SDA's on Sunday worship

Eric - your points have to stand on their own. They can't be of the form "Well this doesn't work now but maybe after a few more points it will solidify".

Eric said

But you don't come back and show how this "all mankind" fits your view - even remotely. Christ should not be claiming it in Mark 2 according to you, God should not be making it a holy day for mankind in Gen 2:3 and God should not be saying that it will be the rule in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath" according to your view.

Eric said

You don't show any principle to counter that - where "God's Word is void when not repeated".

However - you then fail to show how a deepening - strengthening of the Sabbath commandment gets us to the point of ignoring it altogether as you do today. You simply drop the point there.

Eric said

There is in fact no "Sunday after Sunday shall all mankind come before me to Worship in the New Earth" equivalent in either the OT or NT. However "just imagine" if you actually did have one of those!

How difficult it would be for me to turn from that as " of no consequence". I would hate to be put in that position. I really don't envy the job you have taken on here.

Eric said

The only way that argument works is "if" I was "failing" in a point by point review of your argument and you wanted to say "although your failure to show that my point as a problem at each step may seam like a small thing - when you accumulate all those failures - it is a big thing".

But as you see - what is really happening is you are dropping the "round" on each point after only one to two cycles - you switch to another point rather than trying to sustain the initial point to the next level. That ends up accumulating failures for your view - point-by-point and then indeed - the aggregate is a huge problem.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The universal commands, such as murder, are in man's conscience. Men automatically know they should not kill, steal, lie, and even adultery, etc. even though they may make up excuses. The sabbath is a ceremonial law that was included in the 10 Commandments to Israel, and once again, its mention in Genesis was to build the basis of its significance in God's identity as the true Creator.
"Blasphemy" is condemned all over the NT, and this is certeinly connected with the 3rd commandment. As with the other universal laws, it would figure that if there is a true God, you should respect his name. But it doesn't automatically figure that you should keep a day of the week to Him, unless He specially commands it.

Because the New Testament is what Christians live by. The Old Testament is the historical document that sets the stage for the Gospel. It shows God as Creator, and the plan He worked out with the patriarchs and Israel, including their national laws, and how these did not make them righteous. A Messiah was necesary. So Christ establishes His Church, and the apostles teach from the Old Testament how it all elad to Christ. But they did not use it to set Church practice. They were the ones who had the god-given authority to set Church doctrine, in opposition to certain Judasic leaders whop tried to reinstate the Law. Then, when their writings were circulated, these were what Church doctrine and practice were taken from. Yes, there may have been a few sabbathkeepers still around, but they were not to try to force it on everyone else, and most of the Church had abandoned it by the second century, and then of course, some small groups kept both. All of this printed over and over again in SDA "Sabbath to Sunday" literature. You take this as proof that the Sabbath was still commanded in the NT, and that the great apostasy of Rome quickly abolished it, but while apostasy was creeping in, it did not drastically change the day of worship that much that fast.

Because we're not "ignoring" what God truly wants us to "remember": Himself. Jesus also said He was LORD of the Sabbath (so no, I do not take Sunday as "the Lord's Day"). In the context, He too was being accused of "ignoring" it, but He was showing that He was over it. HE is what is important, and is also our "rest".

No, that's wmore like what you're doing. I make one point, you reiterate another that I already answered, and you just countered with another point.
And I like how in the last few quotes, you replaced the most important part of the point with your own words to support your point.

 

Eric responds --

You are the one making the argument that if the commandment is not spelled out in written form by Moses in Genesis two - then it does not exist.

I simply point out that such reasoning is flawed as Cain - has no explicit command recorded by Moses.

You argue "yes but Cain made it up on his own so that makes it a commandment of God known to Cain EVEN if Moses did not record it. " You argue that Cain "just knew" ---

I am arguing that God is correct when He gives His own summary of the Gen 1-2 event and says that it is the Genesis 2 act of God in resting - that this alone - established the day as a holy day.

Christ said that the day was "made for mankind".

Placing these two key statements of God about His own Creation memorial 7th-day Sabbath - leads us to the clear and obvious fact that when Moses said in Gen 2:3 that "God made it a Holy Day" - we can "Believe" it right from the start.

Further - we can know that whenever God makes something Holy - it is sanctified, set apart and it is man that is obligated by it - not God.

But as if that was not enough - Christ said it was "MADE for mankind".

The point is impossible to miss.

Your argument that our 7 day week given to mankind at Creation and the Holy 7th day memorial of creation was "made" as a "ceremonial law" - is impossible to defend - even remotely.

Eric said --

The NT did not even EXIST for the NT saints documented in the NT. The "scriptures" they used - (whenever you see an Apostle quote one) are ALWAYS the OT.

There is no concept at all in the NT that "the Scriptures are not yet written - we must wait until we have written a few so that we can all start reading God's Word - scripture".

No such doctrine in all the Bible.

Hence - ours has 66 books and when Paul says "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God and is used for doctrine" 2Tim 3:15-16 - we know that the "primary" set he was using was the OT - he had nothing else.


