How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

[Eric B]

Right, like if being accused of thinking like a Pharisee is not an ad hominem. If you end the personal assessments of any kind and stick to the issues I’ll do likewise and end my opinion that your arguments are antinomian and stick strictly to the issues.

The way I look at it I’m merely responding to your ad hominem with at least a modicum of restraint. If you don’t want it to get personal then at least attempt to end the ad hominem yourself and I shall reciprocate. In truth there certainly is ad hominem, but its merely become heated at this point again, so just stick to the issues from this point forward and I’ll do the same.

Don't put this on me. You're not merely "responding" when you have from the beginning started off as the self-proclaimed "rebuker" of "bad doctrine [according to you] on the Law". That is how you have approached the issue, and this drives your rhetoric. So you expect me to chew on all your words about me and my "twisted", "flawed", "irrational", "shameless" "batting zero", "bad to worse" logic, etc or my motives until you decide to tone it down, which may be never, since you think my arguments are so bad and antinomian and thus deserving of such contumaciousness, "like Jesus with the Pharisees".

I thought changing it to "thinking like a Pharisee" was softening it, and that is nothing compared to all the unmitigated absolute statements, above, you continue to utter aginst my logic.
You have no excuse for all of that just because I may respond with one thing in kind once in awhile.

Again, you’re sidestepping that I’ve exposed your fallacious definition of a circular fallacy. The term “tautology” is the most precise word that summarizes a circular fallacy because circular fallacies are upheld by merely repeating the SAME idea in different ways. Circular fallacies are supported by merely repeating the same premise in different ways, not by merely dismissing other arguments. Again, the “subject” of my original premise on
this tread is completely different, though related, from my supporting arguments, which proves my logical arguments are not a circular fallacy.

Again, let me point out another nuance of the pot calling the kettle black. You accuse me automatically dismissing or
ignoring you, but then presume to tell me WHAT my original premise was/is on this thread and its support. Silly me, I thought the author of the thread decided these things and not the respondents.
I, as the author of the thread, decide what my original premise is and not you. My sentence that stated the thread was the premise that the change in the law, Hebrews 7:12, has been misconstrued by contemporary Christendom. The STANDING of the Decalogue was in support to my premise, which IS NOT just another way of repeating the premise or a circular fallacy.

So my original premise WAS NOT “that the Sabbath is perennial, because it is in the Decalogue”. It is clear that you’d like to MAKE it so because then the mere support of standing might be construed as a circular fallacy, but that is not the truth. I’m the one that decides what the original premise is/was and it’s not your place as the respondent to presume to change this to your liking because your argument on logic has been proven fallacious.
What is clear is that you misrepresent my posts by your flawed logic and by this vehicle attempt to overcome my arguments. And this is clearly revealed when you shamelessly change my premise and its support into: that the cancellation is based on rank, yet in that case, the rank is determined by “cancellation”

I never stated that cancellation was based upon rank; cancellation is a completely different issue than rank. The cancellation in Hebrews doesn’t mention the importance or rank of the law, whatsoever. There is no mention of first or second or greatest or least, which is rank; the discernment in Hebrews strictly concerns weak shadows that were imperfect and unprofitable oblations offered up perpetually under the Old Covenant for sin. Standing supports the criterion of cancellation, but IS NOT based upon the same type of determination which precludes any notion of a circular fallacy.

Let me reiterate my premise and support again and maybe you’ll get it this time if you straighten out your fallacious logic.
The commandments that rank immediately under the FIRST and greatest commandment sum up how to love Yah and these are found in the first table and not below where the ceremonial law hung--]COLOR=blue]even below the laws of incest. The fourth commandment did not hang below the laws of incest with the ceremonial
law but hung side by side with the other three commandments that summarize how to love Yah! Consequently, the STANDING of the fourth supports my premise that it DID NOT fall under the criterion of the law that was cancelled because the law that was cancelled hung below the laws of incest and not above where Yah placed the fourth. The perpetual offerings for sin that prefigured Yahshua hung below the laws of incest proven by the truth that they were not cancelled, while the ceremonial was. The method of proof heres is the same as that which verifies that the laws of incest are still lawful.

You see what you do here? You go through all of this to insist that your original premise is "how the law changed in Heb.7:12", but then, that LEADS to the "standing" in the Law, which in turn LEADS TO the sabbath has the higher standing and thus is not cancelled like the laws that hung further below. So therefore, what you are saying is basically that the point of Hebrews' teaching on the standing of the Law EQUALS the point of the sabbath being perennial. It's all laid out for us above. So when you make either statement, you are purporting to convey the same thing, and hence it IS a 'tautology'!. Else, tell, me, what else is your point with "standing", then?
(And you have not shown this foreign idea that the ceremonies "hung below" the laws on incest. Isn't that precisely one of the things you so vehemently denied?)

The warnings in the Olivet Discourse are clearly to the disciples or the pillars of the church (see Ephesians 2:20) so that they would escape the destruction that was to come upon the rebellious Jews that rejected Yahshua (see Matthew 22:1-6). Yahshua cannot be speaking of any other thing than the Sabbath as it was codified in the fourth commandment. I don’t know what the heck you talking about on this issue; you need clarify what you’re getting at above because it makes no sense whatsoever and my exegesis on the Olivet Discourse still stands unless you able to make yourself clear.

You have perfectly illustrated my point here. (I never said He was speaking of anything other than the sabbath!) That reference to the sabbath was for those Jews who still had the Temple, and would endure the destruction, and had nothing to do with all of us afterwards.

Gentiles COULD NOT partake of the Passover without being circumcised; the circumcision was bound to the shadow law of the Passover. Your logic is batting zero on every issue.

Did you not get my example with the dollar? The Passover was not the OBJECT of circumcision just because circumcision was a requirement as you are assuming. Entry into the nation was the object, and Passover observance one of things required once in the nation.

I can’t prevent you from teaching anything; only expose it to the light of scriptures when it’s error. If we’re not responsible for the letter or spirit of the ceremonial law then it’s been cancelled and doesn’t aid in any assertion that the law was relaxed by the end of the letter for the spirit.

Once again; I am not the one speaking in terms of "relaxed", so this means nothing pertaining to me.

 

[Eric B]

The truth that the letter kills, did not abolish the letter, but merely elevated the spirit. The letter of thou shalt not kill is still written in the heart as well as the spirit that we should love our neighbor as ourselves. The argument that ONLY the spirit of love survives the law stems from an antinomian argument on the law. And relaxation does not conform to magnification.

This is an improper interpretation because the OT people of the covenant were able to keep the fourth commandment and still enter into that rest. Whether most failed doesn’t preclude that some overcame, which we see evidenced in Hebrews chapter eleven. The rest was concurrent with the creation rest, which relegates your position to unsound doctrine on the law.

I don't know what exactly you mean by "the spirit of love", but Jesus and the rest of the NT clearly teach that love is the fulfilling of the Law. So if the letter of a given command performs an necessary act of love, it is proven universal or perennial. If not, it is probably a shadow pointing to a greater spiritual meaning. You yourself point out that avoiding commerce on the sabbath is for our own rest. That is not "love for God" like the other three in the first tablet. So it has a greater spiritual meaning, especially when we are to do physical work for the Kingdom. Anyway, we are to love God by worshipping and making him the center of our lives everyday. That's how it is magnified now. Of course they were supposed to do the same in the OC, but in the NT that is the sole focus. Refraining from commerce is not perennial. Not blaspeming or worshipping other gods IS. The former was just a sign given to one people in a covenant that was eventually broken.

James uses the same technique as Paul in other places by summing up the law and not enumerating. There was no need for endless enumerations because they knew the Ten Commandments. The sum of the second table is love thy neighbor, which was already revealed in the OT (Leviticus 19:18) and is the object of the context. There is nothing new other than the emphasis on the object of the second table. One cannot magnify the object or the summation without upholding that the Ten STILL hang upon the summary. If you’re asserting that the summary of the law did away with the Ten Commandments then you are using an antinomian argument.

The law against the marriage of siblings ARE NOT “expounded” upon nor “expressly stated” again in the NT or NC, but that does not mean that the laws against incest have been abolished. We know the laws against incest have not been abolished through proper exegesis on the subject of the law in the NT scriptures, which is the exact methodology I use to support my premise and its support. This verifies that your argument here is irrational and repeating it in different ways is circular reasoning.

Look at you go outside of Timothy to enumerate the first and second commandments. Weren’t you the one claiming it was using the law unlawfully to mention the Sabbath because it wasn't in the text in Timothy? What fallacious logic. It's OK for "you" to rely on the other scriptures and so in truth you falsely accused me in using the law unlawfully, for you certainly as yet not proven your point that the fourth commandment has be abolished by any means. And again your logic is fallacious because it implies that there was no need for Yah to write the tenth commandment in the first place. Your logic goes from bad to worse as in the irrational stance that there is no “express enumeration of the fourth” in the NT. We know the laws against incest have not been abolished through proper exegesis on the subject of the law in the NT scriptures, which is the exact methodology I we use to support the standing of the fourth in the New Covenant.

I didn't say you were using the law unlawfully for going outside of Timothy, but rather for it not being found ANYWHERE in the NT, and just assuming it carries over from the OT. So yes, I use other NT scriptures to back up my position.

I also didn't say there was no need for God to write the Tenth Commandment. It's not about what God "needs" to write, but what He chooses to highlight. When it says that is we break one we've broken them all, that means that the commandments overlap each other. That doesn't make any one unneeded, but it does show us the superiority of the spirit over a point by point letter code!

Sorry, but "they knew the Ten Commandments" doesn't work. That was still assocaiated with "the Law", which the Gentiles were clearly said not to be under. That, BTW does not refer to the ceremonies only. So the UNIVERSAL commandments are repeated. The sabbath is left out of EVERY SINGLE ONE of such "summaries" in the NT. We are not to assume they affirmed it elsewhere, or "they knew but it was never mentioned", for that becomes secret apostolic tradition like the Catholics. ESPECIALLY given how of utmost importance it is supposed to be.
They declare the the gentiles are not under the OC law, but then teach which commandments from it are universal and still binding. Not "only ceremonies were cancelled and what we mean by the 'Law' you gentiles are not under".

Paul mentions one type of incest, so this was obviously a universal law, and the others are naturally immoral. That's how we know it is not abolished. Why would it ever be?

