What do you do to keep the sabbath holy?

Carson quotes

Paul addresses the problem of the pagans in Galatia returning to paganism.

You have bent this around so that you "make God the Author of paganism" and then accuse those in Galatia of returning to the Word of God - to His Law which you would recast as "weak and beggerly".

You have turned the Word of God back on itself - making a mockery of Paul who says "Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God Forbid! In fact we Establish the Law"Rom 3:31.

And no wonder - for Paul calls the Law of God "Holy Just and good" not "weak and beggerly" as you presume to apply Gal 4's condemnation to the Word of God itself.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Robert,

You wrote, "Paul addresses the problem of the pagans in Galatia returning to paganism."

Do you mean to say that Paul's goal in Galatians is to keep his Christian converts from returning to paganism?

Have you even read Galatians?

 

Have I read Galatians?

No Carson, I was hoping that you or Scott would read it to me.

At a minimum - "tell me what to think"

In Christ,

Bob

 

Galatians - "Again"

3 Options to Galatians 4 and the pagan “days, months, seasons, years” definition.

#1. Accept that this pagan practice is really a return to paganism as Paul said. That the letter to the Galatians addresses at least 2 church problems. One with Judaizers and another dealing with pagan practices creeping in to the church as is described in 4:7-11

#2. Prefer to think of the church at Galatia as having only one problem. Just another description of the problem with the Judaizers. In other words – this is a description of a legalistic works-oriented faithless “non-Gospel” that Paul started out mentioning in Gal 1:6-11. View it in such a way that you consider Jewish errors to be the same thing as paganism – to the point that adopting them is considered “returning to paganism”. Supposing Gal 4 to be addressing the “godless” and “faithless” practice of God’s OT religion is the same error we see in Isaiah 1:10-11 and Malachi 1:10-11. This is the opposite of the “faithful” and “God honoring” practices of those held forth in the NT as the Giants of the faith in Heb 11.

The “problem” with that is that you can not derive a “change” in God’s Law or man’s obligation to it – based on erroneous practices during Isaiah’s day due to Isaiah 1 or in Malachi’s day as he writes to the faithless in Malachi 1:10-1. And this means that identifying the same error in Galatians 4 also gives no basis for changing God’s Law due to man’s error. Referencing error that was condemned in both the OT and NT cannot be used as a basis for changing God or His Laws.

#3. Suppose to yourself - that in fact Gal 4:7-11 is talking about the faithful-obedient practices of the OT saints in Heb 11. That in fact it is the correct and God-approved God-ordained faith of the OT being practiced by NT saints and being called “paganism” because it goes to the point of 1Cor 8:13 where the person views their “observance as correct” and ALSO thinks others should follow the same practice.

The “problem” there is;

A. This is exactly what Paul is defending in Romans 14 – saying that no condemnation for “observing all” the feast days AND no condemnation for “observing one day above another” is to be tolerated. It is clear that the Gal 4 approach it so show that they are losing salvation if they “observe” in the Gal 4 manner whereas in Romans 14 it is always “God-honoring”.

B. This view makes God the “author of paganism” because it charges that the practice as God gave it – is being condemned in Gal 4 as “paganism”. In effect – it charges either the errors of the Judaizers (option 2 above) or the error of the pagans (option 1 above) to God Himself by arguing that the Gal 4 practice IS the OT Levitical practices as God gave them – being practiced in the NT – and that the practice itself – is a “return” to paganism..

C. In 1Cor 8:13 Paul’s response is NOT to say “hey you are losing salvation by doing that” (as He says in Gal 4 of the pagan observances) but in 1Cor 8 he says “I will never eat meat again” if that is what it takes to keep them from taking offense.
Gal 4:
7 therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

8 however at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no Gods.

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

9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

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

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

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


10 you observe days and months and seasons and years.

NOTE: . This pagan practice is also condemned in the OT
Lev 19: 26 You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor observe times (KJV).

#1
The Greek term for "observe" in Gal 4 is NOT the term used in Romans 14 that is also translated "observe". Rather in the unique Gal 4 case it means" to "watch with evil intent" and refers to something like the astrology practices seen today.

