How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

[Eric B]

It's not my particular likings or inclination, nor did I say it was because of the Bible.
But if you can find me a sabbath church over here that does not tie it to the OT Law (as you even criticize here), then maybe I would join.

 

[Michaeneu]

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Isaiah; Sabbath not civil; Heb.4
The last chapter in Isaiah depicts the events of Yahshua’s first advent leading to the object of the church age and introduces some essential elements of the eternal state to come after. In essence the text is prophesy that HAS BEEN or IS BEING fulfilled, with the exception of the “eternal” state of the new heavens and new earth still to come. My response exposed your import of conditionalism into the text as totally unwarranted.

Again, the text is anything but conditional because it parallels exactly what occurred when heavenly Sion brought forth the man child, Yahshua, to initiate the flow of the Gentiles to heavenly Sion or New Jerusalem during the church age we now abide in. The church age is “a” prelude to the “eternal state” and during this time we: come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant… Hebrews 12:22-24.

Yet, there are literal and spiritual elements to this event. New Jerusalem is not a building but is composed of the actual covenant people who are in Yahshua: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:5.

I find nothing in your response that overcomes the literal aspect of the universal setting apart of one day out of the week for the purpose of worshiping Yahweh in the prediction of the “eternal state”, being that there are literal and spiritual aspects to all scripture. The idiom “from one new moon to another” is just tautology for “the cycles of the moon” to which the Hebrews fixed their calendar and which still has relevancy today. The term “new moon” is still used to convey something “periodic” and NOT the contrasting concept of “interminableness”. In context the new moons and the Sabbath are something “periodic” within something that is interminable: “eternity”. It is clear that you are importing alien ideas or confusion into the terms “new moon” and Sabbath. Both the Sabbath and new moons convey something “periodic” and NOT something “interminable” and are not to be confused. Your confusion is unwarranted in any proper exegesis.

This is also the case in your confusion concerning the fourth commandment and the theocracy of ancient Israel. Every “thing” belongs to Yah but that did not rule out a “periodic” dedication of one day out of the week to Yah. The call for their “interminable” dedication to Yah did not rule out a “periodic” dedication of one day out of the week. And what does a physical theocracy mean? and it certainly does not have any bearing upon the Sabbath being civil or strictly confined to the OC. And what does a tight physical theocracy mean? you do like to make up terms and invent new definitions such as “periodic” meaning “interminable”. You have yet to prove that the fourth commandment was an unprofitable shadow cancelled by the cross so the aforementioned is mere rhetoric and proves nothing.

It is simply untenable to imply that a day dedicated to Yah rules out that it also can be for man. There is nothing in the scriptures that even comes close to suggesting that it can’t be for both reasons at the same time, especially when the scripture are rife with evidence that men used it for their physical rest and worship to Yah. Again, this is rhetoric and meaningless banter that lends nothing to the controversy.

At least your right about something in your last response, Hebrews chapter four says nothing about the rest in Yahshua replacing anything—physical or otherwise! The rest in Yahshua ran concurrent with Yah’s rest at creation! The text cannot be used whatsoever to uphold that the fourth commandment was an ephemeral part of the OC. In truth, the only thing that can be extrapolated from the aforementioned text is that Yah’s rest is equated to what is profitable and perfect: the rest in Yahshua! This means that Yah’s rest at creation was profitable and perfect and since it was the basis of the fourth commandment, it then lends credence to the truth that the fourth commandment is profitable and perfect as the SIGN to Israel and the reason Yahshua is the Lord of the Sabbath.

Olivet reference
You need to read the definition of “equivocation” because that is exactly what you were doing by bringing an argument in and stating not to hold you to it at the same time.