Being justified without the deeds of the law DOES NOT translate into the heathen instruct upon the law and Paul reaffirms this by stating it is the covenant people that establish the law and not the heathen. This was originally confirmed in the OT.

“He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord.” Psalms 147:19-20

Your exegesis and logic fails because Yah has always chosen covenant people to reveal Himself and His law to the heathen and not the other way around. And further, the object of the covenant people is to convert the world to Yah and it’s the very fact that the heathen have some inkling of the law written in the hearth that convicts them that they are sinners of the need of Yahshua and edification in the law through the covenant people. And when they are edified they find that Yahshua is Lord of the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath was made for mankind and not simply the Jew, which only supports it under the New Covenant.

The mistake you continue to make here is that the scriptures you have cited take place within the context of the OC, which you keep trying to transfer to us. So no, God did not "deal with" any other people through a covenant like that, and yes, that was to be spread to all the world. But that covenant was broken by the people, so God is not working through a visible nation and ethnic group now. In fact, Paul and others clearly describe this covenant as "turning to the nations/gentiles" rather than bringing the gentiles into Israel's covenant. That "covenant" also included the "ceremonies" that we both know would be cancelled. If that covenant had spread to all the nations without Messiah being cut off by the people and breaking the covenant, then they would have been bound to those things too. (Or were they not really apart of the covenant just because they would later cease?). So this argument does not prove your point.
God gave mankind universal laws, and He gave His covenant people those PLUS special additional laws (added "because of sin" until the promise), so when that covenant is broken, all that is left are the universal laws. This has nothing to do with "the heathen determining or "revealing" the universal Law" as you keep saying.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Yahshua was the object of “thou shalt not kill” but that did not make the sixth commandment a weak, imperfect and unprofitable shadow that prefigured Yahshua. Poor argument.

Is this an observation on your own 'argument', it seems?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What is this all about? All this about 'how the law was changed? I guess it's all about the continuity of the Sabbath Day; is it still valid for God's People or not?

I don't care whether or not the Law was changed or whether it is still valid - the 'Law' in any form! Jesus Christ IS God's Word of Law - IS, the Law of God - His Law Triumphant and according to an everlasting , indestructable LIFE - That is the Christians' Law, Jesus Christ.

Poor man who is unable todiscern this; and poorer still the one who thinks it annulls the Law of God of the Old Covenant, and does not establish, and magnify it, once for ever in Jesus Christ and by Him and through Him and for the sake of Him.

Conclusion: Exclusive affirmation of the Sabbath Day of the Lord your God is founded upon THIS 'change' in the Law - an inevitable 'change' to its perpetuation into the New Earth upon which shall dwell the lovers of God's Law.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior said "If you Love me KEEP My Commandments" - He did not say "If you love Me DISSECT My commandments until you find some you agree with..."

 

[Michaeneu]

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

I thought changing it to "thinking like a Pharisee" was softening it, and that is nothing compared to all the unmitigated absolute statements, above, you continue to utter aginst my logic. You have no excuse for all of that just because I may respond with one thing in kind once in awhile.

Like I stated earlier, you have no higher ground or excuse either because you have been just as guilty of handing out the ad hominem. We’ll see who keeps this out of the issues and I expect for this issue to not be mentioned again unless someone falters. And if your arguments on logic are flawed it is not ad hominem to point that out, but I shall soften my verbiage.

You see what you do here? You go through all of this to insist that your original premise is "how the law changed in Heb.7:12", but then, that LEADS to the "standing" in the Law, which in turn LEADS TO the sabbath has the higher standing and thus is not cancelled… hence it IS a 'tautology'

Do you see what you’re doing here? We disputed at length the criterion in Hebrews or whether the fourth commandment “prefigured” anything, let alone the Melchisedec ministry for the remission of sin, which is the criterion for the cancellation of the law set forth in Hebrews chapter seven through ten. The intent of the shadow law was appeasement for sin under the Old Covenant; the fourth commandment pointed to sin and was not a ritual for the appeasement of sin. My original premise was that the fourth commandment DID NOT meet the criterion of the law that was canceled and you have yet to show anywhere in scripture where the forth commandment prefigured anything or that was a ritual for the propitiation of sin that prefigure Yahshua. In truth, then, I don’t even need STANDING to maintain my original premise, when the only text that you continually misapply to support your counter-point is Hebrews chapter four. Hebrews chapter four DOES NOT even mention the fourth commandment let alone reveal that the fourth pointed to or prefigured anything. I’m still waiting for this supposed evidence of yours that exposes the fourth commandment as a ritual shadow for the appeasement of sin that prefigured Yahshua, which is the criterion that is set forth in Hebrews and my original premise.

STANDING, supports my original premise in that the perpetual offerings for sin that prefigured Yahshua were cancelled because they ranked below the laws of incest, but the rank of fourth commandment by its placement was fixed above the laws of incest, which upholds the fourth as a moral precept because it was contained in the law that summarized how to love Yah. In support of THIS assertion or argument, which supports my original premise, I’ve stated that nothing is capricious about the issue of standing. We don’t just merely interpret the morality of the fourth commandment by helter-skelter and whim but by standing, decisiveness and order. That is to say Yah does nothing by chance or whim, but is decisive and there is order to His every act. By placing the commandment in the venue of the moral laws He gave it the same standing. To suggest otherwise is to suppose that Yah is capricious, indecisive and had no reason to place it at parity with other moral precepts. The essence of “context” is NOT to take something out of its setting and Yah placed the fourth commandment in a setting of morality. Only Yahweh can take the commandment out of this setting and there is absolutely no warrant in the NT for such an act of capriciousness.

The methodology used here is the same you use to verify that the laws of incest do not meet the criterion in Hebrews.

Consequently, my logical arguments are the furthest thing from a circular fallacy or tautology. Cancellation is based upon a completely different evaluation than rank. There is no mention of first or second or greatest or least concerning the law in Hebrews, which is rank; the discernment in Hebrews strictly concerns rituals for the appeasement of sin under the Old Covenant. Standing supports the criterion of cancellation, but IS NOT based upon the same type of evaluation which precludes any notion of a circular fallacy.

You have perfectly illustrated my point here. (I never said He was speaking of anything other than the sabbath!) That reference to the sabbath was for those Jews who still had the Temple, and would endure the destruction, and had nothing to do with all of us afterwards.

No, Yahshua confirmed the STANDING of the fourth AFTER the cross, while the OT propitiation for sin or the shadows that prefigured Yahshua were canceled at the cross.

“Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” Hebrews 10:18

“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross…” Colossians 2:14. (Briefly, one blots out what is written by ink upon papyrus, not upon what is written on stone!)

We find a marked conflict in exegesis and logic when one attempts to assert that Colossians above confirms that the seventh-day Sabbath was cancelled at the cross, but Yahshua declared the commandment continued to have relevance or standing AFTER the cross in the Olivet Discourse.

The destruction of Jerusalem cancelled nothing in this respect. Dispensationalism attempts to draw out the ceremonial offerings for sin by suggesting that the book of Acts verifies that the Apostles continued to offer these for the purpose of upholding their unsound doctrine that the church is a parenthesis and to be distinguished from Israel. This leads to the untenable position that there are TWO covenants and TWO different ways to salvation; one for the Jew and another for the Gentile. In truth Acts supports that the Apostles went to the temple to declare the end of the ceremonial law and the remission of sin; not to continue to verify them as Dispensationalism suggests.

The act of the cross DID NOT leave the ceremonial law binding on the Jew until the destruction of the temple as your assertion suggests, but ended their lawful standing of the rituals for the appeasement of sin that prefigured Yahshua at the cross. Yahshua’s statement in the Olivet Discourse reveals the Sabbath as binding and lawful after the cross and not merely tied to the destruction of the temple.

 

[Michaeneu]

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Did you not get my example with the dollar? The Passover was not the OBJECT of circumcision just because circumcision was a requirement as you are assuming. Entry into the nation was the object, and Passover observance one of things required once in the nation.

It’s apparent you missed my point. Your analogy is apples to oranges. We aren’t buying anything in the ordinance; Yah is merely stipulating that the Passover could not be separated from circumcision; circumcision was bound to it. And concerning entering under the Old Covenant there were ONLY two ordinances that required circumcision and the Gentiles that made a conscious decision to convert could not have fallen under the eighth-day ordinance but the one bound to the shadow of the Passover. In Galatians the Judaizers were ignorant that the OT ceremonies for propitiation for sin ended at the cross.

Once again; I am not the one speaking in terms of "relaxed", so this means nothing pertaining to me.

Regardless, one cannot use Yah’s remission of sin to imply the letter of the law has been canceled for the spirit.

I don't know what exactly you mean by "the spirit of love", but Jesus and the rest of the NT clearly teach that love is the fulfilling of the Law…. That is not "love for God" like the other three in the first tablet.

How can one state that honoring Yah’s day that he hollowed at creation for our benefit not loving Yah? How can one state that the intent of putting all worldly considerations away, such as buying and selling, for one day to worship Yah, NOT loving Yah? Where does one substantiate in scripture that the fourth commandment was for the purpose of propitiation of sin and NOT the revelation of sin?

I didn't say you were using the law unlawfully for going outside of Timothy, but rather for it not being found ANYWHERE in the NT, and just assuming it carries over… I also didn't say there was no need for God to write the Tenth Commandment... "they knew the Ten Commandments" doesn't work. That was still assocaiated with "the Law", which the Gentiles were clearly said not to be under. That, BTW does not refer to the ceremonies only. So the UNIVERSAL commandments are repeated. The sabbath is left out of EVERY SINGLE ONE of such "summaries" …We are not to assume they affirmed it elsewhere…The mistake you continue to make here is that the scriptures you have cited take place within the context of the OC, which you keep trying to transfer to us…. In fact, Paul and others clearly describe this covenant as "turning to the nations/gentiles" rather than bringing the gentiles into Israel's covenant…. This has nothing to do with "the heathen determining or "revealing" the universal Law" as you keep saying.