Lev 19 describes it in other Bile translations as –
26 "`Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood; neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe omens.(KJ21)
26You shall not eat anything with the blood; neither shall you use magic, omens, or witchcraft [or predict events by horoscope or signs and lucky days].(AMP)

So “instead” of the Gal 4 text addressing the popular notion of “obeying God’s Word when you don’t really have to if you don’t feel like it” – the Gal 4 text is condemning “observe” as in the pagan practice “...to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously). Where "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful.

#2.
God's Word did not command His people to "observe seasons or months".

#3.
Using another word for “observance” -- The "observances of days" is mentioned in Romans 14 and the "Condemnation" there is against anyone who would "condemn" the "observances".
Bending Gal 4 to point at the very practices employed in Romans 14 is a abusive example of eisegesis.

#4.
In this case months and seasons are lumped in with days. The indication of a pagan system of practice is clearly - and repeatedly brought to view. Nothing here is ordained by God - established by God - given by God as a practice for God's people. It is utterly condemned as originating from pagan worship alone.

#5.
Paul says this is “a return” and that they are “enslaved all over AGAIN” – these gentiles, these converted pagans – were never Jews. They are not returning to “salvation by keeping the Law of God” as something they “used to do”. This is simply “another” problem Paul is identifying among the Galatians that is in “Addition” to their problem with Judaizers


11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Here is the ultimate proof - this is a practice never to be defended (so it is not anything like the practices being defended in Romans 14) . It is a practice that invalidates the gospel, salvation lost for those who engage in returning to those pagan systems of worship - pagan practices.

The speculation that Paul defended this practice is Romans 14 as a practice not to be condemned - only shows the lengths to which some will go to launch an attack on the creator's own holy day (made holy by him when he created earth) - as he calls it the Sabbath day (not merely leaving it with a day-number God tells us the 7th day is the Sabbath of God).

Of course the fact that the Jews themselves - who lived in these pagan centers - had begun to incorporate these pagan practices into the Hebrew faith, only made the problem more difficult for gentile Christians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Carson has already shown a "preference" for taking what God commanded in the OT and applying that normal faithful obedience in the OT as the thing being condemned in Gal 04. Which stands the entire chapter "on its head" and points it directly at those in Romans 14 that are continuing to "observe the day".

In Christ,

Bob

 

these were gentile believers who were never "kashrut" nor observant of any other part of Torah to begin with! As in Galatians, there were Jews coming in trying to get them to keep the Law of Moses, so "Let no one judge" here means the same thing as in Rom.14. He who observes, observes unto the Lord, he who doesn't, doesn't, and neither judge the other.
A big deal is often made regarding addded words to "only a shadow, but the body is of Christ". But this changes nothing. "is" is also added, leaving "let no one judge you, but the body of Christ", and this is true. Listen to the Body of Christ, not apostate judaizers who have never really accepted the Gospel, coming in to influence the Church.

What??? Shadow means to "foreshadow", or a "sketch" or "faint image" (i.e. of "heavenly things"). It is used again as such in Heb.8:5. Trying to redefine this like that takes it right out of the flow of biblical teaching.

 

No, they were taught those because they were part of the original universal Noahide laws, which god did command to all men and expect them to obey. I am sorry, but there is not enough evidence that the apostles were teaching the converts the OT Law, and it has to be argues "well, they must have been based on this other supposed evidence that also does not prove anything.

Yes, Jews still kept many of the laws, but Paul taugh them that this was to be done as personal devotion unto the Lord, and not to force others to do it. Paul gave in that one time, but you also see him criticizing Peter and the others for "teaching gentiles to live as the Jews".
That is the most clear teaching, compared to all the supposition of how they must have been keeping the Law.

 

The following is a list of scriptures in the NT concerning the law of God.

The law of God was never meant as a means of righteousness, or salvation, but rather that it should point the sinner to both. The Lord Jesus Christ of course, being that which they point to for the salvation of the soul, and the fulfillment of righteousness within the believer. Christ did fulfill the law. Those therefore who believe in Him, and have accepted His presents in their hearts, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, also have the law fulfilled within them written on the “Tablets of the human heart” 2Cor 3 – for the New Covenant promises the Law of God “written on the heart” Heb 8.

This New Covenant promise that “establishes the Law of God" Rom 3:31 ” is not a means of righteousness or salvation, but rather as a result of being in Christ Jesus, in whom all things are made complete.

