GODS 10 COMMANDMENTS

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Downsville:
Yes Bob
I guess i just dont understand why people dont simply believe whats written. They will say commandments dont mean commandments and and dont mean and and so on...do people think that if they believe something thats the way it will be no matter what the WORD says?

At some point - after going round and round on this you would think they could figure out that..

#1. There really is only ONE Gospel.
#2. The Word of God is true - when it says Christ the Creator MADE the Sabbath FOR mankind.
#3. They would accept the Word of God when HE says of the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath Shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"
#4. They would accept the Word of God when Christ the Creator quotes the 3rd commandment saying "IF you Love Me Keep My Commandments".
#5. They would accept the Word of God when He asks us to consider "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In factd we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31
#6. They would "Accept" the Word of God when it says "There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath Rest for the People of God" Heb 4
#7. They would accept the Word of God as they witness the 4th commandment language AGAIN in Rev 14:7 at the end of time.

All this - turn turn away from - just to attack Christ the Creator's Holy day - made for mankind in Gen 2:3 as a blessing to be kept before sin - and continuing even into the New Earth (Isaiah 66).

There is just no way to delete these clear texts from the Word of God. Much better to just accept them as you point out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --

Here the point is made clearly - the act of judging others is not a sin "newly condemned in the NT".

Also it is clear - the God-ordained practices listed are not the things "in error" - but rather the text says "LEt no one JUDGE you regarding" those practices.

Col 2 is not an attack on the practices for it does not say "How dare you observe Feastivals, New Moons or a Sabbath day" as some here "had hoped to find" so their argument would be sustained.

You are simply confused Eric.

The point is clear. In Gal 4 it is the pagan "observance" that is condemned "You OBSERVE days, months, seasons and years". If your bias is to insert God-ordained times in there instead of pagan times - then STILL it is the "OBSERVANCE" that is identified in Gal 4 as being "condemned".

In Col 2 it is clearly the "JUDGING" that is condemned (just as we see in Romans 14) NOT the "observance". SO even IF you choose to include Christ the Creator's Seventh-day Sabbath in Col 2 - it is still the "JUDGING" "Let no man JUDGE you regarding..." that is condemned JUST as it is condemned in Romans 14 and just as it is condemned in Matt 7.

But in Gal 4 Paul is the one doing the judging regarding the OBSERVANCE - it works there "by contrast" since in the Gal 4 case it is pagan "days, months, seasons, years" condemned and in Col 2:16 it is God ordained "festivals, new moons, SabbathS" that are defended and for which no "judging" is allowed.

Eric responds

Eric said --
As elsewhere, you add your own hypothesis. It does not say "the OBSERVANCE [of the days themselves] is condemned". For one thing, remember from the other discussion, that "observe" carries a meaning of "evil intent". THAT is what is condemned.

Maybe a more careful review of vs 10 and 11 then - eh?

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

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).

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

Martin Luther "Almost all doctors have interpreted this reference as concerning the astrological days of the Chaldeans"

A commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, rev, trans, [London: James Clarke, 1953], 392

Troy Martin agrees with Luther
“In 4.8 Paul mentions the former pagan life of the Galatian Christians. In 4.9, he asks them how they can desire their former life again. He then proposes their observance of the time-keeping scheme in 4.10 as a demonstrative proof of their reversion to their old life…Considering only the immediate context of Gal 4.10 the list must be understood as a pagan temporal scheme”

“Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-keeping Schemes in Gal 4:10 and Col 2:16” NTS 42 (1996):105-119 ( p 113) Troy Martin


R. A. Cole “it is not necessary…to see any Jewish influence in these Galatians; in all forms of paganism there is some form of ‘casting horoscopes’, with consequent ‘lucky’ and ‘unlucky’ days”

(The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary,, R. A. Cole. TNTC [London: Tyndale, 1969], 119)


S. Mitchell writes “the major obstacle which stood in the way of the progress of Christianity, and the force which would have drawn new adherents back to conformity with the prevailing paganism, was the public worship of he Emperor. The packed calendar of the ruler cult dragooned the citizens…into observing days, months, seasons and years which it laid down for special recognition and celebration”

S. Mitchell, Anatolia; Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor, Volume 2 The rise of the Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), P. 10.

Even authors that “insist” on using Gal 4 as a method to attack Christ the Creator’s memorial of His creative act – and given as His holy day in Gen 2:3 (a blessing for all mankind Mark 2:27) – admit that their blind use of 4:10 as a reference to God’s Ordinances in His Word – is merely a preference not a fact dictated by the text.

:”They (the days, months, seasons and years) could equally well of course refer to the quasi-magical observances that we know to have been rife in Ephesus and presumably in other parts of Asia Minor too (Acts 19:19) Heterodox Jews as well as pagans certainly practices these arts as we see from Acts 19:”

The Rev. Cannon R. A. Cole, M.Th, Ph.D. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians (Inter-Varsity Press, 1965, 1989) P. 165)

Even those that presume that the only influence on the Galatian Christians are Jews – hoping even to limit it to orthodox Jews we find..

“Apparently on account of their pagan background, the Galatians, as aptly stated by W. Rordorf, ‘could only discern in the particular attention paid by the Jews to certain days and seasons nothing more than religious veneration paid to stars and natural forces’ “

Samuel Bacchiocchi Ph.D, The Sabbath in the New Testament, Biblical Perspectives 1995, p 122
(Graduate from Gregorian Pontifical University – Summa Cum Laude

Willy Rordorf Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (Philadelphia, 1968), p133

#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

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Lev 19: 26 You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor observe times (KJV).