I don’t assume anything on the fourth; I reveal its continued standing in the New Covenant by the New Testament and by the same methodology by which we know the laws of incest did not fall under the criterion by which the law was cancelled. Consequently, I am using the law lawfully. Unless you can overcome all of what I’ve written concerning the fourth, then you are using the law unlawfully and not I. And the point is that the tenth commandment was part of the summation of loving our neighbor, so we must rely on other scripture to conform to the object of what Paul states in Timothy, which is what I do concerning the fourth and as you did concerning the first and second.

Your methodology quite often deals in unrelated minutiae which stray off point (not unlike the Noahide law concept). Under the Old Covenant transgression of the moral law was appeased by ceremonies that pointed to Yahshua; they were “under” the ceremonial law as well as the moral law. Under the New Covenant, in Yahshua, we are under neither but this truth doesn’t discern which laws did not fall under the criterion in Hebrews and continue to have standing today. Let’s stay on point.

In truth we find that there is great contention over how to keep the Sabbath properly in the New Testament and Yahshua’s testimony only confirmed its standing with the moral law that was part of the summation of loving Yah. There is no evidence in the NT or the Old Covenant that reveals the fourth commandment as a ritual for the appeasement of sin that prefigured Yahshua, but only that it revealed sin. Brevity, or summation and scant enumeration DOES NOT overcome this truth. We know that even though there is brevity and scant enumeration concerning the laws against incest they HAVE NOT BEEN abolished through proper exegesis on the subject of the law in the NT scriptures, which is the exact methodology we use in support of the truth that the fourth commandment was not a ritual for the appeasement of sin, but law that uncovered sin. In truth we have more evidence on the holiness and how it, the fourth commandment, reveals sin in the NT than concerning incest.

Turning to the Gentiles DOES NOT translate into any interpretation that Yah has changed concerning how He reveals His law today or to whom He has committed it. It is still the covenant people who “establish the law” according to Paul and not the Ethnos. That the Ethnos have some inkling of the law convicts them that they are sinners in the need of Yahshua and FURHTER edification in the law through the covenant people. And when they are edified they find that Yahshua is Lord of the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath was made for mankind and not simply the Jew, which only supports its lawful STANDING of the fourth under the New Covenant.

Michael

 

[Eric B]

Like I stated earlier, you have no higher ground or excuse either because you have been just as guilty of handing out the ad hominem.
And if your arguments on logic are flawed it is not ad hominem to point that out, but I shall soften my verbiage.

That right there has been part of the problem. Your definition of “ad-hominem” excluding “if my logic is flawed”. But you must remember, there are two sides to this, and I don’t think my arguments are flawed, just like you don’t think yours are, so that is why trying to lash out at what we think is “flawed” like that leads to problems. I have not approached the discussion this way (where I‘m going to rip up anything you say that I think is “flawed”), but only responded when I felt insulted.
But OK, just as long as you soften it, I’ll have no reason to respond in kind.

No, Yahshua confirmed the STANDING of the fourth AFTER the cross, while the OT propitiation for sin or the shadows that prefigured Yahshua were canceled at the cross.

(Briefly, one blots out what is written by ink upon papyrus, not upon what is written on stone!)

We find a marked conflict in exegesis and logic when one attempts to assert that Colossians above confirms that the seventh-day Sabbath was cancelled at the cross, but Yahshua declared the commandment continued to have relevance or standing AFTER the cross in the Olivet Discourse.

The destruction of Jerusalem cancelled nothing in this respect. Dispensationalism attempts to draw out the ceremonial offerings for sin by suggesting that the book of Acts verifies that the Apostles continued to offer these for the purpose of upholding their unsound doctrine that the church is a parenthesis and to be distinguished from Israel. This leads to the untenable position that there are TWO covenants and TWO different ways to salvation; one for the Jew and another for the Gentile. In truth Acts supports that the Apostles went to the temple to declare the end of the ceremonial law and the remission of sin; not to continue to verify them as Dispensationalism suggests.

The act of the cross DID NOT leave the ceremonial law binding on the Jew until the destruction of the temple as your assertion suggests, but ended their lawful standing of the rituals for the appeasement of sin that prefigured Yahshua at the cross. Yahshua’s statement in the Olivet Discourse reveals the Sabbath as binding and lawful after the cross and not merely tied to the destruction of the temple.

I do not take dispensationalist that far, but just like you said with circumcision after the Crown, it was a tradition that many Jews continued to hold. There’s also a theory I have been studying that suggests the covenants did overlap until the destruction, with Jews still partly bound to the temple system, and this would explain all the passages where they were to “persevere” until an “end” that was in their lifetimes in which they would see the full fruition of salvation. I’m still weighing how true this could be, but still, in whichever case, many did still keep the Sabbath, but it was made clear that it was not binding on gentiles. When the Temple was destroyed, and many fled or were carried off into captivity, all of that dispersed, and whichever Jewish Christians were left mostly bended in with the Gentile Church. Jesus says nothing about “binding” in the Olivet sermon. We must not read something like that there.
(And do you have any evidence on your “stone vs. papyrus” theory? I think you’re taking that a bit beyond what was intended)

Regardless, one cannot use Yah’s remission of sin to imply the letter of the law has been canceled for the spirit.

Turning to the Gentiles DOES NOT translate into any interpretation that Yah has changed concerning how He reveals His law today or to whom He has committed it. It is still the covenant people who “establish the law” according to Paul and not the Ethnos. That the Ethnos have some inkling of the law convicts them that they are sinners in the need of Yahshua and FURHTER edification in the law through the covenant people. And when they are edified they find that Yahshua is Lord of the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath was made for mankind and not simply the Jew, which only supports its lawful STANDING of the fourth under the New Covenant.

When Paul said “Yea, we ‘establish’ the Law, he was not talking about Old Covenant Israel, which is the mistake your argument continues to suggest, but rather the NEW Covenant body of Christ. Here you change your criterion, from “weak shadows” and “standing” to “the covenant people”. Obviously, we do not have all the same laws they did, because the ceremonies and circumcision have ended. So pointing to the Laws OC Israel had does not prove what is perennial.
We do not create, determine, etc. the Law, and neither did I ever say that the Ethnos did. All Biblical Law comes from GOD; both the Law the ethnos were aware of, plus that and the additional laws given to the people of the covenant. And God did change how He revealed the Law, because man did not always have the tablets of stone, and neither do we, according to 2 Cor.3:3. It was not some “inkling” of the Law they had either. Why would God give them only an inkling of the Law and hold the rest only for the people of the covenant? The people in the world were not condemned or lost for not knowing of the whole Law, but for sinning, which is not obeying the Law that was clearly known about. Nowhere is anyone ever condemned for not following all the Laws of Israel. They would have been brought under them if Israel had kept the covenant she was given, but since that didn’t happened, the covenant changed. And once again, you all read too much onto “made for mankind”. That means that any man who aims to keep it, it is made for them, NOT “all men are BOUND BY it” (with restrictions on their activities), for surely then, men would be made for it!

It’s apparent you missed my point. Your analogy is apples to oranges. We aren’t buying anything in the ordinance; Yah is merely stipulating that the Passover could not be separated from circumcision; circumcision was bound to it.

Passover could not be partaken of apart from Passover. Neither could anyone join the nation and keep the weekly Sabbath without keeping the Passover or being circumcised.That does not say that Passover is exclusively APART OF the Passover!

 

[Eric B]

The intent of the shadow law was appeasement for sin under the Old Covenant; the fourth commandment pointed to sin and was not a ritual for the appeasement of sin. In truth, then, I don’t even need STANDING to maintain my original premise, when the only text that you continually misapply to support your counter-point is Hebrews chapter four. Hebrews chapter four DOES NOT even mention the fourth commandment I’m still waiting for this supposed evidence of yours that exposes the fourth commandment as a ritual shadow for the appeasement of sin that prefigured Yahshua.

STANDING, supports my original premise in that the perpetual offerings for sin that prefigured Yahshua were cancelled because they ranked below the laws of incest, but the rank of fourth commandment by its placement was fixed above the laws of incest, which upholds the fourth as a moral precept because it was contained in the law that summarized how to love Yah. In support of THIS assertion or argument, which supports my original premise, I’ve stated that nothing is capricious about the issue of standing. We don’t just merely interpret the morality of the fourth commandment by helter-skelter and whim but by standing, decisiveness and order. That is to say Yah does nothing by chance or whim, but is decisive and there is order to His every act. By placing the commandment in the venue of the moral laws He gave it the same standing. To suggest otherwise is to suppose that Yah is capricious, indecisive and had no reason to place it at parity with other moral precepts. The essence of “context” is NOT to take something out of its setting and Yah placed the fourth commandment in a setting of morality. Only Yahweh can take the commandment out of this setting and there is absolutely no warrant in the NT for such an act of capriciousness.

Consequently, my logical arguments are the furthest thing from a circular fallacy or tautology. Cancellation is based upon a completely different evaluation than rank. There is no mention of first or second or greatest or least concerning the law in Hebrews, which is rank. Standing supports the criterion of cancellation, but IS NOT based upon the same type of evaluation which precludes any notion of a circular fallacy.

I don’t assume anything on the fourth; I reveal its continued standing in the New Covenant by the New Testament . Consequently, I am using the law lawfully. Unless you can overcome all of what I’ve written concerning the fourth, then you are using the law unlawfully and not I. And the point is that the tenth commandment was part of the summation of loving our neighbor, so we must rely on other scripture to conform to the object of what Paul states in Timothy, which is what I do concerning the fourth and as you did concerning the first and second.

Your methodology quite often deals in unrelated minutiae which stray off point (not unlike the Noahide law concept). Under the Old Covenant transgression of the moral law was appeased by ceremonies that pointed to Yahshua; they were “under” the ceremonial law as well as the moral law. Under the New Covenant, in Yahshua, we are under neither but this truth doesn’t discern which laws did not fall under the criterion in Hebrews and continue to have standing today. Let’s stay on point.

In truth we find that there is great contention over how to keep the Sabbath properly in the New Testament and Yahshua’s testimony only confirmed its standing with the moral law that was part of the summation of loving Yah. There is no evidence...that reveals the fourth commandment as a ritual for the appeasement of sin that prefigured Yahshua, but only that it revealed sin. Brevity, or summation and scant enumeration DOES NOT overcome this truth. We know that even though there is brevity and scant enumeration concerning the laws against incest they HAVE NOT BEEN abolished through proper exegesis on the subject of the law in the NT scriptures, which is the exact methodology we use in support of the truth that the fourth commandment was not a ritual for the appeasement of sin, but law that uncovered sin. In truth we have more evidence on the holiness and how it, the fourth commandment, reveals sin in the NT than concerning incest.