The law is spiritual. Those who walk in the spirit, have the righteousness of the law fulfilled within them. This is not in order to be saved, but rather because they have already been saved by faith in Christ.

Those who walk in the spirit, are not under the law. This is because, as has already been pointed out, the law is spiritual. Those who are walking in the spirit have the law fulfilled within them, instead of the works of the flesh, or carnal nature. If you are in Christ, by faith, then you have died with Him. If you have died with Him, then the penalty of the law is no longer over you, for the penalty is death, and you have already died in Christ. This having been accomplished by Christ's death on the cross, and your faith in that act, you now walk in newness of life. It is no longer you, but Christ that lives in you. This is the fulfillment of the law within the heart. Paul explains this very clearly in the next verses.

PRAISE GOD! we have been freed from the penalty of sin, which is death, and given the power from God to live a life of righteousness, that is the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As can be seen from previous posts - the NT support for God's Law is extensive. Even the New Covenant has God's Law as a central part.

Scenario I - God's Law abolished - and optional.
But here is the question - what if in all this support for God's Law those are wrong who observe that God still validates the authority of His own 10 commandment law that defines sin after the cross? What if that law is merely "Optional" after the cross? IF they are wrong then they keep His Law of their own free will and conscience in faith - and they Then since the law is merely "optional" they fall into the category of Romans 14 regarding the annual feast day. It is simply six of one half-dozen of the other - both sides to be vigorously defended - not condemned.

Scenario II - God's Law authoritative - sin is still defined
Now lets consider the alternative - what if those are wrong who suppose that God has abandoned His own 10 commandments? What if He is still as supportive of them today - as He always was? What if the Isaiah 66 vision of God endorsing the 4th commandment for "all mankind" - is true for all eternity - in the "New Heavens and the New Earth"? What if the 10 commandments remain valid and authoritative as James 2 seems to indicate? What if the unit remains in tact as Eph 6:1-2 seems to require. What IF it remains JUST like the Deut 6:5 law of "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" - valid and binding on all the saints? Are we allowed to consider that possibility? If so what are the consequences?

Scenario III - Two Gospels:
Or maybe it is the third model that is correct. In this doctrinal view God authors two gospels. A trick-gospel of "legalism" for 4000 years followed by a better gospel of grace for the last 2000 years starting at the cross. The law is abolished at the cross and Galatians 5 means that if you are keeping even one of those commands after the cross - you "have fallen from grace". You were "tricked" by the fact that you read the instruction in God's Word and did not realize that now the Biblical Gospel of the OT is the "ant-gospel" the "trick--gospel" - obey it an you're dead!.

In that view there is no such thing as Romans 14 defending the practice of observing all annual feast days, nor does it defend observing one annual feast day above another in Romans 14. In this view the message of Galatians 5:1-5 is taken to mean that anyone who obeys even one of God's laws is "falling from Grace" if the law was given by God before the cross. This view states that to be obedient to any of God's law is to be a legalist - saved by works - fallen from Grace and "separated from Christ".Gal 5:4. So what if this view is right? Then you go to hell for refusing to rebel against God's laws and by claiming that your faith is establishing God's law instead of abolishing it. Of course this two-gospel trick-gospel system has some challenges according to a "Two-Gospel" system Gal 1:6-9 - explicitly condemned in the Word of God.

Not only that - but if "keeping even ONE" of God's Laws is to "condemn the follower of God" as they choose to "mistread Gal 5" then - by simply not committing adultery - they lose salvation. Choosing this option (though done here by several posters) is hopelessly self-conflicted.

Senario IV (God's Law disassembled by God and reassembled by Man)

In this view - although "God disassembles His own Law" at the cross, it is "reassembled" by man referencing it after the cross. So if you keep a command because it was mentioned by man after the cross - that is fine - but if you keep it because God spoke it at Sinai - that is works. In that view, pre-cross commandments are void (which would include Christ's in John 14) but post cross commandments are ok. In that view it is claimed that man just so happened to "Bring back" all but 1 of the ten commandments. We now obey "the Nine Commandments".