Your counter point doesn’t work because they had to consider winter as well as the Sabbath in this event, which gave them both importance and/or relevancy some forty years after the cross, but not for the exact reasons. Winter or the “periodic cyclical” nature of weather didn’t end and neither did the Sabbath in Yahshua’s perception. They were to PRAY and plan around both winter and the Sabbath, which still upholds the sanctity of one day out of the week forty years after the cross. As I stated clinging to any false notions concerning the ceremonies that held legitimacy in the temple would only have led to their demise, so this relegates your “restrictions” theory to rationalizations. It is clearly a poor rationalization to suggest that the disciples, some forty years later, would be restricted or upholding false notions on the law that Yahshua had already specifically addressed and corrected. Moreover, the book to the Hebrews, the last of the written NT by many accounts, was written prior to this event and if the Sabbath were cancelled under the criterion in said book then the Spirit, having foreknowledge of the aforementioned, WOULD NOT have led Yahshua to emphasize the continued importance of one day out of the week at the very time the Jews should 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.

Circumcision
Nevertheless, we are addressing the specific law that addressed circumcision in the Mosaic covenant and we’ve already addressed this and the implications. Circumcision was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and the eighth-day at birth.

 

[Michaeneu]

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Covenant people
Your insistence on misrepresenting me is based upon a gross misapprehension of consistency. For the same reasons that the call for “interminable” dedication to Yah does not rule out a “periodic” dedication of one day out of the week—I can uphold that the Old Covenant changed and ended but still establishes the Ten Commandment Law as it establishes the laws of incest, while the ceremonial law was cancelled. By the fact that I uphold the end of some law and the continuation of others shows I advocate the distinctiveness of one covenant from the other and that you have a gross misapprehension of consistency.

And this also exposes your misapprehensions of the New Covenant “turning to the Ethnos.” It cannot be suggested that Yah has turned to the heathen but to the Gentles that are gathered into New Jerusalem and in Yahshua. Paul addresses the heathen heart in Romans chapter two, but the covenant people of New Jerusalem still establish the law. The New Covenant is not incompatible with the Ten Commandments or the laws of incest, nor have you proven any such thing.

I’m going to request once more in humility that you stop misrepresenting me by stating that I’m uphold the Old Covenant as the New Covenant or I must continue to question your sincerity. And it is my scriptural understanding that leads me to believe you are in error on the New Covenant law and attempting to impose your belief system, thus the mirror comment. If you don’t want me to use it then desist in attempting to accuse me of upholding the law unlawfully, when I’m merely expounding upon the doctrine that the fourth commandment has not lost it lawful standing. You have totally failed in overcoming any scripture that supports my doctrine so don’t presume the text in Timothy applies to me.

standing vs. Placement
It’s a simple matter of acknowledging that I’ve presented many arguments beyond STANDING in support of my original premise, plain and simple. Standing is merely in support of my main premise. The evidence is NOT in your favor; that is presumption. Hebrews is the most important book that expounds upon how the law changed and by what criterion and we’ve been back and forth that the fourth commandments does not meet the criterion, nor have you been able to import other criterion from other texts that are not merely dealing with the character of the law and not precisely how it changed.

Michael

 

[Eric B]

Isaiah; Sabbath not civil; Heb.4

The last chapter in Isaiah depicts the events of Yahshua’s first advent leading to the object of the church age and introduces some essential elements of the eternal state to come after. In essence the text is prophesy that HAS BEEN or IS BEING fulfilled, with the exception of the “eternal” state of the new heavens and new earth still to come. My response exposed your import of conditionalism into the text as totally unwarranted.

That’s because you surmise that that passage was meant to be symbolic ONLY. It was written as be literal, and when Israel broke the covenant, then it was fulfilled spiritually. You don’t accept that kind of concept, but there is enough evidence for it. So the “conditionalism” was justified.

The passage simply “not ruling out” a “periodic dedication of one day out of the week” says nothing here. I never said it was ruled out, and we’re discussing whether it’s still mandatory, not whether it is ruled out. But if one of those statements represents a “cycle”, then so does the other. If one is a literal day to be observed, so is the other (Num.28:11). If it is literal, it must have been something conditional, as we are not to still bring bullocks on the first of the month, or it is all symbolic. I don’t know what all this stuff about “interminableness” is about.

You know what a “theocracy” is, right? “Physical” means it is opposed to spiritual, like the Kingdom we are under now. “Tight” means it was strictly ruled by God. You’re accusing me of making things up when that is not the case.