How can one state that honoring Yah’s day that he hollowed at creation for our benefit not loving Yah? How can one state that the intent of putting all worldly considerations away, such as buying and selling, for one day to worship Yah, NOT loving Yah? Where does one substantiate in scripture that the fourth commandment was for the purpose of propitiation of sin and NOT the revelation of sin?

The problem is, you start from the assumption that the fourth commandment “points to/reveals/uncovers sin”. Just like the commandments on murder, adultery, etc. In other words, it’s UNIVERSAL. But where do you get that from? I define universal as the laws that were binding on all of man, as we see in Genesis, and which man knows in his conscience even apart from a written law, (hence, “reveals sin”!) and what we see reiterated in the NT when we are no longer under the Old Covenant. But you reject that in favor of this “standing” criteria. But what do you base this on? From the fact of its “placement” “in the law that summarized how to love God”. Then, you keep claiming it is “placed above” the laws of incest. But the laws of incest hung on the law that summarized how to love your fellow man. You claim the ceremonies hung even further below, but they still hung on one of those two.
So what you seem to be doing is assuming that because the Sabbath hangs directly on one of the two, and not one of the Ten, that proves it is perennial. You are claiming now standing and the Sabbath are two separate arguments, but I see them here as the same thing in different words, or from a different angle.
But the fact that the perennial Law "reveals sin" is proof of the Noahide/ethnos concept you keep denying. In order for it to "reveal sin", it has to be something written on man's conscience apart from written covenant Law!
Then you claim it must be so in order for it to be “by standing, decisiveness and order” and not “capricious, arbitrary, whim or chance”. Fine, but where does God say any of this? A person can set up a church organization or committee, or a sermon, sanctuary etc. meticulously neat and in perfect rows, etc. but because that is “decisive and orderly” doesn’t mean that God told him to do it. So you have this nice decisive and orderly system, but no explanation from God as to why He did it that way; only assumption about what is perennial, and what is a shadow.
As I have said before, the concept of “hanging on” deals with summaries and details. The higher up you narrow it down, the broader a summary you have. The lower down you go, it fans out into more and more details. Those details can change as the covenants change, as happened when the ceremonies ceased. Another problem, is that you take Heb. and make only the ceremonies cease, and then claim I have not shown that the Sabbath is a shadow that prefigured anything. But I have explained several times now that it was a SIGN for the physical nation of Israel, and did not carry over to spiritual Israel. As a sign, the Sabbath was replaced by “love for one another”. (John 13:35). As for “rest”, you now claim Heb.4 doesn’t even mention the fourth commandment, but we see the “seventh day spoken of in this wise” compared to the “To day” of David in which we should “harden not our hearts”, and we would receive our true rest. Also, which you never disproved, both annual “holy days” AND “the Sabbath day” are called “shadows” in Colossians.
As for “loving God”, we are to do that every day, including while in our “worldly considerations”. We are not in the physical nation under the Old Covenant, and God is really not to be compartmentalized into a special day only, while we do our own thing the rest of the week. Once again, this is how it is magnified! Of course, it was not really supposed to be compartmentalized back then, but the Law was just a tutor for Christ (and that was not just the ceremonies either), and we are to love, honor and rest in God EVERY day, and in EVERY activity. It is all brought together now!
A person can still show love to God by keeping a Sabbath, but then we are taught that this is something a person keeps unto the Lord, and is not judge his brohter over. To try to impose it on his brother is to use the Law unlawfully, and I’m not the one trying to impose it on anyone.
As far as “brevity”, the Sabbath does not compare to incest, because while we do see incest mentioned at least, the positive commands to keep the Sabbath (not mere references to some keeping it) or condemnations for not keeping it are not even “scant”, but NONEXISTANT altogether! Yet we do get principles that show it is not binding on the new covenant.

 

[Michaeneu]

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

That right there has been part of the problem. Your definition of “ad-hominem” excluding “if my logic is flawed”.

And I suppose that continuing to misrepresent what I uphold and declaring my arguments baseless (see below) is your idea of avoiding ad hominem?

There’s also a theory I have been studying that suggests the covenants did overlap until the destruction, with Jews still partly bound to the temple system… Jesus says nothing about “binding” in the Olivet sermon. We must not read something like that there.

Any theory that attempts to uphold the lawful standing of the sin offerings after the cross is just another way of saying there was two ways for the forgiveness of sin that were valid and the same time, which denigrates Yahshua's act at the cross. The rejection of Yahshua and the continuance of the rituals by the Jews did not translate into their continued lawful standing. Clearly, the event depicted in Colossians is the event of the cross and the effect it had on certain rituals and you assert that the context includes the weekly Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Even the Dispensationalists do not attempt to take the event and outcome in Colossians and protract it into what happened forty years later. The destruction of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the end of the lawful standing of the ordinances in question according to Colossians and Hebrews (again, we are dealing with Yah’s will or perspective revealed in scripture and not man’s). Verse 13 and 14 in Colossians ties it to subject in Hebrews chapter ten, which is the ramifications of the remission of sin and they both agree that the event of the cross cancelled or took some ordinances out of the way, which you say included the seventh-day Sabbath.

Yet, some forty years after the event of the cross that remitted sin we find Yahshua still placing special emphasis on one day out of the week, which cannot be rationalized away by any means. Nor can it be rationalize away that in speaking to his Jewish disciples there can be any other meaning than the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Since we are dealing with the disciples, Jews, Yahshua’s appeal involved not only hardship but conscience because the fourth WAS a matter of conscience in this context. And since it was to the disciples, it was to the church to all intents and purposes, unless one attempts to uphold the untenable position of the Dispensationalists that there is one covenant for the Gentiles and another for the Jews.

We find a marked conflict in exegesis and logic when one attempts to assert that Colossians confirms that the seventh-day Sabbath was cancelled at the cross when Yahshua declared the commandment continued to have relevance or standing AFTER the cross in the Olivet Discourse.

When Paul said “Yea, we ‘establish’ the Law, he was not talking about Old Covenant Israel… your argument continues to suggest… you change your criterion, from “weak shadows” and “standing” to “the covenant people”.Obviously, we do not have all the same laws… So pointing to the Laws OC Israel had does not prove what is perennial… man did not always have the tablets of stone, and neither do we, according to 2 Cor.3:3… The people in the world were not condemned or lost for not knowing of the whole Law, but for sinning… you all read too much onto “made for mankind”. That means that any man who aims to keep it, it is made for them, NOT “all men are BOUND BY it”

Please don’t put words in my mouth or continue to misrepresent me when I’ve already made myself clear many times on an issue, which has been the bane of these contentions and why they always degenerate. I’ve made it clear many times that I’m addressing the New Covenant and the change in the law as it pertains to the New Covenant church, spiritual Israel. Misrepresenting someone is a direct assault on his character.

Now as to the assertions you make above, to begin we have had more than one issue here such as the criterion in Hebrews, and my dispute with you on the Noahide concept. They are not the same issue, though they are related, so I’m not changing any criterion as you stated, but merely moving from one issue to another. One issue pertains to the criterion in Hebrews and its relevance to the fourth and another is your Noahide concept. That they did not have the tables of stone in ancient times does not translate into they did not have the Sabbath (that is arbitrary) and we certainly know what the tables of stone containe today because of scripture and love does not merely do away with the law it confirms it. And the mankind issue is resolved in Isaiah 66:23 (see below).

To continue, what do you mean? “So pointing to the Laws OC Israel had does not prove what is perennial.” The Old Covenant laws are the issue and you contradict yourself when you state beforehand, in the same context: “Obviously, we do not have ALL the same laws they did, because the ceremonies and circumcision have ended.” I emphasize “all” because even you have acknowledged the perennial nature of all but one of the Ten Commandments (and others in the covenant), which means that some of the Old Covenant law still has standing or is lawful in the New Covenant. And as I’ve continually upheld, we are dealing with how the Old Covenant law changed, not the total abolishment of it! Consequently, we certainly can point to the laws of the Old Covenant to prove what is perennial in nature and what is not, period.

Again, let’s examine your Noahide concept. Reconciliation to Yah or the promise of salvation has always been through covenant. The Ethnos have no salvation but through Yahshua and the covenant promises in him. There is no salvation for the Ethnos outside of the covenants and this was the purpose and object of Israel, which has been passed to the church, spiritual Israel. So the Ethnos are condemned for sin and cannot even see the kingdom of Yah except they coven with Yah, past or present. Forgiveness can only come through the covenant with Yah and His Son. We can debate whether “some” (I’m not a Universalist) of the Ethnos shall be given another opportunity to be saved at the Great White Throne Judgment, which some call the general, for not having opportunity to coven, but they must still bow to Yahshua and their standing in the kingdom is effected and this is why it is written that blessed are they that have part in the FIRST resurrection, as opposed to the second. Those saved in the FIRST resurrection must be in Yahshua by covenant, whether it be the covenant to Noah, the covenant to Abraham by which the Gentiles are ultimately grafted in, or the Mosaic covenant. There are numerous scriptures that verify that the Ethnos are lost outside of the covenant with Yah and His Son.

Consequently, the position of your counter-point is unsound and does not overcome that turning to the Gentiles DID NOT translate into any interpretation that Yah has changed concerning how He reveals His law today or to whom He has committed it. It is still the covenant people who “establish the law” according to Paul and not the Ethnos (Paul is addressing the church in this context). That the Ethnos have some inkling of the law convicts them that they are sinners in the need of Yahshua and FURHTER edification in the law through the covenant people. And when they are edified they find that Yahshua is Lord of the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath was made for mankind and not simply the Jew, which only supports its lawful STANDING of the fourth under the New Covenant.

 

[Michaeneu]

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Passover could not be partaken of apart from Passover...