The apostles teach from the Old Testament how it all elad to Christ - but as Peter said - they ALSO used it for "Doctrine".

They DID use it for Church practice as we see in many many cases - Ephesians 6, James 2 - being just a few.

Eric responds --

Indeed - for "HE" said "IF you love Me -- KEEP My Commandments" John 14.

And His Apostles said "The one who says he KNOW Christ should also walk as Christ walked" 1 John 2.

Knowing God, Loving God and "strengthening" understanding of His commandments (as we see Christ claiming in Matt 5) could never be translated as "ignore the commandment just talk about God".

In Fact - Jesus rebukes the Bible teachers of the ONE TRUE church started by God at Sinai in Mark 7 saying "In vain do they worship Me teaching for doctrines the commandments of man".

Eric said

Well - then we agree - Sabbath it is! (Of course even the Pope figure that one out in Dies Domini).

Christ speaking - PRE-Cross with God's commandments in "full force" by "every measure" said "I have not come to abolish but to perfectly fulfill the commandments" - and in that context He also said "I am Lord of the Sabbath" - it was perfect obedience and fulfillment - not "today's totally ignoring the Law of God - in the Sabbath" that Christ was promoting.

Eric said --

I am simply pointing that you are stating the "starting point" in one area - ignoring the answer already given and acting as if that was our stopping point. I am pointing out that in fact we did not stop there - that in fact you already raised that point - I already answered it - and then - you stopped the point and went on to another idea altogether.

The portion that was changed was where you were claiming to quote me - I simply added in - the other things I also said on that same subject so that the full "cycle" for that point is represented not a truncated snippet of the response.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In relation to the Sabbath, you would need a command to know how, when, and whether to keep it. Nobody would ever figure that out on their own. Murder by nature needs no "command". (But the Law was given because ouf our sin, in which we violate even what we naturally know is wrong). So it wasn't commanded befoe this. But here we see it condemned. This right here is our written proof. But no such proof of the Sabbath until it is first commanded to Moses. Before then, no one was condemned for not observing it, God did not approach them in judgment the first time, as if they should have known. And No, Ex.16:28,9 is NOT the first time it is mentioned! (Start from beginning of chapter). In fact, this shows that this was the first time the Sabbath was ever commanded, because the people did not even know why they were to gather twice as much manna on Friday, and it is explained to them the first time ever in v.23-26; then they disobey and are reprimanded for the first time, and the commandment reiterated. So it was not established as a COMMANDMENT at Creation.

Cain made a commandment? I never said any such thing.

If "just talk about Jesus" WAS now "the commandment", then, we would not be "ignoring the commandment". (of course, it is more than "just talk about Jesus", but just to use your caricature as an example) You fail to understand the difference between the letter and the spirit.

OK, it is sanctified. It means something to God. Now, what are we to do with it? Well, God told Moses and his nation one way to "observe" it: not to do any work, and to come together for worship. But nowhere is anyone else commanded to keep it this way. In the New testament, we are told not to judge each other over it, and all the Gentiles coming in, who never kept it, are never instructed to begin keeping it, but only given the universal commandments. Jesus says He is Lord of the day, and He is the one we are to focus on, and rest in Him, which was the spirit of the commandment. As God rested the 7th literal day, we will rest (and worship) the 7th symbolic day in the millennium, and for eternity. So while it may have some divine significance, you cannot assume that means we are bound by what God commanded Israel for that one age. For one thing, hate to sound like Aaron, but it is true that Paul speaks of "carnal commandments". (Aaron includes musical instruments, but that is never an issue in the Bible). You keep speaking of "ignoring" it if one does not keep it in the old fashion, and that the spirit of the Law does not "abolish" the letter. But while murder may spiritually "magnify" into hatred, yet still include literal murder, and "adultery" may spiritually magnify into lust and still include literal adultery, but the Sabbath is different in that it has an even higher intent that does not depend on the letter. Like the other Mosaic ordinances, the letter was a shadow of something else; as this creation is basically a shadow of the next.
Once again, if you think murder and the sabbath are the same thing, then you should be treating all non-sabbathkeeping Christians as if they were unrepentant murderers. (James 2:10, John 16:17, 1Cor.5:11, 2 Thess.3:6,)14

Oh, really? Did you see what you just said? Isn't "memorial" related to/concerned with "ceremonial"?

I know all of this. This is why I mentioned it as leading to Christ. This is the "doctrine" that it was used for.

OK, I should have clarified further. The universal moral laws of course would be taught from the OT. But we never see any of the religious laws taught as Church practice. The Sabbath is strictly religious practice. If it was really still in effect, we would see it taught like baptism, communion, fellowship, financial offering, etc. God makes His rules perfectly clear, and never leaves it to "I once mentioned it back there, so I should never have to reiterate it". Even though that might be the obedience He deserves, He does still take into consideration our sinful nature, and trumpets all of His rules over and over again so that there is no question. We see this with the Sabbath in the OT, but not in the NT. If you take this into consideration with the other points I mentioned, and which you dispute, like Rom.14, Isaiah 66 possibly being a conditional view of the future that was not abrogated, "rest" not being mentioned there anyway, the fulfillment of the command post-Cross in Jesus, and in the eternal "sabbath" rest of Heb.4, this is what I meant by taking all the points together. If you think one is too weak by itself together, they provide a stronger answer (just like your arguments consist of several points. The issue is which set of points is stronger).