The problem with this is that Acts 17:11 teaches us that the model for accepting the post-cross teaching of the disciples was to test it by God's Word (the OT at that time). Which means that a direct quote of the 10 commandments as in (Romans 7, Eph 6, James 2 etc) would be "looked up" in the OT and "checked out" to "See IF those things were So" Acts 17:11. It would have been taken as authoritatively supported by God's Word. It would not have been seen as "a side trip into defunct religion to note the similarities with real religion" as it is assumed today. Because that would make it impossible to "look it up in scripture - testing the word spoken - to See IF it is So".

Also - the first four commandments are not "quoted in full" after the cross nor is the 10th commandment quoted in full. The NT post-cross form would have included quotes "snippets" from all but the 3rd commandment regarding the taking of God's name in vain.


In Christ,

Bob

 

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

Powerful scripture, Bob !!

Thanks

 

With all these scriptures endorsing God’s Word, God’s Law – God’s Commandments --Why then would we find any Christian today kicking against the Commandments of God?? Hmmm lets think about that for a minute. Maybe God’s Word has something to say on that point.

And though we also know that many have a sincere heart yet confused ideas about the commandments of God – still the principle of rebellion seen above is identified in God’s Word as a basic motivator for mankind.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And once again, if you were consistent with those verses, then all of Christendom except for sabbatarianism is lost. But wait, y'all don't even accept each other, as some say that you must keep all the annual feasts, and accuse you of using the same arguments that are used against the weekly sabbath. They would use the same scriptures against you. The same with those who argue that you must use the sacred names.
Now, on the other hand, why would people kick against the truth that these laws are not still binding on all? Pride! We all like to think we are better Christians than others, and everyone else is disobedient. It is apart of human nature, and we see it here in the music issue, the translation issue, separatism, unconditional election, other groups with the "name and organization of the true Church", "every single doctrine is essential and you must agree perfectly with us", etc.

There you go again with your sensational straw man rhetoric. No one said anything about any "trick gospel"; What Paul teaches was that God's Law was holy, just and good, but that WE were carnal, and couldn't keep it, but only be condemned by it. It was given in the first place to teach us this, (as our schoolmaster); then when Christ came we no longer needed that schoolmaster.

 

they may not have been listed as such (until later by the rabbis, like they did with the 613), but there still were universal laws before Moses, and then the Laws that were particularly given to Moses for Israel.

There's no evidence that they (as a whole) ever kept the Law to begin with. Yes, they went to the Temple, but that was a temporary arrangement, remember. The Church was soon kicked out of the temple and the synagogues.
Reading back over your earlier post, I see that you have turned Acts 15 on its ear! He is not saying "oh, don't bother them with the whole law so quickly; let's just teach them these few laws for now, and they'll learn the rest as they continue in the temple". If that was the case, what would really be the problem with those mentioned here, (who probably came from a synagogue or temple) trying to teach them circumcision (v.1, 5) now? Plus, they would also learn sacrifices, and other rituals that were definitely abolished by Christ. Remember, the Temple institution did not recognize Christ, so why would Paul just leave the new Christians in their hands? What Paul says (v. 10) is "Why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear". (This also speaks to Bob regarding the Gal.4 debate). V.21 says "for Moses has had for many generations those who preach him...".This is not saying "we'll just send the gentile converts to them to learn the rest of the Law". It seems to be substantiating his teaching which employed some prophecies about God's turning to the Gentiles, which they should have known. (v.16, 17). As Jesus said, "Moses...wrote of Me". (John 5:46, 39).

And they also practiced circumcision (or do you believe that is still binding as well), AND sacrifices. Obviously, as I have been trying to tell Bob, we are not to keep every single "commandment" that was in effect before the Cross when christ preached. Of course, Bob comes up with this four-point criteria that a law has to be from before the fall, specified as "made for man", apart of the Ten, and propesied for the future Kingdom, for us to know that it carries over. But there is no such criterion in scripture. And it is not a choice of "follow the whole Law of Moses", or "do whatever you want". It seems so necessary for the Lawkeeping movement to cast its opponents' position in this light.

It also said "UNTIL all be FULFILLED". This is the part you all miss. On the Cross, what do we see: "IT IS FINISHED" (John 19:30)
Just because we are "branches", we do not simply transfer the Old Covenant from Israel to the Church, or add Jesus to the Law. This is a whole New Covenent, but as God gave the Law of Moses, and He also gave the Law of Jesus, both are "the Law (commandments) of God", so finding that statement in the NT does not point to the old. And we do not keep much of the commandments of the old anyway.