Bible scholars have long recognized the pagan system being referenced here.
</font>

Do you mean like Miller, your spiritual parent, who observed 1844 come and go?

 

[BobRyan]

I keep looking in these posts now and then think Harley is going to "say something".

Guess not - eh?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Harley4Him]

I could follow your example and say nothing but make it take hundres of lines ...

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Which Saviour do you believe in?

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am Yahweh; and besides me there is no savior.

OR

Acts 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
DHK

I could answer you but what good would it do?

All you will do is twist my words to say something I am not saying, like you always do.

What's the point?

And don't be so rediculous to say that I can't answer you because I can, I'm just not going to, there's no point. </font>[/QUOTE]There is one God and one Saviour--the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the only God. But you don't accept that. Here is another example from Scripture:

17 They will come with fear to Yahweh our God, And will be afraid because of you.
18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.
19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:17-19)

God, (Yahweh) forgives sins.

AND

Mark 2:5-12 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Only God forgives sins. Jesus forgave sins.
Only God forgives sins. Yahweh forgave sins.

Is Jesus Yahweh, OR, Do you believe in two Gods?
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
At some point - after going round and round on this you would think they could figure out that..

#1. There really is only ONE Gospel.

Yes there is. It has already been defined and explained in 1Cor.15:1-4

#2. The Word of God is true - when it says Christ the Creator MADE the Sabbath FOR mankind.

Yes Christ said that. He said it before He died on the cross during the age of the Law when the Sabbath was still in effect. He was also speaking to Jews at the time.

#3. They would accept the Word of God when HE says of the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath Shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"

That is true, and it is also in future tense, not in present tense. That day is still coming. It will come in the Millennial reign of Christ, and has nothing to do with this present church age whatsoever.

#4. They would accept the Word of God when Christ the Creator quotes the 3rd commandment saying "IF you Love Me Keep My Commandments".

Where does Christ identify "If you love me keep my commandments," as the third commandment? That's news to me. Don't get me wrong. he does say that in John 14, but never does he identify it as the "third commandment." You're just making that part up. When Jesus said to keep his commandments He never mentioned the Sabbath Day, and the keeping of the Sabbath is never commanded in the NT. In fact, if anything, it is discouraged.

#5. They would accept the Word of God when He asks us to consider "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In factd we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31

Read the context, and please explain it to 3AM. What is Paul saying in the previous two verses? There are not two Gods! There is only one God! There is not a God for the Gentiles, he says, and a God for the Jews--there is but one God.
And therefore there is only one way to God, one plan of salvation, one gospel. That gospel must be accepted by faith, and faith alone.

Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
--No matter who we are, we are justified by faith.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
--Then the question is, if we are justified by faith, and not by keeping the law (like the Sabbath), does that imply that the law is worthless? No, not at all. Contrariwise, the gospel establishes the law. How?
The law demands perfect obedience. The penalty for breaking the law is death. One who breaks God's law will be lost eternally. The gospel tells how Christ died to pay the penalty of the broken law. He did not treat the law as a thing to be ignored. He paid the debt in full. Now, anyone who has broken the law can avail himself of the fact that Christ paid thye penalty on his behalf. Thus believing in the gospel by faith establishes or upholds the law. It insists that it demands be met, and they have--in Jesus Christ. Even the demand of the Sabbath.

#6. They would "Accept" the Word of God when it says "There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath Rest for the People of God" Heb 4

That is what the Bible says. We all accept that Bob. We don't all accept your spin on it. The rest spoken of there ultimately is heaven. The context in the first part of the chapter refers to the nation of Israel in the Promised Land. Even when they entered the Promised Land they did not find rest, not even on the Sabbath.
Only a believer in Christ can find rest. The law never brought Israel rest. Christ is a picture of the rest that is to come. He (in picture) is our rest or Sabbath. The perfect rest for the believer will be in Heaven, but until that time, we rest in the Lord.

#7. They would accept the Word of God as they witness the 4th commandment language AGAIN in Rev 14:7 at the end of time.

Are you serious here? What does Rev.14:7 have to do with keeping the Sabbath, unless you are reading to much of Ellen G. White.

Revelation 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

We are to fear and worship God, and God alone. The judgement of the Antichrist is drawing near (at this time in Rev.14). It has nothing to do with the Sabbath.

All this - turn turn away from - just to attack Christ the Creator's Holy day - made for mankind in Gen 2:3 as a blessing to be kept before sin - and continuing even into the New Earth (Isaiah 66).

Please read Exodus chapter 31. The Sabbath Day was given as a sign to the nation of Israel. It was between them and Jehovah for their generations forever--a sign of the covenant between Israel and Jehovah. It was never meant for any Gentile, Christian, or the church. It is a sign between God and the Israelite. Please acquaint yourself with Exodus 31.

Exodus 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

What tribe do you belong to Bob?

There is just no way to delete these clear texts from the Word of God. Much better to just accept them as you point out.

We accept all those texts--in their proper context, without any preconceived ideas attached to them.
DHK

 

[Cherry5]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cherry5:
Nope, I don’t get it, because you are putting words in his mouth that just are not there. It’s the same sort of stunt that reporters pull (not all reporters, mind you, but it’s the kind of thing that shows up in the media).

I haven't put any words in his mouth.