Yes, before the Cross, the Law was still in effect, but He was setting the principles for the new "Law" of love, (John 13:34, Rom.13:1-10) which includes all of the universal laws, magnified to their true spiritual intents, and ceremonial laws fulfilled in what they were shadows of.

 

Eric responds

Hmmm. The assumption that "Adam had only himself to talk to" is denied in Genesis 2 and 3.

And it is in Genesis 2 that we find the fact, the when, the how ” 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 and the "example of rest" as God declares in Exodus 20 - that it "alone" is sufficient to establish worship and rest.

Your proposal is that "THEN He did NOT bless and make Holy the 7th day" - you argue that "THEN" man did not know why he had a 7 day week, you argue that "THEN" God did not "MAKE" the 7th-day holy "FOR mankind" rather it was "MADE to kept a secret from mankind".

This is in fact that FIRST commandment referenced in all of scripture and Exodus 20 states that this Gen 2:3 fact is "alone" sufficient to establish the day as binding "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy... FOR IN Six days the Lord... and Rested the Seventh-day THEREFORE the Lord blessed it and made it Holy"

But when it comes to the missing "Thou shalt not kill" for Cain - You suddenly need no such divine statement as we find in Gen 2:3 establishing the 7-day week and the 7th-day as "Holy" that God "THEN blessed".

When Christ says in Mark 2 "The Sabbath was MADE for mankind" your argument must answer "Oh no it was NOT"

When we "see" that in Gen 2:3 "” Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made”. your argument must conclude "Oh no He did not!"

Eric supposes

Outstanding!

Eric said

Indeed. So it was "NOT MADE for mankind" at Creation - when it was BLESSED and Set apart as a holy day and when mankind was given the 7 day week according to the pattern of Creation week...??

Then when "WAS" it "MADE for mankind"?? Christ declared in Mark 2 that this is already a fact.

God says "Remember the Sabbath day to KEEP it Holy... FOR IN Six days the Lord made...and Rested the 7th day THEREFORE the Lord BLESSED it and made IT Holy"

and your argument responds -

"Oh no He did not! Not until 2000 years later at Sinai. The mere fact of the Gen 2:3 act of Blessing it and making it holy did not establish either the MAKING of the day for mankind nor did the secret God was keeping get out for 2000 years".

In Summary --

Gen 2:3 God says He THEN made the day a Holy day and blessed it. You say "Oh no He did not".

Exodus 20:8-11 God says the Gen 1-2:3 facts "alone" establish the binding nature of the day. You say "No they don't - God would need more than that".

Mark 2:27 Christ said the day was already "MADE for mankind" and you argue - "OH no it was not. It had not yet been given to all mankind in any way shape or form AND when MADE it was MADE for the Hebrews ONLY".

You have so many "Oh no God that is not true" spots to insert - that it makes me wonder why this does not raise a red flag in your thinking.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric said

Indeed you say that Cain merely "thinking it up" allows the law of murder to exist and it becomes "known" and a sin to violate - simply because without conversing with God as Adam did - Cain could "make up" the law about murder and establish the fact that violating it was sin.

Eric said

 

Bob said

Eric said --

Your claim was that the NT saints were not reading the Bible. They were ignoring scripture and waiting for their own Bible to spring up after 60 years or so.

Eric said --

On the contrary - the NT authors do not argue for a cut-and-paste approach to the Word of God - the scriptures - the text they were all reading.

Even more - the Acts 15 injunction about eating meat with blood in it - is clearly a Levitical law.

More than this in Ephesians 6 Paul argues for all the commandments saying that the 5th commmandment "is the FIRST commandment with a promise". So He clearly admits to the scriptures 10 commandment unit.

In fact - we see in Acts 22 the "extreme" case of the NT saints observing an OT religious practice of taking a vow - and Paul is in complete agreement with the practice even participating in it.

In Romans 14 an entire set of religious days and practices is "affirmed" with the only glaring "missing" element is "NO religious practice" -- which is the one you argue for.

Eric said --

#1. Baptism is not taught in the OT.

#2. Gathering together to worship God (as we see in Isaiah 66) is the essence of Sabbath as Isaiah points out.

On the contrary - the NT authors "frequently" refer back to the Scriptures. They have "no principle" stating that "a scripture not repeated is a scripture abolished".

If such were the case - then after the writing of Rev or John - we could "abolish" all of the NT not repeated in that last book.

There is simply no such principle in all of scripture.


Eric said --

Wrong. Even Sabbath in the OT is not "repeated every century or in every book".

As you yourself note - the Sabbath commandment before the cross - is not repeated EVEN in the NT Gospels - but failure to continuously repeat it did not "abolish it" before the cross even by your loose definitions.


Eric said

The Sabbath is not always mentioned with the various instructions about rest even in the OT.