Right, under the Mosaic covenant a stranger or alien could not convert WITHOUT keeping the Passover and he could not keep the Passover without being circumcised. The seventh-day Sabbath had no such restriction and this confirmed in the fourth commandment that even strangers or aliens were not to defile the Sabbath within their gates, aliens being those who were uncircumcised. Sorry, but your counter-point doesn’t work. Stating that Jews were required to be circumcised because they were Jews is a circular fallacy. We are not addressing tradition or guesses as to why the covenant people were circumcised, but the lawful requirement for circumcision under the Mosaic covenant and there were but TWO ordinances that required it and one was required under the shadow law of the Passover and the other on the eighth-day. The implications have already been stated.

[FONT=&quot]...you start from the assumption”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]… I define ...the laws… you reject that in favor...“standing” … In order for it to "reveal sin", it has to be something written on man's conscience apart from written covenant … standing, decisiveness and order” where does God say… only assumption about what is perennial,… Another problem, is that you take Heb. and make only the ceremonies … it was a SIGN for the physical nation of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Israel[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and did not carry over [/FONT][FONT=&quot]… you now claim Heb.4 doesn’t even mention the fourth … receive our true rest… you never disproved... Sabbath day” are called “shadows” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]… As for “loving God”, we are to do that every day...”[/FONT]

Again, attacking my deductions based upon scripture as mere assumptions is just subtle ad hominem. Assumptions are baseless and you are accusing me of making baseless conjecture which is simply untrue or at least can also be applied to you also, but when I do it you’re all to anxious to cry ad hominem.

I could just as easily and with valid reasoning state that, concerning the New Covenant, you ASSUME that we revert back to law as you ASSUME it was before the Mosaic covenant. You ASSUME this because it is not “expressly stated” anywhere in the scriptures. You ASSUME the fourth commandment was a ritual law for the appeasement of sin when this is not “expressly stated” anywhere in scripture. You ASSUME the fourth commandment was not intended as perennial and universal in contradiction to Isaiah 66:23 that states unequivocally that when Yah has restored the whole earth back to Himself one day out of the week is perennially and universally set apart for worship which is by definition is His perennial intent for all flesh/mankind.

Yet, my statement that the fourth commandment was NOT a ritual for the appeasement of sin is underpinned by scripture so it is not a mere assumption but an assertion that is supported in the scripture. The only place where the ritual offerings for sin were acceptable was the temple, yet the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath was not bound to the temple and this is verified by the institution of the synagogue for the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. The institution of the synagogue arose out of the time of captivity when the rituals for the appeasement of sin were completely interrupted. The Sabbath was lawfully observed apart from the rituals for the appeasement of sin. In truth, the Sabbath has underpinning as a domestic precept in every home for the worship of Yah and the institution of the synagogue was added because and only after Babylonian dispersion. Again, the temple was NOT necessary for the Sabbath, but WAS necessary for the rituals for the appeasement of sin. We clearly have a major distinction here.

Clearly the fourth commandment was NOT civil in nature because it was bound to worship. The five commandments summarizing the love of our neighbor have nothing to do with the worship of Yah and are partially construed as civil as well as moral for this reason, but NOT so concerning the fourth. The element of worship distinguishes the fourth from the civil ordinances in the Mosaic covenant and if it was not civil or ceremonial in nature then the only thing left is moral concerning the love and worship of Yah.

This is where we come back to the HOW and by what criterion the law changed revealed in Hebrews. It was not the civil law that was the object because the author expounds expressly on the temple and the rituals for the appeasement of sin which prefigured Yahshua. The author confines himself to these very elements and does not strive against any civil ordinances by nature; again, the author confines himself to only those rituals and their implements for the appeasement of sin. I have yet to receive from you any sound scriptural support for any other inclusion to this criterion set forth in Hebrews. And again, my assertion is that the fourth did not fall under the criterion in Hebrews because it was not a ritual for the appeasement of sin that prefigured Yahshua. The fourth exposed sin and was not a ritual for the appeasement of sin.

Are you now conceding this and attempting make the criterion a SIGNS, now? Hebrews doesn’t mention SIGNS at all, but only SHADOWS. Signs and shadows are not necessarily the same thing. We see the scriptures tie shadows to the rituals for the appeasement of sin that prefigured Yahshua, but as I deduced from the scriptures above, the SIGN of the Sabbath was not ritual or civil by nature. So where do you get this stuff that the SIGN to Israel was abolished under the New Covenant? It can’t be found in Hebrews chapter four or any other text in Hebrews. The seventh-day mentioned in Hebrews chapter four is the rest Yah took at creation and not the fourth commandment. We can reason that Yah’s rest was the basis for the fourth but then we have to “equate” the fourth with the spiritual rest just as Yah’s rest is “equated” and not contrasted to the spiritual rest in Yahshua.

“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” Hebrews 4:9-10

This is clearly supported by the truth that one could keep the fourth under the Old Covenant and still enter into the rest which is the object of Hebrews chapter four.

The point that you make that the laws of incest hang upon the summary of the second table only reinforces that the fourth had superior standing to the laws of incest because it was placed with the laws concerning the worship and love of Yah. And since the laws of incest have NOT been abolished while the rituals for the appeasement of sin have been then the standing of the fourth has relevance as support to the criterion in Hebrews. The logical deductive reasoning here is syllogism which is not upon unsound reasoning.

In truth your whole argument on tautology is incorrect. I know of no true Sabbatarian who upholds his argument strictly on the perennial nature of the fourth by its “placement”. There are always scriptural foundations in other related issues that are not just merely repeating the aforementioned or tautology. Take for instance the argument that the fourth was “written” by the finger of Yah which gave it greater significance than the laws that were merely uttered. The premise that the fourth is perennial by its “placement” IS NOT just another way of stating it was “written” by the finger of Yah. The verbs to “place” and to “write” do not have the same meaning whatsoever, which makes “placement” and “special authorship” distinct arguments. It may be that to support the premise of “placement” by merely the “special authorship” is shallow, but it is not tautology or a circular fallacy. Every nuance such as “it was kept apart from the rest of the law in the ark” only adds to the support of the original premise and broadens and deepens the original premise.

Placement in of itself is an argument for the “purpose and order” in Yah’s actions, for Yah is not the author of confusion, from whence we deduce that placement has significance. That Yah is NOT the author of confusion is NOT just another way of expressing “placement”. This is why I continue to state that denying “placement” is to suggest that Yah was capricious, indecisive and had no reason to “place” the fourth at parity with other moral precepts. The essence of “context” is NOT to take something out of its setting and Yah placed the fourth commandment in a setting of morality. Yah is not the author of confusion and “placement” matters.

As to loving Yah, Yahshua still placed special emphasis on one day out of the week, in the Olivet Discourse long after the rituals for the appeasement for sin were taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. The fourth does not meet the criterion in Hebrews or Colossians for the cancellation of the law. There are many scriptural texts that support the perennial nature of the fourth and I don’t have to impose it on anyone, only uphold what the scriptures say in this matter. Consequently, you need to look in the mirror when you attempt to impose the accusation of not keeping the law lawfully.

Michael

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Please come down to earthlings' level!

What is this 'perennial' stuff about? I know of plants that are 'perennials' - have never heard of any Sabbaths that are 'perennial'.

But here is something anyone could understand: That in Hb4:10 the subject is 'he', who "has entered into His own rest as God" - that can only be Jesus Christ - nobody else. And Christ was able to that "as God", only through the resurrection of Him from the dead.

So there you have what the writer of this Sermon to the Hebrew Believers regarded as the REASON WHY "a keeping of the Sabbath Day remains for the People of God" the New Testament, Christian Church. Let him who can take it!

 

[Eric B]

And I suppose that continuing to misrepresent what I uphold and declaring my arguments baseless (see below) is your idea of avoiding ad hominem?

Please don’t put words in my mouth or continue to misrepresent me when I’ve already made myself clear many times on an issue, which has been the bane of these contentions and why they always degenerate. I’ve made it clear many times that I’m addressing the New Covenant and the change in the law as it pertains to the New Covenant church, spiritual Israel. Misrepresenting someone is a direct assault on his character.

love does not merely do away with the law it confirms it. And the mankind issue is resolved in Isaiah 66:23 (see below).

Again, attacking my deductions based upon scripture as mere assumptions is just subtle ad hominem. Assumptions are baseless and you are accusing me of making baseless conjecture which is simply untrue or at least can also be applied to you also, but when I do it you’re all to anxious to cry ad hominem.

I could just as easily and with valid reasoning state that, concerning the New Covenant, you ASSUME that we revert back to law as you ASSUME it was before the Mosaic covenant. You ASSUME this because it is not "expressly stated" anywhere in the scriptures. You ASSUME the fourth commandment was a ritual law for the appeasement of sin when this is not "expressly stated" anywhere in scripture. You ASSUME the fourth commandment was not intended as perennial and universal in contradiction to Isaiah 66:23 that states unequivocally that when Yah has restored the whole earth back to Himself one day out of the week is perennially and universally set apart for worship which is by definition is His perennial intent for all flesh/mankind.

Simply saying "you assume" is not what I meant by "ad-hominem". I never complained about you claiming I assumed something. You have even misrepresented my position many times, and I never even complained about that outside of pointing it out. It was the name calling (what you were misrepresenting it AS–antinomian, shameless, etc) that I was complaining about. If you think I’m assuming those things, I would have no problem with the quote above; I would just aim to prove I wasn’t assuming. That is an acceptable charge in a civil discussion.
Also, I am not deliberately putting words in your mouth, but either I misunderstand something you have said, or I am drawing a conclusion that I see coming from it that perhaps you don’t see. Hence, I am trying to show you where your teaching may lead, even if you don’t see it that way. (Discussed below in discussion of "covenant people")
(BTW, Isaiah is a conditional picture of the Millennium under Israel of the Old covenant, and it also mentions aspects of the ceremonial system such as priests and Levites, and new moons! Even if those things are future, it does not prove what is for us now. And I never said love did away with the Law, but rather it brings out its true spiritual intent, which is what we focus on today).