IF He has in fact, [still] madated it to all. Else, it is personal devotion. With the issues I mentioned in the above post to Bob, also; the people claim "Oh, we are not saying this will save (or justify) you; it is just obedience and separation from the world". But that is pushing one's own conviction onto everyone else and calling it "obedience", as if that by itself makes it binding on all.

"Belittling"? How is that belittling"? Bob and I had this discussion, and Bob also takes it as proof that the whole law is in effect if for no other reason than other people think it is, and we must yield to the "weaker brethren" as per 1 Cor.8. You above even suggest a sacrifice was therefore still obligatory.
Bob was right that we are to [sometimes] yield to our weaker brethren, but then we must draw a line if they are beginning to fall into bondage, and bring others with them --i.e. "observe with evil intent". (IIRC, you have been in the music discussions between us and Aaron. He says we should all yield our contemporary styles for the "weaker" brehtren, but the same principle applies). So we see Paul even opposing Peter and the others, over "the Law", (Gal.2)and later, he criticizes people getting circumcision, and says if they go through with it, Christ will avail them nothing, and they are a debtor to the do whole Law. (5:2-14). That is what I meant by "Paul gave in that one time" (I was in a mad rush, and even wound up late to work trying to finish these posts, so for lack of a better phrase). But then he put his foot down when the people crossed a certain line with imposing the Law.

Also, since both of you seem to think I'm just "rebelling" against the Law (and even "despising the branch", etc), I used to keep the Sabbath until I was shown Galatians and the other scriptures. I have no other reason to oppose it, except that I must be able to scripturally prove why it does not have to be kept, when people come condemning the rest of the Church for not keeping it. See Sabbath and the Faith of Abraham

[ January 13, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

No, no "two house", but God wrote the lesson in Israel's history through the Law of Moses, which was "added because of sin till the seed should come to whom the promise was made". (Gal.3:19). So the universal law and the Law of Moses are not "two Gospels" or "two salvations" as you and/or sometimes Bob and others keep calling it. It was a phase God used in His plan to raise up Israel and show through her that man was fallen and needed a savior, not a bigger set of laws, and the savior would also come through her.

To clarify, as someone else pointed out, there were Gentile proselytes, who were already grafted into Israel and kept the whole law, as the Torah specified. But not all gentiles who were coming into the Church were like this. And the whole city coming to the synagogue on the sabbath says nothing about them all "keeping" the sabbath. The proselytes would have, but everyone else simply went on the day when the service was given and the preaching done.

While I have carefully avoided using church history as authoritative proof (apologists in the rebuttals to SDA and Armstrongism, as well as the rest of "the cults" often make the final appeal to "historic Christianity"), as I am aware that it can be wrong, and much of it has in fact been wrong. But on the sabbath issue, I have read the SDA and others' "Sabbath to Sunday", history, but it is still unconvincing that there was such a rapid change in such a short period of time. By early 2nd century, we see Sunday coming to be accepted, and while this may not have been scriptural, still, it is a lot to suggest that they were all strictly sabbatarian, and then in a few decades switched over. Yes as I have even argued in other areas, paganism was creeping into the Church then. But it crept in slowly, and the first set of doctrines to really gain a foothold was Gnosticism. This was what was warned about in the epistles, not a change from the sabbaths to "pagan days". Much of this alleged history parallels the Church of Christ/JW/Baptist bridism claims that the true church was rapidly driven completely underground, and surfaced at times through such "small persecuted groups" (the "little flock" throughout the ages) as the Waldenses, Albigenses, Catharii and Anabaptists. But these groups were not sabbatarian, but rather ranged from orthodox Catholics resisting some of the added corruptions in the Roman system, to obscure ascetic sects whom themselves were steeped in dualistic paganism.
What we see in real history is that the Church generally met every day, (Acts 2:46) and liberty was given regarding observance of days (Col.2:16, Rom.14), so there were some converted Jews and gentile proselytes who kept the sabbath, and a quartodeciman "passover" communion, and others who then introduced Sunday as "the eighth day" superseding the sabbath. Then, as we know, the Church moved away from Jewish practices, and as antisemitism grew, eventually began to squelch them. Your history given above, could be true. What I was referring to was Jesus' prophecies in John 16:2 "they shall put you out of the synagogues", and also Matt.10:17ff). It seemed by the context, that Christ would be the "offense" causing the rift. But what you said could come into play, as well. Still, they were preaching Christ in the synagogues and temple, and those who rejected Jesus as Messiah, would of course begin to react. (That was a much greater difference than the difference between other Jewish sects).