You have never shown how "God made the Sabbath for mankind" ALREADY by the time of Christ in Mark 2:27. You just keep ignoring it.

Then to get out of the New Earth that God identifies in Isaiah 66 and in Rev 21 - you speculate that the "All mankind" application applies to something that we dare not think is what God ALSO tells us about in Rev 21 as the New Earth.

Bob said --

Eric said

The Law of Love was known to Christ AND even to the Jews as they quoted it to Him..

Deut 6:5 Love God with all your heart
Lev 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself.

Christ was not in the business of saying "ignores these laws because they are already written down in scripture" as you may suppose.

And in the above example - you admit that the "context" for Christ's reference "Love Me KEEP My commandments" was in the pre-Cross context and could not possibly mean "break my commandments but do so in a nice way". It was a pre-cross context and the commandments were in full force even by your own system of reason.

In each of the "magnified law" cases that Christ presents in His OWN illustration of Matt 5 - in no case do we see "break this law but do so in a nice way" as the "new magnification" of that law.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Now this is getting tiring. I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth and forcing your own interpretation (twisting) of what I have said, or what you think it must mean or lead to. I am not denying any of those statements in the Bible. What I am disputing is the meaning you read into them, (eternal command even though there is no actual command in the text), so let's deal with this difference, and cut out the acccusations. The fact that you must resort to this (straw man) to prove your case is evidence of weakness in your overall position.

And I forgot to add to this quote:

The way you speak of this "binding" (even when it is not said, once again, you would think man was made for the sabbath. Precisely what Jesus was trying to teach the Jews, was that God's intent was not "binding" man with some burden (while man's heart was still unchanged), and that the OT ways of doing things were not permanent because God was preparing for the final reality. This was once again setting the stage for the New Covenant principle, even though it was still "binding" pre-Cross when He spoke.

Read again what I said. Murder was a universal law that was in man's conscience. This was put there by God, so the law is just as much from Him as anything written. So to say Cain must have therefore "made it up" is another straw man fallacy.

But once again, though God may have instructed them to rest based on Creation, this does not mean that God could not one day change that instruction, and reorient it's meaning. (i.e. instead of honoring a day, we honor the Lord of Creation Himself who came and died for us and rose again to be our "rest", now and for eternity in the Kingdom).

And here you are putting those intepretations on my statements again. They were not "ignoring" what was the true intent of the Sabbath, and they did read the Bible, but still, they did not follow everything that was commanded in it (i.e. the OT). Much of it was fulfilled, as you acknowledge, so the issue is whether the Sabbath was also fulfilled, not whether they ignored the Bible. So these accusations are unnecessary.

Really, only the flast 6 commandments were "moral law", governing our relationship to other. the first four governed our relationship to God. The Sabbath fell into the first category, but was more ceremonial in nature. No, not the more elaborate ceremonies of sacrifice and feast day, but still, a physical "observance" like the others. Unlike the others, which in the letter were universal and necessary (God could not allow us to be breaking any of those and still have a civil society, or due reverence to Him) whose spiritual principles therefore included the literal law, the Sabbath is as you point out, a memorial of Creation. But now this Creation is fallen and passing away, and God is making a new creation through His Son, the Messiah. This now became the focus, so the Commandment is fulfilled in trusting in Christ, and also as you said, meeting together. But the NT clearly avoids mandating a specific day. In fact, at times, they met every day.

Apparently they did, as they did not keep the sacrifices, circumcision, etc.

No, as I said before, this was a universal Noahide Law, which God did always expect all of man to keep.

Glancing right now, I don't see that in ch.22. But I'm sure this is just Paul and the others before the Sanhedrin following their practice because that was the customary way when standing before them. This is no way is made into some commandment binding on all Christians. In fact, Jesus sets the priniciple against it.

Once again, we disagree as to the meaning of this. You create the straw man of "no observance" and say "see it is not there", but if he is telling us that some hold a day or days above others (not specifying which), and some do not, and both practices are valid, then this disproves your whole case.

Who said it was? Precisely what I am saying, the NT practice does not follow the OT on ceremonial matters. Some things were changed, some things added.

Rev. is still the same Testamant as the other books, so of course it would not change anything.
And tell me, then, what other law do we follow because it is written only in the OT, and not reiterated in the NT? You could mention the dietar laws, but they most don't believe those are in effect either, (and most SDA's feel that was not enough, and that really all meat should be banned anyway). There's tithing, but many do not feel that carries over literally. the NT mentions giving, and people read a literal 10th, but once again, the principle is magnified, and we should try to give as much as we can (and not just money), not just measure out a 10th, and there, we've kept our obligation.

Actually, it is mentioned there, but you, in comparing "century to century" or "book to book" fail to realize that different books within a Testament and different centuries is not the same as different covenants, so this argument means nothing.

Show how it what? (incomplete sentance). Once again, Christ was setting the principle that it was not meant to be some binding restriction. You're trying to force it like it is.

But it's still called "new", so this shows that there is a new focus. In the OT, the principle of love was buried beneath laws, ceremonies and observances, but this did not save anyone. This is what God was teaching through the OT.