Any theory that attempts to uphold the lawful standing of the sin offerings after the cross is just another way of saying there was two ways for the forgiveness of sin that were valid and the same time, which denigrates Yahshua's act at the cross. The rejection of Yahshua and the continuance of the rituals by the Jews did not translate into their continued lawful standing. Clearly, the event depicted in Colossians is the event of the cross and the effect it had on certain rituals and you assert that the context includes the weekly Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Even the Dispensationalists do not attempt to take the event and outcome in Colossians and protract it into what happened forty years later. The destruction of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the end of the lawful standing of the ordinances in question according to Colossians and Hebrews (again, we are dealing with Yah’s will or perspective revealed in scripture and not man’s). Verse 13 and 14 in Colossians ties it to subject in Hebrews chapter ten, which is the ramifications of the remission of sin and they both agree that the event of the cross cancelled or took some ordinances out of the way, which you say included the seventh-day Sabbath.
Yet, some forty years after the event of the cross that remitted sin we find Yahshua still placing special emphasis on one day out of the week, which cannot be rationalized away by any means. Since we are dealing with the disciples, Jews, Yahshua’s appeal involved not only hardship but conscience because the fourth WAS a matter of conscience in this context. And since it was to the disciples, it was to the church to all intents and purposes, unless one attempts to uphold the untenable position of the Dispensationalists that there is one covenant for the Gentiles and another for the Jews.
We find a marked conflict in exegesis and logic when one attempts to assert that Colossians confirms that the seventh-day Sabbath was cancelled at the cross when Yahshua declared the commandment continued to have relevance or standing AFTER the cross in the Olivet Discourse.

As to loving Yah, Yahshua still placed special emphasis on one day out of the week, in the Olivet Discourse long after the rituals for the appeasement for sin were taken out of the way and nailed to the cross.

I wasn’t exactly trying to "uphold the lawful standing of the sin offerings". The theory I was mentioning suggested that with the Temple still standing, and exerting pressure on the people, many still felt bound to some of the ceremonies. Once again, Paul even had timothy circumcised (and this was well after the Crown, and after the Cross) to appease the Jews. They knew this no longer had lawful standing, and you would think it would be a betrayal of the Cross. But apparently, the Temple system may have still had some sort of legitimate authority over Jewish Christians, at least in their own conscience, as you affirmed (but not conscience in the sense that man automatically knows not to kill, but in the sense Paul addressed in Romans, Colossians, etc. where it is something that they are "convinced in their own minds" of). Don’t hold me to this theory, as I myself still have many questions about it.
So just like with circumcision continuing to be practiced, many Jews would continue to keep the Sabbath, and Jesus would support that in the face of the hardship they would face, but this did not make it binding on all.

Right, under the Mosaic covenant a stranger or alien could not convert WITHOUT keeping the Passover and he could not keep the Passover without being circumcised. The seventh-day Sabbath had no such restriction and this confirmed in the fourth commandment that even strangers or aliens were not to defile the Sabbath within their gates, aliens being those who were uncircumcised. Sorry, but your counter-point doesn’t work. Stating that Jews were required to be circumcised because they were Jews is a circular fallacy. We are not addressing tradition or guesses as to why the covenant people were circumcised, but the lawful requirement for circumcision under the Mosaic covenant and there were but TWO ordinances that required it and one was required under the shadow law of the Passover and the other on the eighth-day. The implications have already been stated.

Yet, my statement that the fourth commandment was NOT a ritual for the appeasement of sin is underpinned by scripture so it is not a mere assumption but an assertion that is supported in the scripture. The only place where the ritual offerings for sin were acceptable was the temple, yet the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath was not bound to the temple and this is verified by the institution of the synagogue for the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. The institution of the synagogue arose out of the time of captivity when the rituals for the appeasement of sin were completely interrupted. The Sabbath was lawfully observed apart from the rituals for the appeasement of sin. In truth, the Sabbath has underpinning as a domestic precept in every home for the worship of Yah and the institution of the synagogue was added because and only after Babylonian dispersion. Again, the temple was NOT necessary for the Sabbath, but WAS necessary for the rituals for the appeasement of sin. We clearly have a major distinction here.

First, there was a typo on my part; It was supposed to be "Passover could not be partaken of apart from circumcision". That was meant to fix Passover to the covenant of circumcision, rather than the other way around, as you were suggesting. Still, what you point out there also fixes the Passover to circumcision and not the other way around. Again, it even goes back before the Passover, and your second statement there also proves it, as it was still practiced and had its original meaning (children of Abraham) during the captivity when they only had the synagogues. (I never said the sabbath was an appeasement ritual for sin!)

 

[Eric B]

To continue, what do you mean? "So pointing to the Laws OC Israel had does not prove what is perennial." The Old Covenant laws are the issue and you contradict yourself when you state beforehand, in the same context: "Obviously, we do not have ALL the same laws they did, because the ceremonies and circumcision have ended." I emphasize "all" because even you have acknowledged the perennial nature of all but one of the Ten Commandments (and others in the covenant), which means that some of the Old Covenant law still has standing or is lawful in the New Covenant. And as I’ve continually upheld, we are dealing with how the Old Covenant law changed, not the total abolishment of it! Consequently, we certainly can point to the laws of the Old Covenant to prove what is perennial in nature and what is not, period.
Again, let’s examine your Noahide concept. Reconciliation to Yah or the promise of salvation has always been through covenant. The Ethnos have no salvation but through Yahshua and the covenant promises in him. There is no salvation for the Ethnos outside of the covenants and this was the purpose and object of Israel, which has been passed to the church, spiritual Israel. So the Ethnos are condemned for sin and cannot even see the kingdom of Yah except they coven with Yah, past or present. Forgiveness can only come through the covenant with Yah and His Son. We can debate whether "some" (I’m not a Universalist) of the Ethnos shall be given another opportunity to be saved at the Great White Throne Judgment, which some call the general, for not having opportunity to coven, but they must still bow to Yahshua and their standing in the kingdom is effected and this is why it is written that blessed are they that have part in the FIRST resurrection, as opposed to the second. Those saved in the FIRST resurrection must be in Yahshua by covenant, whether it be the covenant to Noah, the covenant to Abraham by which the Gentiles are ultimately grafted in, or the Mosaic covenant. There are numerous scriptures that verify that the Ethnos are lost outside of the covenant with Yah and His Son.
Consequently, the position of your counter-point is unsound and does not overcome that turning to the Gentiles DID NOT translate into any interpretation that Yah has changed concerning how He reveals His law today or to whom He has committed it. It is still the covenant people who "establish the law" according to Paul and not the Ethnos (Paul is addressing the church in this context). That the Ethnos have some inkling of the law convicts them that they are sinners in the need of Yahshua and FURHTER edification in the law through the covenant people. And when they are edified they find that Yahshua is Lord of the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath was made for mankind and not simply the Jew, which only supports its lawful STANDING of the fourth under the New Covenant.

I never suggested "salvation" for the ethnos outside the covenant. The issue is that you are using this whole "covenant" issue to dismiss the Noahide Law. I never said that the ethnos "established" the Law, which you keep saying. The Law is from God, and the ethnos sinned, and out of them God chose a people for His Covenant, in which He added more Law (Gal.3:19). This was to spread to all, but the people broke that covenant, and God turned to a new covenant, with a spiritual nation chosen from out of ALL the ethnos.
In dismissing the Noahide Law as the universal set, and saying "No, only the covenant people determine the Law", what that tells me is that you are making the Law of Israel (Moses) the perennial standard. So hence, my claim that you are in effect denying the change of covenants, which you think it misrepresenting your argument. Maybe that was wrong, but once again, that was the impression I got from your insistence that "only the covenant people" determine the Law (once again, it is only God who determines the Law)
So if the Laws that continue to the new covenant are the same basic moral principles of the Noahide law, (with the sign of OC Israel omitted), then I can claim that those were the universal laws. (Perhaps it would be better to say a "guideline"). Of course, the difference now is that the law is magnified spiritually today and written in our hearts, not just on our consciences. Still, the ultimate point is that just because you see a Law in the Mosaic code, and that was the covenant God was working through for that period, doesn’t mean it necessarily carries over to our NEW covenant today.

 

[Eric B]

Clearly the fourth commandment was NOT civil in nature because it was bound to worship. The five commandments summarizing the love of our neighbor have nothing to do with the worship of Yah and are partially construed as civil as well as moral for this reason, but NOT so concerning the fourth. The element of worship distinguishes the fourth from the civil ordinances in the Mosaic covenant and if it was not civil or ceremonial in nature then the only thing left is moral concerning the love and worship of Yah.
This is where we come back to the HOW and by what criterion the law changed revealed in Hebrews. It was not the civil law that was the object because the author expounds expressly on the temple and the rituals for the appeasement of sin which prefigured Yahshua. The author confines himself to these very elements and does not strive against any civil ordinances by nature; again, the author confines himself to only those rituals and their implements for the appeasement of sin. I have yet to receive from you any sound scriptural support for any other inclusion to this criterion set forth in Hebrews. And again, my assertion is that the fourth did not fall under the criterion in Hebrews because it was not a ritual for the appeasement of sin that prefigured Yahshua. The fourth exposed sin and was not a ritual for the appeasement of sin.
Are you now conceding this and attempting make the criterion a SIGNS, now? Hebrews doesn’t mention SIGNS at all, but only SHADOWS. Signs and shadows are not necessarily the same thing. We see the scriptures tie shadows to the rituals for the appeasement of sin that prefigured Yahshua, but as I deduced from the scriptures above, the SIGN of the Sabbath was not ritual or civil by nature. So where do you get this stuff that the SIGN to Israel was abolished under the New Covenant? It can’t be found in Hebrews chapter four or any other text in Hebrews. The seventh-day mentioned in Hebrews chapter four is the rest Yah took at creation and not the fourth commandment. We can reason that Yah’s rest was the basis for the fourth but then we have to "equate" the fourth with the spiritual rest just as Yah’s rest is "equated" and not contrasted to the spiritual rest in Yahshua.
"There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." Hebrews 4:9-10
This is clearly supported by the truth that one could keep the fourth under the Old Covenant and still enter into the rest which is the object of Hebrews chapter four.
The point that you make that the laws of incest hang upon the summary of the second table only reinforces that the fourth had superior standing to the laws of incest because it was placed with the laws concerning the worship and love of Yah. And since the laws of incest have NOT been abolished while the rituals for the appeasement of sin have been then the standing of the fourth has relevance as support to the criterion in Hebrews. The logical deductive reasoning here is syllogism which is not upon unsound reasoning.

The fourth does not meet the criterion in Hebrews or Colossians for the cancellation of the law. There are many scriptural texts that support the perennial nature of the fourth and I don’t have to impose it on anyone, only uphold what the scriptures say in this matter. Consequently, you need to look in the mirror when you attempt to impose the accusation of not keeping the law lawfully.