I admit it; I know DHK; and I do know that he does not teach that Jesus was created. If he did, he would not be in the pastorate, at least not at our church.

Well batton down the hatches folks, he's called in reinforcements!!!

Anyway, I doubt you could prove it even though you think you have.

Not trying to prove he believes that. I know DHK too, I've been arguing with him for over a year. I never said he believes it. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you did; check some of your earlier posts. Or should I quote them for you. You have said that he believes it and you have said that he said it. I read it with my own four eyes.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The evidence is very strong that he does not hold to that position. Otherwise, why would he have said:
"Jesus was not made, not created; but always was."

Obviously, he doesn't. Only a complete moron would miss that.

So, where in this entire thread did DHK say that Jesus was created? Or on this entire Board, as a matter of fact?

Well, let's see, since I never said he BELIEVED it, it's really not my problem to try and prove to you that he said it, now is it? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it is your problem to prove it, because [gasp] you made the accusation. Besides, he doesn't have to prove something he never said, even though he has been kind enough to tell you over and over again that he doesn't believe such a thing. So why do you keep on this little hobby horse of yours? It's better just to drop it; he said he doesn't believe that Jesus was created.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I mean, the actual words, not a supposed conclusion that you drew from his statements.

Now we are getting somewhere. For a minute there are I was wondering if you were even reading this thread at all!

I have a notion it isn’t there. Do you think you could make your accusation stick in a court of law? Not likely.

Which accusation would that be?

The one that doesn't exist?

Do they have a court of law for that?

For the imaginary crimes committed on Message Boards on the internet?

I bet DHK has a commentary about it, why don't you ask him </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the accusation does exist. I have read it several times. If you like, I'll even quote them out for you, tell which page I read it on, all that stuff. And whether you like it or not, you and everyone else (including me) who post on this board are being judged. So, if you're going to say that someone believes something or has said something, you really need to have some evidence. The evidence in this post has been clear: DHK denies that he believes that Jesus was created. (I can quote that, too.)

 

[Cherry5]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cherry5:
Methinks, you are confused; you don't even remember what you wrote. Here’s what you wrote:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You are making Jesus like unto Satan.
According to you He was made by God, like Satan, and is Lord of Himself, like Satan.

And no, you don't know DHK; I've known him for over 20 years. One year is not long enough to say you know him. </font>[/QUOTE]Yup that's what I said, didn't quote him, didn't say 'you said'. So my last post still stands.

I feel sorry for you that you've had to be around him for 20 years, but none the less, discussing doctrine for over a hear does give me liberty to say I know him.

But since you say I don't I think I'll cry myself to sleep tonight.

</font>[/QUOTE] Don't feel sorry for me; I don't. Oh, and it's obvious you don't know DHK; you still think that he believes Jesus was created.

 

[tamborine lady]

Greetings, to all!!

For all those of you who believe that sunday worship is the way to go, here's a site where you can make a quick $1,000, if you can give him the right answer.

www.abundantrest.org

Go see what the question is and see if you can answer it!!!

Tam,

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
[qb] At some point - after going round and round on this you would think they could figure out that..

#1. There really is only ONE Gospel.

DHK -- said

Yes there is. It has already been defined and explained in 1Cor.15:1-4

I for one am happy to see somone other than a Sabbath keeper post in favor of the ONE Gospel of Gal 1:6-11. Several have come out strongly in favor of "more than one" on this board and it "appears" that Sabbath keeping Christians are the only ones to challeng them on that.

Happy to have someone else willing to "stand up and be counted" on that point.

Bob said --
#2. The Word of God is true - when it says Christ the Creator MADE the Sabbath FOR mankind.

DHK said Yes Christ said that. He said it before He died on the cross during the age of the Law when the Sabbath was still in effect. He was also speaking to Jews at the time.

Ahhh - there comes that "other gospel" sneaking back in on someone that "said" he only believed in "one".

However - DHK - you seem to be saying that the Words of Christ either don't apply to you - are they are no longer true. But surely you would admit that IF it was true then - that the "Sabbath was made for MANKIND" then MANKIND was obligated to obey rather than rebel against Christ the Creator's Holy day "made FOR mankind".

Yes? Was that what "mankind" was supposed to do "back then in that other gospel?".

If so - is mankind now free to rebell against Christ the Creator's Holy day made "For Mankind"?

Bob said --
#3. They would accept the Word of God when HE says of the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath Shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"

DHK said That is true, and it is also in future tense, not in present tense. That day is still coming. It will come in the Millennial reign of Christ

Agreed - the "New Earth" doctrine introduced in Isaiah 66 refers to the events of Rev 21 and the "New Earth" we see further defined there. It is future. The Sabbath BEGAN as created by Christ the Creator "for mankind" and in the New Earth it continues to be honored by "all mankind" for "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL Mankind come before Me to Worship" Is 66.

And as you point out - even in John 14:15 when Christ said "if you Love Me keep My Commandments" quoting the 3rd commandment - it was before the cross and He was speaking to Hiw "own" - followers among the Jews.

But - if that is simply "another Gospel" one that we don't have to worry about in the church-age-Gospel time then we could ignore it..

As DHK says , and has nothing to do with this present church age whatsoever.

"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God"Rom 3:31

So instead of a "church ages that ignores and abolishes" God's Law in a new kind of church-age-gospel. It is ONE Gospel and the SAME obligation to "MY commandments" as shown in Exodus 20 (3rd commandment vs 7) and in John 14:15 among Chris's followers - continues in the "ONE" Gospel model EVEN into the New Earth.