Same as answer to first quote-- recasting what I said as lawbreaking. If Christ's magnification of the spirit of the Law means that the letter of it is no longer a "restriction" "binding" on everyone, because Christ was Lord of the Sabbath, and it is all centered on Him and His New Creation, not the dying old creation, and that He gives us rest, then no one is breaking the Law.

[ December 11, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Here is a classic sequence that shows why this keeps going but is not making as much progress as it "could".

I challenged your view with the following...

Basically I am asking you to put an direct answer down.

#1. When God says "From Sabbath to Sabbath ALL MANKIND WILL come before Me to worhsip"

WHEN in your view does this apply? Pre-Cross or Post Cross? WHEN it the New Earth?

When is the "application" of Sabbath to "ALL mankind" IF NOT in the New Earth? How would you edit this text?

#2. When God says "The Sabbath WAS made for MANKIND" -- when is this that the SABBATH WAS made for MANKIND? Was it in Gen 2:3 when you claim God was keeping it a secret "from mankind"? and obligating HIMSELF to keep the day HE blessed and Made into a Holy Day?

Since Christ makes it clear that the scope is mankind and the timeline is PAST - that this was ALREADY true - the Sabbath was ALREADY MADE for MANKIND - how do you address that?

In your answer to the post above you simply duck the point as follows...

Eric said

But then you do NOT show ANY application at ALL for "mankind" BEFORE the Cross OR for "ALL mankind" at any time in history regarding the Sabbath "Except" you insist that "ALL mankind is free to disregard the Sabbath" when it was made a Holy day in Gen 2:3. You argue "All mankind is free to ignore it in Exodus 20 except for Jews" and "all mankind is free to ignore it today as well as IN the New Earth".

Your view never actually makes it to the statements of the Creator on His Holy Seventh day memorial of His creative act in making mankind where He says "The Sabbath WAS MADE for mankind" and He says "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship".

You have not shown any place at all where this ever WAS true and no place where it ever WILL be true.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no example of God "sanctifying" anything "so that HE would be obligated to honor it". In every case where God makes something Holy, and sanctifies - it is for man to recognize and honor. He is not "obligating Himself".

Christ - the Creator - makes it clear that when HE made the Sabbath "HE made it for MANKIND".

You have to keep arguing "Well He made it - sanctified it, blessed it - but NOT for mankind... rather it was just sitting there."
How can you really be satisified with your approach.

God said in Exodus 20 that the Gen 2:3 act of "resting" was sufficient to demonstrate how to keep it.

God said in Exodus 20 that the Gen 2:3 fact alone establishes it as "binding".

God argues "Keep it holy... FOR IN Six days the Lord....THEREFORE He blessed it and sanctified it".

HE stops there ... with that Gen 2:3 fact in the Exodus 20 statement. HE claims that this Gen 2:3 fact "alone" is sufficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said

Christ said "IF you LOVE Me KEEP My commandments"

You respond "yes but instead of just honoring Christ's the Creator's commandments - what if we are simply to Honor Christ. Isn't it better to love and honor God rather than just His commandments?".

You insert a division where Christ said there is "none".

Christ the Creator never said "Remember the Sabbath - NOT ME" - so that He could then later come to earth and say "STOP remembering my 7th day memorial of creation - and honor Me instead".

This division between the commands of the creator and love to the Creator is not taught BY the Creator nor in His Word.

Rather HE sayd "Not EVERYONE who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of My Father" MAtt 7

HE says "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments" John 14.

He says "The Sabbath WAS MADE for mankind" Mark 2.

And "Yes" you already admit that these are all said "PRE-CROSS" and that the Sabbath "even" by your loose accounting was fully established and in force for the people Christ was speaking to.

So where then is "The Sabbath WAS MADE for mankind?" in your revised edition?

Where is the NEW EARTH with ALL mankind coming before God "From Sabbath to Sabbath" to worship.

The answer is clearly - "it does not exist and I presume it never will happen" from your posts so far.

How can you possibly view that as compelling?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I've answered these things several times, and you don't like the answers. You're free not to accept the answers, but don't pretend now that I have never answered and only "ducked" them.

Once again:
1) This was a conditional view of a future where what we now know as the Old Covenant was eternal. But this was replaced by a new Covenant where we are not bound by the literal Sabbath command. You know how the sacrifices and other ritual were also commanded "forever", but we are not bound by the letter, because they have been fulfilled.
2)It is possible that there may be some sort of sabbath reinstituted in the Kingdom, but:
a) we cannot use this to assume it is in effect now. (so no "editing" of the Text necessary. Just taking it at what it says, regarding the future. Says nothing about the present. The old Sabbath was a memorial of the Old Creation, and we will not be remembering this old Creation in the new Creation, whatever any sabbath then may represent.

I answered this too and you didn't catch it. Why didn't you quote where I addressed your insistance on "binding" in effect making man be made for the sabbath (a necessary part of our due love and reverence for Him, for which we were created). Once again, Jesus was preparing in principle for a time when it would not be "binding" in the letter. Now you can disagree with this, but stop saying I only "ducked" the question.

