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.
As I explained before, the Sabbath command was of a different nature than the others. God positively cannot allow us to worship other gods or idols, misuse His name, dishonor our parents, kill each other, commit adultery, steal, lie or covet. The Sabbath was neither spiritual nor moral, but rather a "memorial" as you call it, that was actually a shadow of Christ, will give us rest and a new Creation in His Kingdom. Thus it is fulfilled, and this is the only application of it in the New Testament Church. That is why it changed. You can't compare it to the other commands.
The tithe was another command that was eased in the transition (a free will offering as you are able, rather than a mandatory 10%. I forgot which practice the SDA maintains).
You never gave an example of Christ having a commandment that was not already in His OWN commandments given in the OT
You yourself said it earlier: Baptism (as well as Communion). You can also add witnessing and suffreing for Him. All of these things instructed to us are "commandments". You can't assume "the Ten Commandments" every time you see that word.
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.
Of course what is God's is Christ's, but God in the OT commanded one thing, and then God in Christ through the Holy Spirit commanded the Church something else. God can change His rules if He wants to, and if you take that "same yesterday, today and forever" to try to disprove this, then the sacrifices must still be in effect as well.
#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.
No, YOU said I was arguing that. That's precisely the problem. You try to interpret what my statements mean, then actually believe I was arguing that. What I said was that God for some reason did not command it before Moses. the Fall occured after Gen.2:3, so whatever significance it was to have in the unfallen world was not revealed. Why call this "keeping it a secret", as if man was being denied some knowledge due him? God can reveal what He wants when He wants, as I said before.
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?
Never "admitted" this. What I was allowing for was your theory that the act of sanctifying it then made it intended to be applicable to all man. But we just do not see it commanded then, nor anyone condemned for not keeping it (with all the over sins man was being condemned for), so if it was to be given then the Fall must have changed it.
#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"?
That seems to be contradiction to what you just said - unless you are now arguing that Adam lived after Moses.
He couldn't say that when He never commanded it of them in the first place. Once again, Moses was the first person recorded that He revealed the Sabbath to and explained its significance. Why is that so hard to understand? Genesis 2 is a narrative, and God is not commanding anything to anyone there.
Why the Fall would change it? We are not told. Perhaps because God now had to start with a single nation to carry His truth to the world, and first raise up its patriarchs, then this nation would be given the Sabbath as their "identity" as God's people. Still, this does not change the fact that it was not recorded as revealed, commanded, enforced or even warned about then.
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.
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.
Before, I allowed for the possibility that it was in some way intended for all men. But still, Gen & Mark do not exactly say this (you are reading it into them). So here is an example: there are many things "made for man[kind]" that not all men get to use or are expected to use. My job operating NYC subway trains was made for man (certainly not made for animals, plants, etc), but that does not mean that you can be reprimanded for not showing up to work at one of our terminals and operating. The prison system was made for man. But not all are expected to go there. It is only under a certain circumstance that it is for a given person. Likewise, God made marriage holy at the beginning (and it pictures Christ and His bride, the church forever), but no every man is mandated to get literally married (The Jews seemed to think so, though!) So even though you may be noticing me wavering between two possibilities (that it was intended in some way for all of man, or that it wasn't for all men), still, you are reading too much into "mankind" and even "sanctified". Jesus was instructing, for those who were keeping it, that the priorities of the Jewish leaders were mixed. They made it a burden, as if man was made to do this thing for God. But Jesus showed that whatever reason He gave it to whichever mmen he gave it to, it was for them, not them for it. He is not saying anything about the whole world of men for all ages.
The problem is that you are trying to "introduce a principle" about Bible truth - the commands of God the Creator "when not repeated it is deleted". I am showing that such a rule does not work in either NT or OT.
You clarify the point above by saying "I wish to insert this rule ONLY at a dividing line IN the NT BETWEEN the Gospels of the NT and the Post-Cross teaching of the Apostles".
However creating that "insertion" in the middle of the NT - takes more than wishful thinking. You have to show something to the effect "where not repeated it is deleted and we can ignore the teachings of Christ in the Gospels if not repeated by the Apostles later".
I answer it, and then you simply say:
I admit that proving your case would need to be objective, and detailed to make the case. So far I have not found that regarding the case you are claiming for the division between the Gospels and the NT authors or the precross Christ vs the postCross Christ.
Rather, as we find in Heb 13 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow".
Once again, this logic would render all 613 commandments of the Law as still in effect. (Did God
change since giving them?). I have given the scriptures where the Sabbath was no longer binding. read them instead of reinterpreting them.
And Paul address the fact that these pagans newly converted to Christianity were ALSO having the problem of incorporating pagan "observance" of days, seasons etc. Paul flatly condemns this and declares that they are losing their salvation over it. Far from "condemning all that might condemn their practices" as he does in Romans 14 when it comes to the annual feast days - Paul says their practice of OBSERVING these days is sending them back to paganism and they are losing salvation over it.
No it does NOT say that! You are reading into it something that is just not there. Paul is dealing with one problem and one problem only, and that's the influence of Jewish leaders. They would not be teaching pagan practices, but rather were trying to get them to keep the Law of Moses (2:14, cf. Acts 15:1). do not add to the text.