I did not say that the day being “dedicated” to God rules out being made for man. What I was saying was that you were mixing up the arguments for both purposes in saying “six days belong to man and one day belongs to God”, and then “It was made for man to rest”. When you do that, it does end up becoming contradictory, the problem lying in the inscriptural insinuation that God only owns one day and man owning the other days.

Once again, in Hebrews 4, the principle IS there; you just do not accept it. The passage now makes God’s rest at Creation the basis for our spiritual rest from our “workS”, giving it the "equating" the literal Sabbath rest had, and this rest the OC saints may have had some faint glimpse of, but we have in full.

Olivet reference

Your counter point doesn’t work because they had to consider winter as well as the Sabbath in this event, which gave them both importance and/or relevancy some forty years after the cross, but not for the exact reasons. Winter or the “periodic cyclical” nature of weather didn’t end and neither did the Sabbath in Yahshua’s perception. They were to PRAY and plan around both winter and the Sabbath, which still upholds the sanctity of one day out of the week forty years after the cross. As I stated clinging to any false notions concerning the ceremonies that held legitimacy in the temple would only have led to their demise, so this relegates your “restrictions” theory to rationalizations. It is clearly a poor rationalization to suggest that the disciples, some forty years later, would be restricted or upholding false notions on the law that Yahshua had already specifically addressed and corrected. Moreover, the book to the Hebrews, the last of the written NT by many accounts, was written prior to this event and if the Sabbath were cancelled under the criterion in said book then the Spirit, having foreknowledge of the aforementioned, WOULD NOT have led Yahshua to emphasize the continued importance of one day out of the week at the very time the Jews should 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

What do you mean “consider” winter? Don’t read too much into a simple statement. He did not say “pray and plan AROUND winter and the Sabbath”; He said “pray THAT your flight (from the destruction) is NOT in the winter or on the Sabbath” (and also nursing a child). Why? Because if it is in the winter, that would make it difficult for them. If they were nursing a child, it would be very difficult. And if it was on a Sabbath, they would be in a bind, if they felt they needed to observe the rule against traveling a certain distance. You yourself pointed out that that was not really apart of the true commandment. But Jews still kept it, like circumcision, as a “tradition”. So why would Jesus tell them to pray their flight was not on the day? Even if we put it your way; why would He tell them to plan “around” the day, if there was nothing in the true Law to forbid them from picking up and fleeing like anytime else? Why are Gentiles never instructed on this, if this was to the whole Church?

Covenant people

And this also exposes your misapprehensions of the New Covenant “turning to the Ethnos.” It cannot be suggested that Yah has turned to the heathen but to the Gentles that are gathered into New Jerusalem and in Yahshua. Paul addresses the heathen heart in Romans chapter two, but the covenant people of New Jerusalem still establish the law. The New Covenant is not incompatible with the Ten Commandments or the laws of incest, nor have you proven any such thing.

Notice, the NEW Jerusalem, not the Old Jerusalem. Why are you saying the “covenant people STILL establish the Law”. There were two different covenants; the Covenant that was then “still” establishes nothing, because it has passed, and we do not STILL establish anything, because our covenant did not exist when the Law of Moses was in effect. You’re saying I’m misrepresenting you, but I explained what I was doing: showing you how your logic blurs the two covenants. In other words, do not use the Old Covenant to prove what we “establish” today (in contrast to “the heathen”). Since God does not transfer the Old Covenant to us, but gives us a new one, He is free to go back to the laws that all of man had, and this distinction of “the heathen” is being taken too far, once again. Once again, “is He God of the Jews only?” When Adam was first created, and the whole time up to around Noah, they had the Seven Laws and not the Covenant of Israel, but did that make Noah a heathen? Abel? Seth? “Heathen” only denotes the people in the world who were not obeying the laws they were given. There were Gentiles called “Godfearers” who kept the Seven Laws, and were thus distinguished from “heathens”.