Love IS the commandment!! You still insist on having me say "Don't keep the Commandments". If that's the case, then, did Christ excuse us from the sacrifices and feasts by saying "just trust that I have paid for your sins instead of keeping the Commandments"?, How about "Just 'circumcize' your ears (listen to me) instead of keeping that commandment? Or "I am your Temple now, or your bodies are the Temple now, so you can disregard God's instructions on worshipping Him (i.e. in the Temple)"? (Some Jewish groups accuse Him of just that sort of thing!)

Like I said awhile ago, you're trying to take various scriptures and put them together into a whole, and assuming that equals an eternal command. If God wanted us to rest on the sabbath now, the New Testament would have included it along with all the other laws that carried over. God is serious about His laws, and wil leave no room for question (they are drummed over and over again to us; never left as something he once commanded long ago, then stopped enforcing, punishing/condemning for breaking, etc).
God may have originally intended the sabbath to be a worship day for man, He may reinstate that again in the Kingdom in some form, but for now,
He has not bound believers to rest and worship on that day. The most you could possibly prove with the scriptures you're using is that it will be reinstated, and then His original intent will be fulfilled. Remember, this is not yet His eternal Kingdom. All is not complete yet. His main concern for us now is to get the Gospel out to the world. So everything is not as He eternally intended yet. Pre-Cross, the work of Christ was not completed yet, so my admission that the Sabbath was still binding then proves nothing for your argument. The Gospels are not the end of the NT. (In fact, they technically are apart of the OT). Christ said that the Holy Spirit would "guide you [the disciples] into all truth", and the only mentions of sabbaths from the epistles are showing that it is spiritually fulfilled now, and that "keeping" it according to the letter of the Law was no longer binding. Paul chastized the Galatians for "observing days and months and seasons and years" (4:10; and no, this does not say only annual days either!) Nothing about "disregarding the commands" (so stop saying that!). We are not commanded it now. It's not the spiritual intent that has changed, just the application of it. Speculation about God's original and future intents for it do not measure up to what God has told us in this age, for now.

 

Since you keep ducking this question I will ask it again - and give nothing else for you to respond to in this post.

In Mark 2 - Christ makes a devastating statment declaring that the Sabbath WAS ALREADY applicable FOR ALL MANIND and in fact stating that AT THE VERY MAKING of the Sabbath it applied to all mankind. For Christ said the "Sabbath was MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27

Now here is the challenge for you...

HOW can your view proudly affirm that it ENDORSES the words of Christ that the "SABBATH was MADE FOR mankind"?? Where does your view EVER show a scope of the Sabbath as "MANKIND"??

USING actual "exegesis" how can you take the meaning for "The Sabbath" in Mark 2 and show that in fact it WAS NOT EVER applicable to MANKIND and ESPECIALLY not when it was MADE ( a direct contradiction of the words of Christ in this case).

Here is the closest you have come to answering the question...

Surely you see the explicit question above - and you also see that the answer you give - is ducking the main thrust of the point.

Why not just let me know how you solve the problem?

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And "Yes" you already admit that these are all said "PRE-CROSS" and that the Sabbath "even" by your loose accounting was fully established and in force for the people Christ was speaking to.

So where then is "The Sabbath WAS MADE for mankind?" in your revised edition?

Where is the NEW EARTH with ALL mankind coming before God "From Sabbath to Sabbath" to worship.

The answer is clearly - "it does not exist and I presume it never will happen" from your posts so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The devastating combination above shows the "scope" of all mankind (for Sabbath) used BOTH in the OT AND in the NT.

ALL MANKIND scope set in OT in Isaiah 66 for Sabbath.

ALL MANKIND scope set in NT in Mark 2 for Sabbath.

Your response that the Isaiah 66 prediction of God "never happens".

And your response that the statement of Christ about "The Sabbath actually being MADE for mankind at the time it was MADE" being totally false -- can hardly be considered "a compelling" resolution to the problem.

Neither is your statement above "objecting" that these two difficult texts are even being brought up -- a "compelling argument".

Adding "more hoops for God to jump through" before you accept the statements of Christ in Mark 2 or in Isaiah 66 -- also does not form a compelling case. Note...

Eric said

The same holds for the book of Malachi - and was the Sabbath "abolished" in the days of Malachi? - No.

The same holds for the Pre-Cross saints of Matt, Mark, Luke and John - and was the Sabbath abolished BEFORE the cross as "indicated" by the made-up principle you repeat above - "no".

Even by your own confession - the Sabbath WAS in full force in BOTH Malachi AND the Gospels of the NT - EVEN though it is not "reprinted" in those books.

How then can you expect that argument to hold water?

In Christ,

Bob

 

If that "were true" then we could go to each book of the OT and the NT Gospels and delete any command of God that is not "constantly repeated" at least once in each book.

However - no such rule of Biblestudy exists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I can show

#1. that when it was MADE the intended purpose was the benefit and blessing of mankind and the scope was mankind FROM The very start - from the time it was MADE - before the fall of mankind.