#4. They would accept the Word of God when Christ the Creator quotes the 3rd commandment saying "IF you Love Me Keep My Commandments".

DHK asks --
Where does Christ identify "If you love me keep my commandments," as the third commandment?

That's news to me. Don't get me wrong. he does say that in John 14, but never does he identify it as the "third commandment." You're just making that part up.

As it turns out Christ is the "I AM" of the OT - (see John 8) so when He speaks from Sinai - Christ the Creator says...

</font>[/QUOTE]

Third commandment (By Hebrew and Christian count)

Exodus 20

5 "" You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

DHK said --
When Jesus said to keep his commandments He never mentioned the Sabbath Day,

Not true. He was on commandment number 3 - and number 4 was coming up next.

In John 14:15 when "Again" He says those same words spoken in Exodus 20:6 - it is pre-cross to Jewish Followers. They "would" know a quote of the 3rd commandment when they heard it - and "yes" they knew what the commandments were.

DHK said --
and the keeping of the Sabbath is never commanded in the NT. In fact, if anything, it is discouraged.

So you are "now claiming" that "obedience to God" was "discouraged" before the Cross - by Christ - speaking to His Jewish followers?

Even worse - you are claiming that whatever commandments are not listed - pre-cross are "abolished" and so - in your view - the Sabbath ends even in Malachi.

Even worse -- there is no such "Rule" in all of scripture as "when God's Law is not fully repeated in a given book - it is deleted" the "Not-repeated, then-deleted" crowd would love to hear your willinginess to "Delete the Laws of God" pre-cross, for The Jews - in the Gospels.

"IF anyhtinng" DHK says that obedience to Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day - memorial of His creative act - the day made "For mankind" was "discouraged" even before the cross in John 14!!.


#5. They would accept the Word of God when He asks us to consider "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In factd we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31

DHK --
Read the context, and please explain it to 3AM. What is Paul saying in the previous two verses? There are not two Gods! There is only one God! There is not a God for the Gentiles, he says, and a God for the Jews--there is but one God.

Hey wait a minute! We are agreeing. What's up with that?

DHK said --

And therefore there is only one way to God, one plan of salvation, one gospel. That gospel must be accepted by faith, and faith alone.

Hey wait a minute! We are agreeing 'again'. What's up with that?

The ONE Gospel fully functioning in both OT and NT did not "Die in the OT each time someone obeyed Christ the Creator and entered into the blessing of the Sabbath made FOR mankind" as many have supposed.

So Paul points out that the FAITHFUL are not finding ways to "Abolish God's LAW" as if THAT is the secret to salvation. Rather Paul is attacking those who make that claim. Paul is saying that the FAITHFUL are the only ones actually HONORING and OBEYING God's Law for "It is not longer I who live but CHRIST that LIVES in ME"[b/] Gal 2:20

So Paul asks the pointed question "in that context" "Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God"Rom 3:31

DHK said Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. --No matter who we are, we are justified by faith.

And so... we agree again!



Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God

DHK -- said
--Then the question is, if we are justified by faith, and not by keeping the law (like the Sabbath), does that imply that the law is worthless? No, not at all. Contrariwise, the gospel establishes the law.

So far so good DHK.

Happy to see this much "agreement".

When the Law says that mankind is to continue to keep Christ the Creator's Seventh-day as a continued "blessing" made "FOR mankind" - the Gospel is the only way to "keep the day Holy" for we ourselves are sanctified and set apart for obedience to Christ - not rebellion.

The same is true with Lev 19:18 loving our Neighbor

The same is true with Deut 6:5 Love God with all our heart.

The same is true with Exodus 20:12 Honoring our parents.

Real obedience to the Real law of God because "It is no longer I who Live but Christ that lives IN Me and the LIFE I LIVE in the Flesh I LIVE by faith in the Son of God"

So that anyone who "Says he has come to know Him and yet does NOT keep His commandments" is a liar. 1John 2:4

In fact John calls us to "observe" those who walk in rebellion against Chris the Creator - ..

DHK Said

The law demands perfect obedience. The penalty for breaking the law is death. One who breaks God's law will be lost eternally. The gospel tells how Christ died to pay the penalty of the broken law. He did not treat the law as a thing to be ignored. He paid the debt in full.

All True DHK.

We agree "more".

DHK --

Now, anyone who has broken the law can avail himself of the fact that Christ paid thye penalty on his behalf. Thus believing in the gospel by faith establishes or upholds the law. It insists that it demands be met

Yes indeed - the demand that we suffer and die - the second death is MET - because Christ did that for us - in our place He paid our debt for sin.

But more than that - He makes us into a "New Creation" with "The LAW of God written on the heart" Heb 8 - in fact on the "Tablets of the Human heart" 2Cor 3:3.

And so by the Spirit we put to death the deeds of the flesh (Rom 8) and we LOVE Christ and we KEEP His pre-cross COMMANDMENTS for "Christ is the SAME yesterday today and forever" Heb 13:8

The Establishing rather than Abolishing comes in the form of PAYING the debt the LAW demands AND walking in harmony and obedience to the LAW of God - rather than in Rebellion against it.

Romans 8
4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

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.

Having all this in agreement - was more than I could have asked.

In Christ,

Bob

[ January 21, 2004, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Downsville]

Hi DHK
You wrote to Bob
Exodus 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

What tribe do you belong to Bob?