So I am not misrepresenting you. I did not SAY last time “you uphold the Old Covenant as the New Covenant”, and I DID desist in saying “YOU are using the Law unlawfully”, so questioning my sincerity, and the “mirror” statement are still not justified. The passage did not say that those using the law unlawfully were “trying to impose a belief system” (ABOUT the Law), anyway, but rather “desiring to be teachers OF the Law”. So while you’re telling me to desist, you’re still getting your little shots in.

standing vs. Placement; Circumcision

It’s a simple matter of acknowledging that I’ve presented many arguments beyond STANDING in support of my original premise, plain and simple. Standing is merely in support of my main premise. The evidence is NOT in your favor; that is presumption. Hebrews is the most important book that expounds upon how the law changed and by what criterion and we’ve been back and forth that the fourth commandments does not meet the criterion, nor have you been able to import other criterion from other texts that are not merely dealing with the character of the law and not precisely how it changed.

The fourth commandment does not meet the criterion of Hebrews chapter 7, and while I may grant you that it is “the most important book” on the subject, since it is not the only one, you cannot say the evidence is not in my favor, as I never said the Sabbath met the criterion in THIS particular chapter.
However, neither does circumcision meet that criteria, and here, you’re just repeating the same disproven conclusion, and we might as well drop it. Circumcision was no more bound exclusively to Passover than the Sabbath or any other Law, and your proof text does not say that. It just isn’t there.

 

[Michaeneu]

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Isaiah; Sabbath not civil; Heb.4
Conditionalism would necessitate that the prediction in Isaiah could only be fulfilled upon obedience, which is not the case at all. To the contrary, the prediction is fulfilled precisely because the Jews chose that which did not delight Yah, disobedience, and cast out Yahshua and the disciples because they trembled at Yah’s word (verses 3-5). The text concerns the plan for the rejection of the stone that becomes the head corner and parallels exactly what happen when heavenly Sion brought forth the man child Yahshua, which means there is NOTHING conditional about it at all. And how is the prediction of the new heavens and earth conditional? How is the prediction of the continued cycles of the moon which means it continues to revolve around the earth in eternity conditional? Or how is the prediction of the eternal consequences of vessels fit for destruction conditional. And how does one twist the meaning of something that is “periodic” into something “interminable” without importing confusion into the very language by with the scriptures relate Yah’s will?

And where do you get this stuff that something literal is conditional? It’s not the scriptures! Baptism is a physical and literal oblation that is also spiritual and evidence of obedience and acceptance of the covenant in Yahshua. The supper of Yahshua is a physical and literal oblation that is also spiritual and evidence of obedience and acceptance of the covenant in Yahshua. There is no such criterion for conditionalism whatsoever; you just make that up. And the cycle of the new moons in chapter in question mentions NOTHING about bullocks either; you imported that into the text. What the text actually relays, without adding to or taking away, is that in eternity the Sabbath, the universal setting apart of one day out of the week for the purpose of worshiping Yahweh, shall be as dependable as the moon that revolves around the earth.

Oh, and you might want to look of the meaning of the words you are dealing with in the scriptures such as the Sabbath, which is defined as a “day” that is observed “periodically” in contrast to “interminably”. The Sabbath is something “periodic” within something that is interminable: “eternity”.

And this physical versus spiritual stuff about ancient Israel of yours is not in the scriptures either. Ancient Israel WAS a spiritual kingdom that was also literal: that IS the definition of a “theocracy”. The two are not opposed or incompatible as your definition implies which means you made it up. In truth your type of belief system is not too removed from what Gnosticism taught, then. And was Yah any stricter then as he is now? I thought that one of Yah’s attributes was immutability; He is the same yesterday, today and forever. This stricter stuff comes from a lack of understanding Yah and what the scriptures truly relay.

BTW, six days belong to man is just tautology for “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work.” But I guess one could make a case that it was a poor expression that confused you so I won’t do it again.

Hebrews chapter four DOES NOT relay that the literal Sabbath, as you called it, was replaced by anything. There is no act of “replacement” anywhere in the text. The text strictly relays how some things remained CONCURRENT which is a completely different subject matter than something proceeding AFTER OR LATER. If the text relayed something that proceeded AFTER Yah rested at creation then your interpretation might have some warrant, but it doesn’t. I accept what the text states without adding to taking away.