#1. Paul never criticizes B]scripture or God's Word or the Creator's law [/B] - ever.
#2. He begins by criticizing the "Jewish error" of thinking that the law "is a means of attining salvation" that was 'never true' says Paul "for IF A Law had ever been given that could produce life THEN INDEED righteousness would have been based on LAW" Gal 3:21
#3. But NONE of this is called "paganism". There is a clear distinction between the errors of the Hebrews regarding the Creator's laws and the errors of pagans worshipping false gods and creating pagan systems of worship.
There no way to equate pagan systems with God's own festival days which Paul affirms
I never said what is in bold. What I said was wahat you got right in #2. There may be a distinction between the two errors, but both will render the people still lost, so that's why Paul says they are in effect returning to their old lives.
Paul even "Condemns" ANYONE that would condemn Christians that keeep them (see Romans 14).
Indeed I would and more than that - I would argue that Romans 14 clearly defends "OBSERVING ALL the Days" God gave.
IF your view "had been true" then in Romans 14 Paul would be "required to condemn those who observe aLL those days AND the one that observes even ONE of them above another".
What Romans 14 (as well as Col.2) is teaching is not to Judge anyone over a day. I vever said people were to be condemned for keeping any of them. No, they were defended, but only as a persons wn choice
as unto the Lord. What's being condemned is one who does keep them mandating them to everyone. A person can keep or not keep them if they choose, and neither is anyone to condemne anyone else for keeping or not keeping them. And this once again would include the weekly sabbath.
Indeed your mixing of God's Law with paganism DOES make them both "practicaly the same thing" if you choose that interpretation for Galations 4.
Not only does it make God the author of paganism - but it aims the condemnation of pagans in Gal 4 - at Paul and all Christians in Romans 14 for in Gal 4 the "very practice is condemned" and in Romans 14 the "very practice is defended to the point of CONDEMNING anyone who would condemn the practices of Romans 14".
You simply walk into a hornets nest of self-conflicted notions when you do that. That is why I urged you to take care before walking into that set of contradictions by you using Gal 4 to shoot Paul in Romans 14.
Calling the Creator's OT days "paganism" and calling the practice of those "paganism" as you seek to do with Gal 4 makes God the author of paganism AND condemns Paul
The errors of the Jews post-cross AND pre-cross were NEVER the "errors of God" as HE taught them to the Jews. He did not teach errors. His law is not paganism. It is not error - not even a little.
#2. In Romans 7 Paul never says that sinners may blame their conduct on God OR on His Law -
#3. In Romans 7 the solution is never - "destroy God's Law" OR "God's Law is another form of paganism"
Even so - Paul never calls the Jewish error and misuse of God's Law "paganism" - nor does he call God's law "nearly the same thing as paganism".
Here you continue twist and reinterpret my statements, and ignore my explanations of them. If they were trying to be justifuied by keeping God's laws, they were just as lost as when they were keeping pagan days. Nowhere did I say God's laws were pagan.
Because "observing" seasons and months and days - as they were doing - WAS in fact the return to the very things they had been doing - in honor of pagan gods. No, because Jews had days and seasons and months too, which God had given them, and they were not trying to force on Gentiles, but they still did not save anyone.
EVEN the pagans today or the most blind legalist can not be condemned by the laws about animal sacrifices because those laws no longer apply. They condemn no one.
But the principle still applies, for without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. They need Christ, of whom the sacrifices were a shadow.
But the 10 commandments DO continue to define sin and do continue to condemn sinners. They CONTINUE to be authorotative and so Paul quotes the 5th commandment in Ephesians 6 in the UNIT of 10 saying "This is the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" and argues that it is still authorotative and binding.
Paul does not make a case in Gal 5 that "These are the only sins it is possible to commit".
Your argument above "needs" that to be the case. Neither do a list of "violations" become the new "10 commandments".
Building 10 commandments out of "violation lists" (as we also find in 1Cor 6 and elsewhere) would be conjecture rather than exegesis.
Paul never says "it is ok to commit this sin".
Paul never says "it is ok to break the Sabbath".
James says that "he who is guilty of one is guilty of all" in James 2.
I do not find quotes actually saying what you seek to find - I see your list of one sin-list missing out on other sin-lists - but I see no "9 commandments" declared as the new "optimized set".
But no one is building a new 10 commandments. The point is, that we do not even live by "the 10 Commandments",
as such a neat point by point code. That's the letter. But the letter did not include physical lust and anger. So yes, with the moral and spiritual laws, the letter commandment can be quoted as a reference, but that still did not prove the sabbath was still in effect. We walk by the spirit now, (who will of course enforece the letter as well as the spirit of the moral and spiritual commands). But He is not today convicting anyone to keep the sabbath. If so, then you would have to assume we have all resisted Him to the point of being seared with a hot iron (possibly the unpardonable sin), and as I said before, that we were all lost.
Sin is sin. The RC quote I gave on this thread shows that "THEY" insist that non-Catholics must see them as "committing pure idolatry" in the mass - because they are in fact "worshipping" the bread thinking that it is God.
I give them credit for that statement. They are correct. But I still regard them as Christians.
Most of us believe many of them are not, for that reason. Those that are are those who avoid those paractices, knowing it is not pleasing to Christ (then the question remains why they still remain in that institution)