The sabbath in itself is more civil than worship. The fourth commandment says NOTHING about "worship". It says to "keep it holy" by "no do[ing] any work". Since it involved commerce, its application was primarily civil (and no other nation was ever bound by it). The fact that they were doing it in honor of god is why it fell under the first commandment ("love for God"), but we are to give that love and devotion to God everyday, bringing Him into our commerce and every other aspect of our lives. Refraining from commerce was a SIGN for the physical nation of Israel, and therefore civil and not a definition of love for God, like avoiding other gods and blasphemy are. I am not using "sign" in any concession, but have ALWAYs argued this, from the beginning. I also did not bring it into Hebrews; and you're the one who believes that only Hebrews 7 addresses how the Law changed. The principles for the cessation of commandments like the sabbath as well as circumcision are found elsewhere throughout the NT. (including the fourth being equated with spiritual rest, as you addressed, and even though both coexisted in the OC, since we are regererated today, which Israel lacked and was the reason most "did not enter" the rest, the spiritual rest is what we are given, and not any mandate of a weekly physical rest).
Since the sign of Israel was for that nation, it is not for the spiritual Israel of the New Covenant. Our sign today is love, and the sabbath is still associated universally in the world with the Jews, so for a Christian group to keep the sabbath does not tell anyone that they are in the New covenant, but rather makes it look like they are in the Old.
And again, I am not the one telling others they should be keeping an aspect of the Law most believe (with greater scriptural evidence) is apart of the Old covenant, so I can not be the one using the Law unlawfully here.

In truth your whole argument on tautology is incorrect. I know of no true Sabbatarian who upholds his argument strictly on the perennial nature of the fourth by its "placement". There are always scriptural foundations in other related issues that are not just merely repeating the aforementioned or tautology. Take for instance the argument that the fourth was "written" by the finger of Yah which gave it greater significance than the laws that were merely uttered. The premise that the fourth is perennial by its "placement" IS NOT just another way of stating it was "written" by the finger of Yah. The verbs to "place" and to "write" do not have the same meaning whatsoever, which makes "placement" and "special authorship" distinct arguments. It may be that to support the premise of "placement" by merely the "special authorship" is shallow, but it is not tautology or a circular fallacy. Every nuance such as "it was kept apart from the rest of the law in the ark" only adds to the support of the original premise and broadens and deepens the original premise.
Placement in of itself is an argument for the "purpose and order" in Yah’s actions, for Yah is not the author of confusion, from whence we deduce that placement has significance. That Yah is NOT the author of confusion is NOT just another way of expressing "placement". This is why I continue to state that denying "placement" is to suggest that Yah was capricious, indecisive and had no reason to "place" the fourth at parity with other moral precepts. The essence of "context" is NOT to take something out of its setting and Yah placed the fourth commandment in a setting of morality. Yah is not the author of confusion and "placement" matters.

When you argue that the sabbath is perennial because it is in the Ten, and then you try to prove the unique "standing" of the ten by the arguments that it was written with the finger of God, and placed inside the ark, that is arguing based on "placement". So the way it is being argued, stating that it is written by the finger of God or becomes another way of saying that it is perennial because of its placement, because you are conveying the same ultimate message. The ceremonies were "weak", and ended, while the sabbath was "greater" because it hung on the first great Law, and Hebrws only addresses how the ceremonies ended.

The only thing the "order and decisiveness" argument proves is that the Ten were highlighted to be very important to ISRAEL, as the [Old] Covenant nation, to whom they were given. For you to jump that to the rest of the world based on "standing" presupposes the argument that the Laws were universal --OUTSIDE OF the Covenant! (And that the covenant was only a means of spreading them to the world, rather than the Law being the sign of the covenant).
Now if you say you are not really proving the sabbath solely on olacement or standing, then what is the point of bringing standing into the issue of whether the sabbath continues?

 

[Michaeneu]

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Simply saying "you assume" is not what I meant by "ad-hominem"… . You have even misrepresented my position many times…. (BTW, Isaiah is a conditional picture of the Millennium under Israel of the Old covenant…

The point is that I stated many times that I DO find these things offensive and ad hominem but you continue them when there is not need or justification. I can just as easily state that I only respond in like because you foster it and this will be the cause of degeneration of this thread again.

The last chapter of Isaiah is NOT a conditional promise but an actual prediction that at the time heavenly Sion brings forth the man child, Yahshua, the “husbandmen” of the vineyard that represents Israel would reject the “stone that becomes the head of the corner” and cast out the disciples that “tremble at Yah’s word” (verses 1-9). The Jerusalem in context is not the literal city but is symbolic of the heavenly city that Yah builds and to whom the Gentiles flow (verses 10-24 also supported in Hebrews chapter 11 and 12). Galatians chapter four reveals that our mother is “Jerusalem from above” and not the one in bondage; consequently, the Sion that brings forth the man child also cannot be the one in bondage.

Again, symbolism is also used in verse 20 for the gathering of the brethren as an acceptable offering to Yah. Paul uses the same symbolism in Romans 15:16 being that the “brethren” are not literally offered up to Yah as animal sacrifices. Then the term “Levite” does not have to conform to the literal either but symbolic also, but not so concerning the Sabbath because it is placed with the same “certainty” as the “eternal” new heavens and earth and the continued cycles of the moon as well as the eternal consequences of those who transgress Yah’s law. Consequently, the last chapter of Isaiah does not distract from the perennial and universal intent of the Sabbath but supports it!

I wasn’t exactly trying to "uphold the lawful standing of the sin offerings"…. many still felt bound to some of the ceremonies… Don’t hold me to this theory…

There we go then, an argument based upon equivocation: “don’t hold me to this…” And this is exactly why I choose the covenantal perennial nature of the Sabbath above theories and equivocations. In truth there is no room for this overlapping concept in light of the evidence that it would uphold two valid ways of salvation at the very time of the ACCOMPLISHED offering of Yahshua, which the scriptures completely repudiate!

“Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all…. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” Hebrews 10:8-10, 18

Moreover, the event in question is not concerning the interim time in which there was to be an expected confusion concerning the end of what had lost legitimacy, but the specific event in which such confusion must have been resolved in the mind of the individual or lead to his demise. Any overlapping theory loses any significance in this light. Attachment to the ceremonies that held legitimacy in the temple would only have led to the demise of the Jews at the event depicted in the Olivet Discourse. It simply cannot be overlooked, then, that the Spirit had foreknowledge of the aforementioned and yet Yahshua was STILL led to emphasize the continued importance of one day out of the week at the very time the Jews were to divorce themselves from the law that ended or was cancelled at the cross. One cannot have it both ways as your belief system suggests! And again, since it was to the disciples, it was to the church to all intents and purposes, unless one attempts to uphold the untenable position of the Dispensationalists that there is one covenant for the Gentiles and another for the Jews.

We find a marked conflict in exegesis and logic when one attempts to assert that Colossians confirms that the seventh-day Sabbath was cancelled at the cross when Yahshua declared the commandment continued to have relevance or standing AFTER the cross in the Olivet Discourse.

That was meant to fix Passover to the covenant of circumcision, rather than the other way around, as you were suggesting…. it was still practiced and had its original meaning (children of Abraham) during the captivity when they only had the synagogues. …

Attempting to hinge the argument upon semantics does not distract from the substantive issue. The substantive issue is that under the Mosaic covenant, which is the object of the change in the law in Hebrews, a stranger or alien could not convert WITHOUT keeping the Passover and he could not keep the Passover without being circumcised. The only other ordinance by which circumcision was upheld was the eighth-day circumcision. The implications have already been stated.

…you are making the Law of Israel (Moses) the perennial standard. So hence, my claim that you are in effect denying the change of covenants, which you think it misrepresenting your argument… "only the covenant people" determine the Law (once again, it is only God who determines the Law)…

You know very well that I’m NOT making the Mosaic covenant perennial by the very fact that I uphold that the Mosaic ceremonial laws have been abolished and nailed to the cross. This exposes your statements above as a misrepresentation and your lack of sincerity to quote me accurately to avoid ad hominem.

What is clear is that the object of the change in the law concerns the Mosaic covenant and that the New Covenant STILL concerns Israel as the covenant people distinguished from the Ethnos. This clearly unveils that it is the covenant people that establish the laws of Yah, which relegates the Ethnos perception of the law and by it this Noahide theory as irrelevant.

 

[Michaeneu]

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

The sabbath in itself is more civil than worship. The fourth commandment says NOTHING about "worship". It says to "keep it holy" by "no do[ing] any work"… Refraining from commerce was a SIGN for the physical nation of Israel, and therefore civil and not a definition of love for God… The principles for the cessation of commandments like the sabbath as well as circumcision are found elsewhere throughout the NT. (including the fourth being equated with spiritual rest, as you addressed, and even though both coexisted in the OC, since we are regererated today, which Israel lacked and was the reason most "did not enter" the rest, the spiritual rest is what we are given, and not any mandate of a weekly physical rest)… And again, I am not the one telling others they should be keeping an aspect of the Law most believe (with greater scriptural evidence) is apart of the Old covenant, so I can not be the one using the Law unlawfully here.

Clearly, the Sabbath is not civil in nature and the main scripture that debacles your belief system here is Isaiah 66:23 that states unequivocally that the “certainty” of one day out of the week being perennial and universal for WORSHIP is as sure as the “eternal” new heavens and earth, the continued cycles of the moon, as well as the eternal consequences of those who transgress Yah’s law. This is supported by Yahshua’s statement of the continued importance of one day out of the week in the Olivet Discourse at the time in which the Jews were to divorce themselves from the law that ended or was cancelled at the cross. Of course these are not the only texts upon which Sabbatarians rests their case, but these texts cogently expose your statements above as contrary to scripture.

Moreover, the prohibition against commerce centers on the issue that one day out of six belongs to Yah; it is lawful to render to Caesar or man six days out of the week established at creation, but the seventh-day belongs to Yah’s; we render what is Yah’s to Yah and what is Caesar’s to Caesar and worship belongs to Yah and not Caesar—the object of the fourth!