JOHN 10 [14] I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.[15] As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.[16] And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

As you can see, there are other sheep other than the 12 tribes

ISAIAH 56 [6] Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;[7] Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.[8] The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

And as you can see the others which HE gathers will be keeping the sabbath.

 

[Downsville]

More good stuff about the gathering to the Holy Mountain.

EZEK.20 [40] For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things.[41] I will accept you with your sweet savour, when I bring you out from the people, and gather you out of the countries wherein ye have been scattered; and I will be sanctified in you before the heathen.

The Lord will gather HIS people out of the countries and bring them to HIS holy mountain. The WORD says “I will be sanctified in you before the heathen”. Look at Ezek.20 verse 12 to find out what this means.

EZEKIEL 20[12] Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Downsville:
Hi DHK
You wrote to Bob
Exodus 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

What tribe do you belong to Bob?

JOHN 10 [14] I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.[15] As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.[16] And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

As you can see, there are other sheep other than the 12 tribes

No there are only 12 tribes, unless you are referring to the heresy of replacement theology. Israel will always be Israel, distinct and separate from the Gentiles. Paul says very definitively that there are three groups of individuals in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Which are you: an unsaved Jew, an unsaved Gentile, or a Christian. A Gentile leaves his pagan background and becomes a Christian when he gets saved. A Jew leaves his Judaism and becomes a Christian when he gets saved. This how the Church of God exists. It is composed only of saved individuals whether they have backgrounds that are Jewish or that are pagan. We are one in Christ.

However, just as there remains in this world today pagans; there remains in this world the nation of Israel. Until Christ comes we are obligated not only to pray for the nation of Israel but to witness to them and try to win them to the Lord.

Some day they, as a nation, will turn to the Lord and be saved (Rom.11:26). This will happen at the Second Coming of Christ, at the end of the Tribulation Period, also called Jacob's Trouble.
To say that the nation of Israel does not exist is to close your eyes to all of history, and the current events that flash by on your TV screen. God promised the Jews the promised land of palestine, that someday they will occupy peacefully. That promise has not been fulfilled yet. But when Christ come, it will be fulfilled when He sets up his Millennial reign. Israel still exists. The church in no way has replaced it.
There are and will be 12 tribes. No Gentile can claim to be one of those tribes, or an extension thereof.
Or, have you converted to Judaism, rather than Christianity?
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Having all this in agreement - was more than I could have asked.

In Christ,
Bob

Yep, too much agreement. I'll have to sort through what we don't agree on. But it will take me some time. I am sure there will be plenty enough though.

DHK

 

[Eric B]

Uh, yeah, new moons too. That's the Biblical method of keeping time. Evening and a morning is a day, and one new moon to the next is a month.

And they also had ceremonies attached to them. That is what is meant when "new moon" is referred to. just like "from sabbath to sabbath" refers to a certain practice done on a regular basis. --unless you want to suggest "from sabbath to sabbath" also only marks the keeping of time, which you go against your argument.

No one is saying it should be. It is the blue print for how it is going to be in the New Heaven and New Earth!

But you're using this as proof it is mandatory now.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the silliest things I've heard in a long time. God never had any intention of the Old Covenant remaining. And He DID establish His Kingdom through her! How do ya think we got Jesus????

I meant the millennial and/or eternal Kingdom, finally established on earth, that the passage is speaking of. Yes, God may have planned for their to be a New Covenant, but still, as He worked in time with Israel, it was based on the premise that that would be the lasting covenant. Of course, God was writing the lesson in history that Christ and His New Covenant was necessary.

So just 9 of them. I'm not buying it.

Ok, where do you get 'original universal laws' from? That's a new one! If ANYTHING, the first law laid down was the Sabbath!!! It's mentioned before there was ever any sin!

Not as a "commandment". Torah scholars, like they have done with the 613 laws of Moses, have compiled the Noahide laws. (see www.noahide.com/7laws.htm). these are the laws we see God expecting man to follow from the beginning (against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual perversion, eating live meat/blood and the mandate to establish courts of justice). Some of these are the same as the 10 commandments.

Also, they are the laws on man's conscience. Man knows (as we see beginning with Cain, and including those who reject God) that these things are wrong. Not so with the Sabbath. It is not a universal law.

No, I just assumed that if you are going to ignore God in one Commandment, you might as well ignore them all because that is what you are doing by ignoring one.

But if He's not commanding it now, then it is not the same as "ignoring" all the others.

They still stand as strong as they did before. You can't explain away scripture. The Sabbath was made for man, right after the first man was made, and it will stand for eternity.

Always? Kind of like the Sabbath that God made for MAN, BEFORE there was ever any sin? Before the tree was introduced to them? Matt 5:17. THAT'S your proof? Did you read v 18??
No one jot or tittle, surely you know what that means.

Once again, not commanded then. You have to PROVE that first, not assume it and then use it as proof itself.

Actually they asked of ALL the Commandments which was greatest. And it isn't just the law that hangs on the two, the prophets are right there with them. Christ's fulfilment of the law, was by fulfilling the penalty for sin. He was able to be the ultimate sacrifice because He didn't break a single commandment! We are commended to be LIKE Christ. You do the math.

So does that mean we are supposed to participate in Temple rituals like He did? Those were "commandments" as well. The universal laws mentioned fulfill the two. The 10--&gt;613 was a temporary addition (because of sin--breaking the 7 we had before that), until Christ came.