So still, while there were some keeping the sabbath, it was not universally kept, and definitely not mandated. The change from a universal mandatory sabbath to a universal mandatory Sunday would not have occurred that quickly. There would have been much opposition, if it was in fact seen as "obedience to the Law of God", and not just as a Jewish preference. Once again, the shift to paganism was much more subtle than that. The Sabbath-to-Sunday literature points to small pockets where both days were kept for a few centuries, but still this was no "holdover" from any mandatory universal sabbath practice in the church.

Once again, if this were true, then we should be keeping all 613 commandments of the Torah. We simply add Jesus to the Law, because "NOT ONE JOT NOR TITTLE" shall pass. But this means all of those laws regarding the temple ritual, sacrifices, etc. we can't pick and choose and say, "oh, well those were "fulfilled", but not these other ceremonial practices.
It doesn't say "not one jot nor tittle shall pass until all be fulfilled WHEN heaven and earth pass away. (Please don't get into mixing up phrases like Bob, and I hope I'm not giving him any ideas ). Heaven and earth passing away is obviously the last event. But "all being fulfilled" is NOT, but rather refers to Christ's death on the Cross and rising again. Else. once again, we simply add Jesus to the Law, and must keep bringing sacrifices to the Temple. Oh, but there is no temple! Either God allowed this to happen because "all is fulfilled", or we have a serious problem.

You go and reread the CONTEXT. (Perhaps breaking scripture up into little "segments" is the problem in the first place. You need the overall picture to understand what is being said). The issue was circumcision, along with "keep[ing] the Law of Moses" (v.1, 5). That was certainly not some law added by people! Once again, the proselytes who had been there may have been keeping them, but with new converts to Christ, they were demanding it, and Paul is speaking against this.

Above, where you discuss Paul and his Nazarite vow. If anything this proves that "keeping the Law" we read about in the NT included sacrifices (not some made up division between the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Torah), and if you're using this to prove Paul kept "the Law" "long after the resurrection", and so should we, then this would include literal sacricfices (as well as Nazarite vows)! So the only conclusion is that Paul yielded that time. But later, he clearly spoke out, even against other apostles, regarding making people keep the Law.

 

quote:God said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

I Jn 2:3-4 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.


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

Bob said --
And though we also know that many have a sincere heart yet confused ideas about the commandments of God – still the principle of rebellion seen above is identified in God’s Word as a basic motivator for mankind

What do you propose for those texts? Or was that your way of "exegeting" Romans 8 and 1John 2? Did I miss it?

Have not seen it here - would you care to provide a quote of "not accepting each other"?

A quote of "mixing the 10 commandments with the feast days"?

Well then Romans 8 and 1John 2 must be "bad texts" if someone can use them in that way. Lets dump them!

Err - um -- because it is false.

"Do we then abolish the Law of God through our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31.

But of course some add to that scripture saying -"nay! surely we edit the Law of God THEN we establish it as ammended"...

Of course I don't make that case - but "some do".

Bob replied --
It's going to very interesting to see some Christians debating with Christ the Creator - telling him in the Isaiah 66 New Earth where "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to Worship" that He is "compromising the fact of salvation" and is "returning to OT Law".


Seems like Eric is denying then claiming what he has just denied. Will the real Eric please stand up!

Stop right there!

Agreed.

Now if only you would stay with that consistent model instead of falling off the horse as you do next.

Wrong.

In Galatians 3 it is when "faith comes" not when Christ comes.

IF we could twist the text around to say "when Christ comes" THEN today sinners would not be condemned as such by the "Holy Just and true and Spiritual" LAw of God that was STILL Holy Just and true EVEN in Romans 7 long AFTER Christ came.

See? - Yet?

In Christ,

Bob