#2. That this CONTINUES to be the scope EVEN in the NEW earth - according to God when HE predicts this in Isaiah 66 and When HE shows us WHEN/WHERE the New Earth timeline starts in Rev 21.

What I can not show is that "Strengthen" the Sabbath given BEFORE the fall -- would mean "deleting it".

I can NOT show "IF you love Me - really Love Me - then DON'T keep My commandments".

I CAN show NT affirmation that "The Sabbath WAS MADE for mankind".

I CAN show that when Christ gives examples of STRENGTHENING OT LAW in Matt 5 -- in EVERY CASE the binding form of the law is INCREASED and there is never a "strenghtening" of the form "go ahead and commit real adultery as long as you have good thoughts about women while doing so".

That is never the form of "strengthening" of anything.

#1. Your admission is useful for me when we note Christ's words in John 14 "IF you LOVE Me KEEP My COMMANDENTS" because then even you have to admit that this could not possibly have been taken to me "delete a commandment that we all agree is still in full force". So even by your own reasoning this NT statement of Christ PRE-Cross had to include the Creator's - 7th-day memorial of His Creative act in creating mankind - made holy on the 7th day of creation week.

#2. The argument - Sabbath not reprinted equals Sabbath deleted - dies because even you will admit that the Sabbath commandment is not fully reprinted in the Gospels AND YET it is NOT deleted since that is PRe-Cross.

It is much easier to "assert" those things than to prove them from the NT.

Here again it would pay you to do some exegesis.

In Gal 4 Paul says that those who observe those days are in fact - losing their salvation - and speaking to gentiles he is saying that this practice IS their old practice of pagan idolatry.

If you make any attempt to "turn those days" into EITHER the Creator's Seventh-day memorial of Creation OR the Lev 23 annual feast days - THEN you are making God the "author of paganism" for Paul makes it clear in Gal 4 that these practices he is explicitly "condemning" - are indeed paganism.

The other problem you have if you go down that road - is that you have already tried to put those same days in Romans 14 as something that Paul strictly "forbids" anyone to "condemn" anyone for practicing.

So - read Gal 4 very carefully before aiming it directly at what you said was in Romans 14, or worse - making God the author of "paganism".


In Christ,

Bob

 

This continual arguing is of the devil. The spirit that most of these posts are written in are in accordance with the spirit of Satan. Im sure that the demons rejoice at this continual back and forth biting and devouring. Search your hearts and pray for Jesus to forgive you for fighting with one another.

 

Who is dodging questions? I have answered these things, yet you continue to ignore certain points, or just accuse me of having Christ "deleting" commands or it being OK to sin (e.g. adultery) or "Not keep MY commandment", or scriptural statements being "totally false". Because this [straw man] can't be found in scripture, based on this you say I am dodging questions. But what you are accusing me of is not anything I am promoting or defending. So if you can't argue against anything other than someone calling Christ's words false of making it OK to "sin", then this is a waste of time as you are arguing with yourself. (Meanwhile, you never deal with my explanation of what "my commandments" meant, except to just accuse me again of saying we don't have to keep HIs commandments. Once again, who's dodging things!?)

I don't argue that it was "not ever applicable to mankind", so I can't "show" this. It was applicable to mankind, but because of the Fall, God changed His original plan. The Sabbath was never revealed or commanded to those prior to Moses, and after Christ, He did not include it in our practice as a mandate. This does not make Genesis 2 or Mark 2 "false". Only to you, who insist that every mention of the sabbath is an eternal (and unconditional) command for it. This is what you have not shown; always dependng on extension by inference, without taking into effect the consequences of the Fall and Christ's death.

I answer all of this (the change was between the Gospels and the rest of the NT, not between the OT and Gospels or the OT and Malachi, or anywhere else, so of course anything not mentioned there was still in effect). But then you dismiss it:

I've given you the scriptures proving that we are not expected to keep the Sabbath, but you reinterpret them or insist I am using them to contradict other scriptures when that is not the case if you take the scriptural reachings as a whole.