Olivet reference
If they were to consider the winter and the Sabbath in their flight then they were to account for them; it simply meant to avoid leaving during either. And you don’t have any express support for your “restrictions” being the impediments concerning the Sabbath forty years after Yahshua addressed these restrictions and dispelled them. But what is clearly relayed in the text is that if there was NO impediment concerning the Sabbath then it would not have mattered if they had taken flight on it, which renders Yahshua’s statement meaningless and that cannot be the case. Yahshua is still rendering the Sabbath importance or standing some forty years after the event of the cross in the Olivet Discourse and at the time in which fealty to any dead letter of the laws that held relevance in the temple would have meant their demise.

The Gentiles were instructed by the example of the disciples; the disciples kept the Sabbath; example is the best teacher.

Covenant people
But I don’t have to strictly use the Old Covenant to show that the New Covenant people establish the law and I’ve already shown this to you many times.

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31

Paul IS NOT addressing the Old Covenant people here but addressing the New Covenant people whose faith DOES NOT make void the law. This includes the Gentiles that join the New Covenant, which we see from the context. And what are we to make of Paul, James and Peters instruction on the law in the New Testament if not that they were establishing what was perennial about the Old Covenant and reestablished in the New Covenant. The New covenant people still establish the law by instructing upon what was ephemeral and done away with under the Old Covenant and what was perennial and kept in the New Covenant such as “thou shalt not commit adultery”.

Your assertion that your “reversion” to this “Noahide concept” is superior to the view that “what was perennial was kept in the New Covenant” has by no means been proven by any superior exegesis! Quite the contrary. As I’ve continually stated, yours is a non sequitur and a contradiction to begin with because if ANY law under the Old Covenant was perennial, such as those against incest, they simple cannot have ended or been discarded with the Old Covenant. Clearly they are kept by grace in the New Covenant (for that matter they could only have been kept by grace in the Old). “Reversion” in itself implies going backwards to something that did not accomplish Yah’s aim in the first place. The covenants are progressive and not regressive. This seven law stuff is also mere theory and arbitrary concerning the Sabbath. You do not have any “express” scriptural evidence that Adam or Noah did not keep the Sabbath. There is just as great, if not greater, scriptural argument that they did keep the Sabbath, which relegates your “reversion” theory to unsound doctrine on the law.

As to the misrepresentation, in just one of your recent posts you stated: looks like an argument to prove that we have the same covenant with the same Laws. Whatever you want it to look like it is not the reality when I advocate the distinctiveness of one covenant from the other especially concerning the law. In truth the contention we have centers on the fourth commandment and yours is an exaggeration that I’m transferring everything, lock stock and barrel, from one to another! Like I stated, continue to misrepresent me like this and I shall question your sincerity and more. And as to the mirror comment, I only stated that if you desist I shall also. And the term “using the law unlawfully” would include being in error in ones belief about the law also. Don’t mention it or try to correct me concerning it again and neither shall I.

standing vs. Placement; Circumcision
I can respond that the evidence is not in your favor all I want, especially when I expound upon it with sound exegesis, like cricumcision. And circumcision IS met in the criterion because it was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and that is why you attempt to downplay the significance of that and the implications.

Michael

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It's not my particular likings or inclination, nor did I say it was because of the Bible.
But if you can find me a sabbath church over here that does not tie it to the OT Law (as you even criticize here), then maybe I would join.

Where two or three meet together in the Name of Jesus Christ, there is He present - is the Church. Paul says the Sabbath is a spectre of things a coming - even the Body of Christ's own ... growing with the increase of God. Two or three become twenty and thirty, and so on - at which 'stage' the Sabbath Day gets involved - A keeping of the Sabbath Day therefore remains. Where the Church is, there God's chosen day for the life of the Church emerges and serves its holy, chosen, purpose - nothing of it comes from man. I often wonder how it is possible I still believe the Church (as an article of Faith) with its Sunday-worship. It seems there's no solution; may God keep me firm in the Faith of Christ - the Faith of the Bible.