I don't get your logic at all. Are you a man? The Sabbath was made for you. Do you plan on being in the New Heaven and the New Earth? You will keep the Sabbath there! Why not start now, and that way you'll know what's going on if you get there!

This is such non-sequitur logic. Once again, you ARE setting church practice based on what you read in Isaiah about the New Heavens.

Even through all the time between creation and Sinai, there were still people who were faithful to God. If you look briefly over the first few chapters of 1 Chronicles you will see that from Adam to Abraham, there were those who were counted faithful to God. Follow that geneology down to David, and again you will see men who continued to be 'faithful' to God. How did they know what to do? They already knew the Law before Sinai. Just as you confirm in your next statement. Men were breaking them, and there were those who were faithful.

The universal laws, that is. And when people broke them, God was angry, and we see an issue made of it. The sabbath was not apart of "the Law" until Israel. You're taking your assumtion that the Sabbath was always mandated to "the faithful" to prove that wherever you see "the faithful", means it was kept. That is a cyclical argument.

Good point. But is it valid? This is where we must go back to the fact that there was no written account until Moses started writing the first 5 books. Anyone can see just by reading the first 2 chapters of Genesis that they are some what mixed up!

"Mixed up"? Are we buying into modern scholarship that claims it is all mixed up between "J" and "E" accounts that who-knows-who wrote, and then men put it all together and claimed it was divine revelation?

Did Moses NEED to mention that the faithful of God were keeping the Sabbath up until the captivity? No. What was the first thing they started doing AGAIN when they were finally set free? (other than complaining ) Before they sacrificed anything, or waved anything, or built anything, God REESTABLISHED the Sabbath of Creation with them through the 'Manna'. What does the Manna symbolize? (John 6) Jesus of course! So THROUGH Jesus He reminded them of the Sabbath JOY. They had such a hard time even THEN after all those years of bondage in Egypt (sin) accepting God's Rest.

Once again, you're arguing based on a prior assumption. Did God "need" to mention that murder was wrong, or idolatry? No, but whatever man did was recorded, and God's anger regarding the commandments that were binding on man at the time, all of which they broke. If the sabbath was so universal, and in fact the most important thing, as ome seem to make it out to be, tyou would see it mentioned more than anything else. And it being the first thing commanded to Israel says nothing of this either. Remember, it was to give them their identity, so in beginning to establish the newly freed Israel's identity, He gave it to them early.

Ok, the people of Israel hadn't forgotten about God. They had been begging him for a few centuries to set them free. It was the SABBATH that they had forgotten because they had been working 7 days a week in Egypt. The Sabbath is a sign between the people of God and God. Not just the seed of Abraham.

I didn't say they forgot God. What I meant, was it was commanded as a binding set of restrictions, to enforce them coming together, worshipping, thinking about God, and not their own pursuits. Today we live by the Spirit, who keeps us focused like that. The Law was a "schoolmaster".

Where does it say in the Bible, that Christ fulfilled the law to the extent that in the Spirit, the letter is now abolished?
You cannot keep the Spirit of the Law while breaking the Letter of the Law!

You're not keeping all of the sacrifices and other temple rituals. That was also "the letter", but Christ fulfilled them, spiritually.

Is it just the Sabbath that He fulfills? Why not the others? If Christ fulfilling the Sabbath gives you liberty to BREAK the Sabbath Commandment WHY doesn't it give you liberty to break the others? It didn't say He fulfilled the 4th commandment! It said He fulfilled the LAW. SO, that means ALL of it. If He fulfilled the LAW (and He did), then why not murder? Cheat on your wife? Steal? He fulfilled it! Come on man! SIN is breaking the Law! WORKING on the Sabbath is a SIN.

He fulfills us because He gives us "rest" (the root of "unrest" is spiritua;, and we see that "cease from work as He did" is applied to "works" (in justifying onesself), not physical work. That was the "end" or "gaol" the Sabbath was foreshadowing. It was not a universal moral or spiritual law like the others, so you can't compare them just because it was included with them in the 10.

That's where you are both in error. You cannot blot out the verses in the Bible just because they make your false conclusions look bad! Jesus is LORD of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man. If you make Jesus the Sabbath, you just made Him, MADE for man, and Lord of Himself! There is NOTHING illogical about that conclusion.
The illogical conclusion is the one which states that we don't have to obey God's commandment because Jesus IS the Sabbath!

HOGWASH!

And you ignore where I clarified that this was TYPOLOGY, so you could carry on your accusatory rant. Why be so angry like this? If we are sinning, God will judge us. But if you are wrong that everyone else is sinning while you are keeping "all" of the commandments, then that is a blow to human pride. I used to keep the Sabbath thinking it was commanded for all, and that everyone else was false, and I know the emotional reaction when shown the truth that it does not make one more "obedient" than others.

[ January 22, 2004, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Eric B]

Do you know the chronology of the Bible? Do you know who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, and when he wrote them?

It is generally accepted that they were written by Moses. The accounts of the Sabbath and clean and unclean were inspired to him, to set the practice for Israel. We cannot say Adam or Noah kept these laws.