You’ve continually failed to provide any evidence from Hebrews chapter four that the fourth has been abolished and this has not changed. Now you’ve imported the term “regeneration” as if it’s the magic word that you’ve been missing but nothing is farther from the truth. The point of Hebrews chapter four is that the rest is Yah is likened to the spiritual rest in Yahshua which is of faith. Both were concurrent and meant that one could fulfill the law of the fourth commandment and enter into the rest in Yahshua at the same time. This is clearly spelled out in that “there still remains” a rest for the people of Yah that the Old Testament people were eligible for. In truth the Mosaic covenant facilitated the rest by a greater ministry than the Abrahamic covenant. Yah shed more light upon his plan of salvation and grace in the Mosaic covenant than He had in the past Abrahamic. This is verification of the progressive nature of the covenants which did not cease in the New Covenant to Israel, which is the subject of this thread. Consequently, the progressive nature of the New Covenant does not translate into any interpretation in Hebrews chapter four for the cessation of the fourth commandment, but to the contrary. We can reason that Yah’s rest was the basis for the fourth but then we have to “equate” the fourth with the spiritual rest just as Yah’s rest is “equated” and not contrasted to the spiritual rest in Yahshua. The rest of the fourth commandment is equated with the rest in Yahshua also and this is why he is also Lord of the Sabbath.

Standing upon the perennial intent for all flesh/mankind is using the law lawfully and by the scripture. Look into the mirror when you make your accusations.

When you argue that the sabbath is perennial because it is in the Ten, and then you try to prove the unique "standing" of the ten by the arguments that it was written with the finger of God, and placed inside the ark, that is arguing based on "placement"… you are conveying the same ultimate message… The only thing the "order and decisiveness" argument proves is that the Ten were highlighted to be very important to ISRAEL…

“Placement with the ten” is NOT the same issue as “special authorship” whatsoever. “Placement with the ten” is NOT the same issue as “placement in the ark” whatsoever. You haven’t a leg to stand on here scripturally, grammatically or by logical argument. I can continue to cut and paste this so long as you continue with this straw man. It may be that to support the premise of “placement” merely by the “special authorship” is shallow, but it is not tautology or a circular fallacy. Every nuance such as “it was kept apart from the rest of the law in the ark” only adds to the support of the original premise and broadens and deepens the original premise.

And the point of the covenant was to spread Yah’s law to the rest of the world, while your belief system implies that the rest of the world was sufficiently informed of the law without Yah’s covenant. And I’ve more than once stated, as well as confirmed, that STANDING is only in support of my original premise. I know of no true Sabbatarian who upholds his argument strictly on the perennial nature of the fourth by its “placement” and I’ve shown here this applies to me also.

Michael

P.S. If the thread is closed I shall continue the issue on a new thread entitled on the incorrect use of circular reasoning.

 

[Eric B]

Isaiah; Sabbath not civil; Heb.4
So you're saying that Is.66 is not a literal depiction of a future Millennium, like SDA's and dispensationalists believe, but rather a symbolic picture of the present New covenant Church age, like the amilennialists and preterists?
Fine. (Though how do you explain "all flesh shall come and worship me"? All are not worshipping Him now). But to make everything else symbolic except the sabbath doesn't work. Especially when you make "from new moon to new moon" represent "continued cycles of the moon". That's not what that says. New moons were regular periodic observances under the Law just like the sabbath. If "from sabbath to sabbath they shall worship" means KEEPING the sabbath every week, then from new moon to new moon would meen they were keeping the new moons every month. But if "new" moon" simply means a CYCLE of the moon, the "sabbath to sabbath" also would mean a cycle of time. In other words, FROM week to week and month to month. It is talking about continuous worship. What is it that is being done from sabbath to sabbath? Come before Him (on the mountain of the Lord -v.20). That is not literal, of course. So it's not a once a week event.
Just like your comment on "six days for Caesar, one day for God", that is not true, as EVERY day belongs to God. Is that not true? Does Caesar own most of the week, and not God who created the whole week?
Thr sabbath was civil because OC Israel was a physical theocracy, in which everything they did was apart of the nation, and thus for God. So God designated one day for rest and worship, or Temple "work" for worship leaders, and the other six days for all their other work. There was no "Caesar"; as initially designed, "Caesar" was only on the outside. In the captivity that changed a bit, but they were still under the OC, and the other six days were "loaned" if you will, to "Caesar", who now ruled over them. In the New Covenant, we are not under a tight physical theocracy structure, and neither of the world, but God is to be Lord over our whole lives. "Caesar's inscription" may be on our money, but it is not on our souls, or our time, so they do not belong to Caesar.

A big part of the problem is that the sabbath had TWO purposes: worship of God and rest for man. In the arguments for the day, these purposes are sometimes being blurred here. If you apply the argument that it is God's day, and not man's (I.e "for worship") to "rest from our work", then that would contradict Christ's statement that it was made for man, and man not made for it. Man was made to worship God. What was supposed to be "for man" was the "rest" aspect of it. In other words, if you define "worship of God" as "resting from our work", then you have made the "rest" something we were made for, rather than it being made for us. Remember, we are no longer in a theocratic nation where we worked "for God", and then rested from that and worshipped on one day. Even though Heb.4 does not verbatim state "the spiritual rest replaces the physical rest", still, the principle is shown that this is what the "rests" in the Old Covenant pointed to, even though they were "eligible for" both kinds of "rest" (physical, on a day, and spiritual, in God). One of them most were refused entry to, and today we are warned about being shut out of it. This is not a day that we can just go on and keep or not keep, voluntarily, and not possibly be shut out of involuntarily. The fact the the writer refers to THIS as the "sabbath rest" that "REMAINS" seems to show that this one outlives and takes the place of the other (even if they once did coexist). Today, rather than ceasing from "work" on a day, our "rest" is to cease from our "workS", as a means of justification, as Paul teaches elsewhere.

Olivet reference
I specifically said "don't hold me to this" to avoid having you jump on that vas part of my "belief system", which you have done anyway, since I said I wasn't sure about the theory, and now you add the charge of "equivocation". Well maybe it was a bad idea to bring that up. Insteasd, what just occurred to me-- what further proves that Olivet did not prove the sabbath "binding" is that is one of the restrictions of the sabbath that we must sit and die or be captured if we're caught in the Tribulation? NO! We debated about allowable behavior, and "doing good" to save one's life is acceptable according to the testimony and example of Jesus. So He must have been addressing their own restrictions, and hence their own practice, not what was "binding" on everyone else; and even though the restrictions were not mandatory even for sabbathkeepers, Jesus still respected it, because it wasn't wrong in itself if that was how they wanted to worship God. It just wasn't binding on all others. So Jesus respecting the practice doesn't prove it was mandatory, because it was a restriction that even you believe was not necessary.
Hence the point on Col.2 still stands.

Circumcision
A stranger or alien could not convert without keeping ALL the laws, not just the Passover. So this does not make circumcision apart of the Passover. Circumcision was on law, Passover was another, and they were all interrelated and to be kept together

Covenant people
Your argument "the New Covenant still concerns ISRAEL as the covenant people distinguished from the ethnos" looks like an argument to prove that we have the same covenant with the same Laws. Of course I know you believe the ceremonies were cancelled. But the ark of the covenant including the Ten commandments was also apart of THAT covenant. If that transferred over to us because WE are Israel now, then so would the rest of it if you were consistent. But if that covenant ended, then we are a new Israel with a new covenant and not necessarily the same laws as the old Israel. The Law is established by God; not men; neither covenant people, nor the nations. I also did not say that the ethnos were "sufficiently informed of the Law". They had the basic principles, and what they lacked outside the covenant was God's enforcement, as well as the atonement system, civil laws, and the particular "sign" given the people of the Old Covenant. But even with all of that, most of the people of the covenant were still just as lost as the heathen, so that is why that covenant was inefficient. The new Israel, rather than bringing all the ethnos into the SAME Israel as the OC, is desribed as "turning to the ethnos". We come directly to the mountain of God, and do not have to go through Old Covenant Israel anymore.
Also, you are questioning my motives ("insincere" and a few other things). Also, stop telling me "look in the mirror" regarding "using the Law unlawfully". I particularly avoided continuing to say that back to you, and only point out that I am not the one trying to impose the Law on anyone, so I am not the one being described in that passage, even if you believe you are "Standing upon the perennial intent for all flesh/mankind"; the extent of which is the subject of the debate, and not mutually established.
I've tried to tone it down, and I'm sorry if things I'm saying are still offensive to you. You twice suggested I was being "thin-skinned", but these comments are more offensive than anything I've said in the last several posts.

standing vs. Placement
I guess I just don't understand what you are trying to prove with standing and placement. You have used both in defense of the sabbath, along with the other sabbatarians, yet you keep denying that your argument is based on them. So we're basically talking past each other.
I guess you're trying to say that ONLY "shadow ceremonies" are "cancelled", and I guess all the other laws that are not shadow ceremonies or civil ordinances continue. Is that basically what you believe? Well, that would be where the impasse lies. We believe the scriptures teach that the whole Law given to Moses was apart of that covenant, and that particular written code ended with it, though the universal laws that were apart of it continue. The evidence weighs in favor of this view, since "the Law" is discussed by Paul as a whole, with the "tables of stone" treated the same as the ceremonies; and not switching back and forth between "The ceremonies" when describing what has passed, and "the tables of stone" when describing the universal moral principles. Heb.7 is but one description of how the Law changed, not "the exhaustive, definitive chapter on the subject". So please realize this, and don't think we are just trying to dodge the Law and have no legitimate reason to believe we are not bound by the sabbath.

BTW, with the new format, they seem to be allowing the threads to go to around 30 pages now, so they won't be closing this one. Several others are well past 20 already.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

There's still the Tuesday prayer meeting.

Of man's decision at the cost of God's wish and command - like having an appointment with Joe on Sunday, but without saying arrive for that appointment of Tuesday. Simply - how does one say - incourteous? Or, rude, without manners, without respect. We think so much of ourselves we shall even treat God that way.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

EricB,
God chose us without any of our doing - once saved always saved - that's my Calvinism! How can I so believe - Because of the Bible.

Now God chose His Day - incomprhensible - He even created it out of nothing for Himself - once holy always holy - that's my Calvinism! Because of the Bible.

So you may enjoy your likings and inclinations, Sundays and or Tuesdays -- just don't try convince anyone it's because of the Bible.