 

[Eric B]

Isaiah; Heb.4

Conditionalism would necessitate that the prediction in Isaiah could only be fulfilled upon obedience, which is not the case at all. To the contrary, the prediction is fulfilled precisely because the Jews chose that which did not delight Yah, disobedience, and cast out Yahshua and the disciples because they trembled at Yah’s word (verses 3-5). The text concerns the plan for the rejection of the stone that becomes the head corner and parallels exactly what happen when heavenly Sion brought forth the man child Yahshua, which means there is NOTHING conditional about it at all. And how is the prediction of the new heavens and earth conditional? How is the prediction of the continued cycles of the moon which means it continues to revolve around the earth in eternity conditional? Or how is the prediction of the eternal consequences of vessels fit for destruction conditional. And how does one twist the meaning of something that is “periodic” into something “interminable” without importing confusion into the very language by with the scriptures relate Yah’s will?

And where do you get this stuff that something literal is conditional? It’s not the scriptures! Baptism is a physical and literal oblation that is also spiritual and evidence of obedience and acceptance of the covenant in Yahshua. The supper of Yahshua is a physical and literal oblation that is also spiritual and evidence of obedience and acceptance of the covenant in Yahshua. There is no such criterion for conditionalism whatsoever; you just make that up. And the cycle of the new moons in chapter in question mentions NOTHING about bullocks either; you imported that into the text. What the text actually relays, without adding to or taking away, is that in eternity the Sabbath, the universal setting apart of one day out of the week for the purpose of worshiping Yahweh, shall be as dependable as the moon that revolves around the earth.

Oh, and you might want to look of the meaning of the words you are dealing with in the scriptures such as the Sabbath, which is defined as a “day” that is observed “periodically” in contrast to “interminably”. The Sabbath is something “periodic” within something that is interminable: “eternity”.

And this physical versus spiritual stuff about ancient Israel of yours is not in the scriptures either. Ancient Israel WAS a spiritual kingdom that was also literal: that IS the definition of a “theocracy”. The two are not opposed or incompatible as your definition implies which means you made it up. In truth your type of belief system is not too removed from what Gnosticism taught, then. And was Yah any stricter then as he is now? I thought that one of Yah’s attributes was immutability; He is the same yesterday, today and forever. This stricter stuff comes from a lack of understanding Yah and what the scriptures truly relay.

If the text relayed something that proceeded AFTER Yah rested at creation then your interpretation might have some warrant, but it doesn’t. I accept what the text states without adding to taking away.

Yes, the rejection of the Messiah was covered in those early verses, but the future promise is still cast in terms of the Old Covenant, as if that would be the system through which God would spread His Word to the nations. You say it is symbolic, and I believe that it is fulfilled symbolically, but in any case, this cannot be used to prove the sabbath of ceasing from all secular work is binding on all today. "Make that up"? I even gave you the scripture reference for what was to be done on a new moon, which was also defined as a "DAY". If that is not mentioned in this text, then neither is ceasing from work. Interminable or not, you can't make one thing literal, and everything else have some other meaning, for there is no warrant in the text.

And Israel was not a spiritual Kingdom. That was the whole point of the comparison between the OC and the NC as discussed by Paul. That is not "Gnostic". You misunderstand the meaning of "spiritual" to claim that a "theocracy" makes a nation "spiritual". Islamic nations are generally theocracies. That one may be a false concept of God, but the principle is still the same, in the religion being completely wed to the state and legally covering every aspect of civil life. (that's what I meant by "tight" and "strict"). It is not like that now for us. (If we sin and don't repent, we are not executed, or otherwise physically punished now, but still have an entire lifetime to repent before the judgment). Israel was a physical Kingdom that God was guiding, and some such as the prophets had the spirit, and some obeyed, but most did not. In the Kingdom we are in now, all have the Spirit, and we are saved by faith in Christ. You're going to great lengths to try to shoot down everything I say, but I did NOT make this stuff up. IT is sound Bible exposition that has stood the test of time, becoming a common view in orthodox Christianity; unless one wants to resort to some "Sunday Conspiracy" where this all important truth was almost universally lost and the entire Church lived in lawlessness until you guys showed up.