Eh, I'm going to have to disagree here as well. Noah was never told he could eat anything he wanted to. Even Noah knew what was clean and unclean. And I can guarantee you he didn't eat pigs. Want to know how I know that? Because we still have them today. There were only ONE male and ONE female of each UNCLEAN animal on the ark. When God brought the animals to Noah (Noah didn't gather them up like the kids books show), He sent the unclean by two's, but the clean in sets of SEVEN. Many believe that men who were faithful to God before Noah didn't even eat meat until after the flood. There are many who considered the antideluvian lifespan to be caused by the fact that they weren't eating flesh food. (if it is true) NOW, about that verse you referenced: Genesis 9:3, surely if that is all we read, every living thing on the planet is now ok to eat. How about me? Can you eat me? That's what it said! We need to let the Bible interpret itself. There is enough in just the flood account to support that we shouldn't eat unclean meat. God sent the clean animals into the ark in surplus so that Noah could sacrifice to God, and so they could eat. If God wanted man to start eating pig, He would have sent more.

God may have sent Noah only two of those animals, but Noah didn't necessarily know why. And in Gen.9:3, you are not one of the creatures mentioned in the previous verse (And "all that moveth on the face of the earth" is in the Leviticus unclean list used to represent animals!)

Now on that, you are wrong. But before I go into that, let me say, we most likely won't agree on what exactly is going to take place in the 'end times'...
The Bible is clear that there will be two kinds of people on this earth when Jesus comes back. The Wicked and the Righteous. What defines a righteous person? (Luke 1: 6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.) What defines a wicked person? they are disobedient.)
SO on that premise: We must determine WHAT sin is. Because it is the WICKED that will be destroyed, the WICKED that will be consumed by the fire. Because of LAWLESSNESS. Those who live in sin, knowing that they are committing sin, are purposing in their wicked hearts to sin against God. See Romans 1, knowing that it is sin, and doing it anyway leaves a person with no more a sacrifice for their sin. Without a sacrifice for their sin, that sin goes unforgiven. SO, by ignoring the Commandments of God, people will be choosing error and wickedness over righteousness, and it is the RIGHTEOUS who will shine with Christ. This is not a question of keeping 'a' sabbath. It is THE Sabbath of THE ONE TRUE GOD. The God of Israel, Who I am a servant of, gave His children THE Sabbath. It is the Seventh Day of the week. From evening to evening. It is Holy. There is PLENTY spoken of about the Sabbath all over the Bible. Even in passages about 'end times'. Read Isaiah 65-66. [They] not only mention the Sabbath, but tell us how to tell TRUE worship from false worship. TRUE Sabbath from false Sabbath. God wants to know what happened to His HOUSE!!! Read those two chapters, reference after reference of churches that are polluted by paganism, and falsehood!
I'm not certain what you are referring to with your reference to the final rebellion, so please clarify that, and I will respond then.

Still, you have to prove that the sabbath is still binding on all (NOW, not in the future Heaven), in order to say that not keeping it will be "sin", or the sin of the end-time church, the mark of the beast, etc. All of the NT prophecies go on to describe the actual sins that will be prevalent on earth in the last days, and the sabbath is NEVER such an issue.

And He also wouldn't have said this:
Isaiah 65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
And yet as if He hadn't been clear enough:
Isaiah 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.

Did you catch that last part? You wanted to see some end times stuff about the sins I mentioned, specifically the Sabbath and unclean meat. Well THERE'S your unclean meat!

Consumed together!

Sabbath? You want end times? Here is the absolute END!

Isaiah 66: 22. For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
24. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

After all those pork eating, lawless people are consumed, the righteous will worship God ON THE SABBATH and look upon the carcases of those who IGNORED God. They are abhorring even now.

Once again, this was conditional on the Old Covenant being in effect. And you had earlier suggested that the priests and Levites of v.21 was before the New Heavens, and did not apply, but that is mentioned after the swines'flesh reference. Clearly, it is all apart of the same scenario. If the sabbath and unclean laws are in effect NOW, because of this, then you should also be keeping temple ritual and new moon ceremonies. Remember, "Not one jot nor tittle" "If you break one..."

NO WHERE is marriage Commanded. How many commandments out of the 600+ do you think have to do with the Sabbath?
Moot argument. Nice analogy though!

It IS commanded "be fruitful and multiply", which is much more of a command than the simple mention of God resting on the sabbath. Not in the 613 commandments, but the argument was on something mentioned at creation before the fall, "made for man" proving it is mandatory for all.

The fact that it was made for man is not what makes it binding. It is the fact that it is COMMANDED BY GOD, that it is binding. The fact that it was made for man, is what proves that the Sabbath Commandment wasn't just for Israel.

It wasn't commanded for all, or at all times. Now, you take Christ's statement to try to prove it was commanded for all of man, when that was not what He was talking about. Not WHO it was for, as opposed to who it was not for, but whether it was for man, or man was for it. Even you next admit "In fact I know exactly what He was referring to when He said that. People imposing MAN MADE rules on people". Once again, this has nothing to do with all men being commanded it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's precisely the type of thinking Christ was speaking against when He said that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What thinking? Are you referring to the thought that we should obey God? I'm sure that's not what Jesus was referring to.

You for one, are trying to make it an issue of "obedience" (when the NT does not), thus binding men, as if man really was made for the Sabbath after all (wasn't man made to 'obey' God?). It was an issue of obedience in the OT, but Jesus is setting the principle, not just of eliminating manmade additional rules, but that is is not something to be "binding" on us.

You didn't really address this, in the last post so I have left it intact:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW, if you can honestly reconcile with your own opinion and the Bible that God allowed people to live in a 7 day work week from Creation up to the Manna account and not once mention anything about it, KNOWING that the Sabbath was going to stand for eternity (as shown by Isaiah 66), then it is not within the pages of Scripture to convince you. Sadly.