I figured you would say this, and I was even going to answer the objection in the previous post, but it was long enough, and I figured I would wait for you to say this first instead.
Look at the overall context, not just the preceding verses. Yes, v.8 mentions them formerly being pagans, and as pagans, they kept pagan "days and months and seasons and years". But the whole issue in the letter to the Galatians is Judaizers coming in and enforcing the Law of Moses to the new gentile converts. Look at chapter 3. Clearly, the Law is what Paul was criticizing them for. (2:14ff, even Peter and Barnabas were guilty of teaching them the Law). So continuing in 4:9, he says, "how is it that you return to the weak and beggarly elements to which you desire to again be in bondage". They had kept pagan days and times, but now they were being compelled to simply trade them in for Jewish days and times, and Paul sees them as practically the same thing. It's the elements (days, seasons, etc) that he is criticizing them for falling into, regardless of whether they are pagan or Jewish. Now you say, "But the Jewish elements were commanded by God, (He was not "the author of paganism") so how could Paul regard them the same as the pagan days in honor of false gods?" Because, the whole purpose of the OT lesson was that even with God's Law, the Israelites were still fallen rebellious sinners, just as much so as the pagans. (in fact, in a way it was worse, because Rom.7 shows that the Law alone, even though it in itself is "good and holy...etc." only makes our fallen nature more rebellious). So letters of laws were not what they needed, but rather the spirit writing the laws on their heart. Anyone who rejected this, whether pagan or Jewish, and settled for "elements" of laws (as providing justification), whether pagan or Jewish instead, were in fact rejecting Christ's work (5:2), and were in the lost condition of before, condemned under the Law. So when his new Gentile converts are being swept back into keeping times, he sees it for all purposes as a reversion to their old lives. He goes on to discuss bondage to the Law, and next chapter, he discusses liberty and the Spirit. Of course, this is not saying "do what you want and sin as much as you like", as he lists the "works of the flesh" --which cover all of the ten commandments and their spiritual magnification-- except failing to literally rest on the sabbath. This is a glaring omission. So this shows that those are universal moral and spiritual principles that we still live by, rather than "the Law"; even "the Ten Commandments" (of which the universal precepts were included). This is why the "Sabbath was apart of the 10 Commandments, so why do you keep 'the other 9' only and 'break' this one 'commandment'" doesn't work. So if you are going to accuse me of saying "it's OK to sin now" for saying we are no longer under the Law, then you must accuse Paul of it as well, because I am only repeating what he said.

 

[double post due to flood-protection retry prompt]

 

Believe it or not -- I think I see progress here.

Ok that was not the "progress" part.

In regard to that - I never claimed you said it was ok to commit adultery. I said that your use of the idea of "strengthening the commandment" when it "comes to the Sabbath commandment" is not an example that we see used at all Christ's OWN examples that He gives in Matt 5 where He argues taht He has not come to abolish God's Law but to fulfill. In those Matt 5 examples the "strengthening" always ensures "really keeping" them.

Your example in the case of Sabbath - is "strengthen" as in "abolish". I was simply pointing out that such a model of "strengthen" is never used by Christ and if we WERE to impute that same model to one of His Matt 5 examples (such as adultery for example) it would result in the statement I quoted above.

Your statement above - that I accused you of arguing that case for adultery is not correct. I merely showed the principle you "are using" for Sabbath as applied to adultery to show that it is a principle that is not endorsed by Christ.

You never gave an example of Christ having a commandment that was not already in His OWN commandments given in the OT.

You did try to argue that God's commandments are not Christs (as "if" Christ had ever tried to show a division between Christ and God the Father) and I showed that such an idea is not supportable in scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric Said

#1. I thought you were arguing that the Sabbath was not applicable to mankind in Gen 2:3. That God was keeping it a secret from mankind. That man had no clue as to why there is 7 days in our creation-week cycle. That because we don't see the 4th commandment as it sits on the tablet of stones in Gen 2 then it did not exist.

What happened to those arguments? Are you saying not that you do admit that this was "made" for mankind in Gen 2:3 and that pre-sin pre-fall mankind was keeping the Sabbath? Where did I miss your post on that?

#2. Can you show any "change" in the Sabbath at the fall? If God is commanding the Sabbath in Exodus 20 on the "basis of the Gen 2:3 fact" - where is the "change" and what is it about the "fall of Adam" that would tell Adam - "please stop keeping the Creator's Holy - 7th-day memorial of creation"?

I missed your entire discussion of that fact.

Eric said

That seems to be contradiction to what you just said - unless you are now arguing that Adam lived after Moses.

Eric said

Christ said "it was made for mankind" it does not say "it was made for mankind, then obliterated, then made again but just for Jews".

There is no support for that made-obliterated-remade doctrine in the Bible for Sabbath.

Your argument that "He did not command it for us" is vague since Christ said "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments" AFTER Christ was born and BEFORE the Cross. By your own admission - the commandments at the time Christ the creator spoke in John 14:15 included the 10 commandments and the 10 commandments were still the 10 commandments even by your count. They had not yet been reduced to the 9 commandments.

I simply observed that Christ said "the Sabbath was made for mankind" and not only is he referencing the Sabbath of Gen 2:3 when it was "made a holy" - but also in Mark 2 - the "present Sabbath" - He declares that they are one and the same and argues His case about the Sabbath of Mark 2 - FROM the Sabbath of Gen 2:3.

Instead of arguing that they are "different" He shows that from the "making of the Sabbath" it was "made For" mankind and argues that this applies to the present Sabbath - since in fact there is no "two-Sabbaths" idea in scripture for the Creator's weekly 7th-day memorial of creation.

As already stated here - I have not seen you make any statement about "What happened to the Sabbath at the fall" or show "Adam was asked by God to rebel against the Creator's Holy Seventh-day memorial of creation when Adam fell".

I show that Christ Himself argues "If you love Me Keep My commandments" and that after His death He never changed this to "If you Love Me ignore My commandments". In fact in Matt 28 He says "Make disciples of all nations...Teaching them to OBSERVE all that I commanDED you" - showing a direct link between the John 14 statements of Christ and the post Cross statements of Christ.

I have pointed that out several times - why do you keep saying I have not done that?

In Christ,

Bob