And Heb.4 DOES relay that something "proceeded AFTER God's rest at Creation", and that's the spiritual rest we have today, which most of OT Israel didn't enter (whether they "could have" or not).

Olivet reference

If they were to consider the winter and the Sabbath in their flight then they were to account for them; it simply meant to avoid leaving during either. And you don’t have any express support for your “restrictions” being the impediments concerning the Sabbath forty years after Yahshua addressed these restrictions and dispelled them. But what is clearly relayed in the text is that if there was NO impediment concerning the Sabbath then it would not have mattered if they had taken flight on it, which renders Yahshua’s statement meaningless and that cannot be the case. Yahshua is still rendering the Sabbath importance or standing some forty years after the event of the cross in the Olivet Discourse and at the time in which fealty to any dead letter of the laws that held relevance in the temple would have meant their demise.

The Gentiles were instructed by the example of the disciples; the disciples kept the Sabbath; example is the best teacher.

The NT does not say they kept the sabbath after the Cross (they did preach in the synagogues on it, though, but that was the synagogues that kept it), and they were not teaching the Gentiles to keep the sabbath and "the Law of Moses" (NOT just circumcision), but rather opposed that as we see in Acts 15.
And you still have to explain why they should avoid leaving on the sabbath, as they would avoid on leaving on the winter. The text does not say "account for", "consider" or "Avoid" either! It says "PRAY" that it does NOT OCCUR during those things. They had no control over when it occured for them to be able to "avoid" anything. How can you continuously challenge my handling of scripture when you are here adding words like this that change the meaning?
So the only "impediment" that could occur on the sabbath is their own tradition that one should not travel on it.


Circumcision

I can respond that the evidence is not in your favor all I want, especially when I expound upon it with sound exegesis, like cricumcision. And circumcision IS met in the criterion because it was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and that is why you attempt to downplay the significance of that and the implications.

What sound exegesis? You quote a single verse that mentions circumcision and the Passover together. It says NOTHING of "circumcision is bound to the Passover". Again, you add a word to the text, and then turn around and claim I'm downplaying "implications", and the evidence is not in my favor. It is JUST NOT THERE. We need more than "implications" and "evidence" to support the absolute statements you are making here. The implication is that all of the Law was bound together. Anyone who was to do one was to do the other.

 

[Eric B]

Covenant people

But I don’t have to strictly use the Old Covenant to show that the New Covenant people establish the law and I’ve already shown this to you many times.

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31

Paul IS NOT addressing the Old Covenant people here but addressing the New Covenant people whose faith DOES NOT make void the law. This includes the Gentiles that join the New Covenant, which we see from the context. And what are we to make of Paul, James and Peters instruction on the law in the New Testament if not that they were establishing what was perennial about the Old Covenant and reestablished in the New Covenant. The New covenant people still establish the law by instructing upon what was ephemeral and done away with under the Old Covenant and what was perennial and kept in the New Covenant such as “thou shalt not commit adultery”.

Your assertion that your “reversion” to this “Noahide concept” is superior to the view that “what was perennial was kept in the New Covenant” has by no means been proven by any superior exegesis! Quite the contrary. As I’ve continually stated, yours is a non sequitur and a contradiction to begin with because if ANY law under the Old Covenant was perennial, such as those against incest, they simple cannot have ended or been discarded with the Old Covenant. Clearly they are kept by grace in the New Covenant (for that matter they could only have been kept by grace in the Old). “Reversion” in itself implies going backwards to something that did not accomplish Yah’s aim in the first place. The covenants are progressive and not regressive. This seven law stuff is also mere theory and arbitrary concerning the Sabbath. You do not have any “express” scriptural evidence that Adam or Noah did not keep the Sabbath. There is just as great, if not greater, scriptural argument that they did keep the Sabbath, which relegates your “reversion” theory to unsound doctrine on the law.