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

Yes I did address it. You're placing some sort of restriction on God that He must have revealed it from the beginning if He was going to reveal it later, or that he would have to command the sabbath if He revealed the 7 day week to them; else it wouldn't make sense. That's God you're arguing with, not me. As I said, He is free to reveal things when He wants, not when you think in order to maintain your system.

[ January 22, 2004, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Eric B]

As for this whole Deity of Christ issue, I read the Babylonfallen site 3 Angels linked to somewhere and said it was similar to her beliefs. It is not SDA, and doesn't seem to be an Armstrong offshoot either. Perhaps some other offshoot of the Church of God.
Anyway, there were several antitrinitarian pages, which spelled out their theology.
Basically, they see Christ as "proceeding forth from" God (biblical language) as the "Son of God". "God" to them, they apparently reserve for who trinitarians would call the Person of the Father, so the Son is distinct from "God". (making it look like they deny the Deity of Christ) Yet they do see him as apart of the divine essence (like the trinitarians affirm). I myself at first was reading and thinking "are they Arians or what?", but they condemned Arianism for saying Christ was created as a being separate from the divine nature. Remember, "proceeding forth" in this case does not equal "created", because the divine nature was eternal, and nothing is being "added" to it.
This theology is actually very close to the pre-Nicene orthodox position of Tertullian and others of that era. The difference is that to them, "God" represented the whole Godhead or divine nature, so they would affirm, like the later Nicene Trinitarians, that "Jesus is God".
So no, nobody here believes Christ was created; neither because of His generation from the father, nor because He fulfills the purpose of the Sabbath made for man.

 

[Eric B]

Even those that presume that the only influence on the Galatian Christians are Jews – hoping even to limit it to orthodox Jews we find..

#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 –
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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.

Once again, you're just pasting the same already answered and refuted charges. But here's even more if all of that weren't enough.

The more you study this, the more the real meaning of "paratereo" (watch with evil intent) supports what I've been saying, and is a big strike against your view. I don't know why I didn't do this when I first looked it up; but the best way to get the true definition of a Greek word is to see its OTHER uses in scripture. In this one case in Galatians, it is translated "observe". Elsewhere, it is simply "watched".
Mark. 3:2 "they watched him closely, whether he would heal on the sabbath so they could accuse him
Luke 6:7 the scribes and Pharisees watched him closely, whether he would heal on the sabbath so they could find an accusation against him
14:1...as He went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees to eat bread on the the sabbath day, that they watched him closely [once again, to accuse him for healing]
20:20 they watched him, and sent forth spies who pretended to be righteous, that they might sieze on His words, and deliver him to the power and authority of the governor
Acts 9:24 [Now after many days were past, the Jews plotted to kill him]. But their plot became known to Saul. they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

So in all of these cases, it refers to the Jews' plots to kill Jesus, or the newly reformed Paul. (Wow! in most of these cases, it even involves God's Sabbath!) How did they do this, Bob? Oh, let me guess, they hired stargazers, or read a star chart to find/see Jesus or Paul. Or maybe it was a crystal ball, or incantations. After all, "watch with evil intent" can only mean ASTROLOGY and OCCULTISM! Clearly your definition of the term (and any scholars who take this view) falls flat. "In addition to "watch insidiously (evil intent), it also adds "or scrupulously" (strictly, principled, strict regard for what one considers right; moral or ethical standard that acts as a restraining force or inhibits certain actions). The two meanings coincide, because the "evil intent" lied in the strictness in which they kept the days. So all we see here is that they were keeping days, strictly. Factor in the whole context of them "desiring to be under the Law" and the rest of what the letter was dealing with, and no speculation of additional pagan influence of backsliding into it is necessary. Romans 14 instructs us to keep the day unto the Lord if we so choose, and not judge. But the Galatians were going way beyond that. As you said; "these gentiles, these converted pagans – were never Jews". So then, why were they all of a sudden keeping Jewish days like this? Not for any good reason (as in Rom.) So yes, they were different, and that's why one is condemned, and the other appraised. So yes, it is as you said; "The 'OBSERVANCE' is what is condemned". Yeah, the observance, NOT THE DAYS in themselves that were evil. Else, he would have used the other word for "observe", since the day itself is evil, not the "intent" in which they are observing it. In Lev.19, "times" was translated from a word meaning occult practices. It has nothing to do with Galatians, (evan though they are translated similarly in English) and your constant repeating of this shows you cannot refute the facts.
We have spent so much time arguing on this, so it's time to let it go. It just does not mean what you say it does.

 

[Downsville]

DHK
Im beginning to see you in a new light

You wrote
No there are only 12 tribes, unless you are referring to the heresy of replacement theology.

I never said there were more than 12 tribes

Israel will always be Israel, distinct and separate from the Gentiles.

You do know ALL Israel will be saved.Are you saying there are different roads to the kingdom

You wrote
A Gentile leaves his pagan background and becomes a Christian when he gets saved.

He leaves his pagan background? What day do the pagans say the sun was born on? Whos Ishtar, Tammuz? Who makes their cookies to the queen of heaven?

There are and will be 12 tribes. No Gentile can claim to be one of those tribes, or an extension thereof.

Once again a diliberate lie DHK. Like i said at the first, i now see you in a different light. Or lack thereof.