As to the misrepresentation, in just one of your recent posts you stated: looks like an argument to prove that we have the same covenant with the same Laws. Whatever you want it to look like it is not the reality when I advocate the distinctiveness of one covenant from the other especially concerning the law. In truth the contention we have centers on the fourth commandment and yours is an exaggeration that I’m transferring everything, lock stock and barrel, from one to another! Like I stated, continue to misrepresent me like this and I shall question your sincerity and more. And as to the mirror comment, I only stated that if you desist I shall also. And the term “using the law unlawfully” would include being in error in ones belief about the law also. Don’t mention it or try to correct me concerning it again and neither shall I.

The problem is, is that in Romans, whan Paul says "yeah, we establish the Law", he does not say "Only what was perennial about the Old Covenant and reestablished in the New Covenant". You are adding that there, and that's why I point out that that conclusion would lead to lock, stock and barrel of the OC Law, if one goes by what is in the text alone. I know you advocate the distinction between one covenant and the other. But it's your argumentation that contradicts this.
In the CONTEXT, Paul mentions circumcision (preceding verse), and the Gentiles contrasted with the Jews, and that we are not under the Law. He says even though we are not under the Law, rather than being guilty of breaking it, by not keeping commands like circumcision, we "establish" it through "faith". This speaks of the spiritual principles rather than the letter of commands as I have been saying, and which you keep denying. We are no longer circumcised physically, but we are spiritually. Thus, the Law is established. They may "have had" both in the OC, but most missed one, and the other did remove the necessity of the first when the focus changed.
It does not say "we KEEP the perennial part of the Law, which is everything except the ceremonies". We do in fact keep the perennial part of the law that was reestablished in the New Covenant, so that that is partly true, but it is not your definition of "only the ceremonies ceased"; and the sabbath is not taught in any of Paul, James or Peter's instruction on the Law, so why assume it was "reestablished" if they didn't mention it? You have not proven it is perennial, except for "it is not a shadow ceremony", and that is not proof. And likewise, there is absolutely no proof Adam or Noah and the others kept the sabbath, and neither is anyone in their time ever condemned for not keeping it (as they are condemned for not keeping the other moral/spiritual laws), so why even bring that up? I have no "express" proof, but your side has none at all, except for "they must have".

"Reversion" is just a term I used to lack of a better way to make you understand this. I didn't say the covenant "reverted" back. But Paul clearly says that the Law (not just the ceremonies) was "ADDED because of sin until the seed should come". So if it was added UNTIL the seed, and now we have the seed, what does that mean? We go back to the way it was before the Law was added, since Christ handled our sin on the cross. That is in fact what we pretty much see articulated in Acts 15, to answer the question of which parts of the law the Gentiles are to keep. That's all I meant by "reversion", and I never said it was "superior" to "what was perennial was kept in the New Covenant", but rather it has affirmed that all along, but according to the proper scriptural contexts. Please do not make my statements into something they are not.
And now you're telling me "do not mention" something again, or try to correct you on it. It seems you want to correct me on everything, and have the last word. Just like you correct me because you think I'm wrong, I correct you when I think you're wrong, and any "wrong teaching of the Law" is not in the context, but rather a specific teaching by people with a specific goal.

 

[Eric B]

Where two or three meet together in the Name of Jesus Christ, there is He present - is the Church. Paul says the Sabbath is a spectre of things a coming - even the Body of Christ's own ... growing with the increase of God. Two or three become twenty and thirty, and so on - at which 'stage' the Sabbath Day gets involved - A keeping of the Sabbath Day therefore remains. Where the Church is, there God's chosen day for the life of the Church emerges and serves its holy, chosen, purpose - nothing of it comes from man. I often wonder how it is possible I still believe the Church (as an article of Faith) with its Sunday-worship. It seems there's no solution; may God keep me firm in the Faith of Christ - the Faith of the Bible.

If I could find two or three people who believed that, I would. I always believed that was superior to organized Church and its set traditions anyway.