How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

[Eric B]

Eric

Think about this ok? The Bible says this:

1Jn:3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Rom:6:2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Rom:6:15: What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

God tells us the Law is still in effect. We are to stop sinning. The law was not wiped out because of grace. Can you at least admit it says that?

Then this whole thing you have going on about not knowing which law to keep is just silly. You know which Law!

Matthew 19:
16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18: He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19: Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Isnt that plain enough Eric?

Romans 13:
8: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
11: And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
12: The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.


Its time to wake up, just like the passage says above, Eric. God doesnt trifle with us, seriously you need to stop saying like you dont know what law God is talking about because in the judgment you arent going to be able to plead that you didnt know.

Come on, Eric, seriously!

I never said I didn't know which Laws. There you go, just like the others, putting words in people's mouth, and not listening to what they actually say. It's your side that thinks you know, yet you have to come up with these ridiculous criteria never spelled out by scripture, ("greatest" and least"; "positive" and "negative", "inside the ark", "thundered down from the mountain", etc) yet you pick prooftexts and infer them in, and tell me this is so clear I'll be judged over it; and you're not even consistent. You say that only the Ten, but then keep other select commands from "the rest" (dietary, etc). (And then, the SDA adds on top of that and says we shouldn't eat meat at all.) Meanwhile, I have been explaining the universal seven laws which some of which conincide with some of the Ten, and you all gloss over this, because it is muich easier to keep throwing out accusations of lawlessness.

Don't forget, missy, you too will stand before God, and if you want to judge on the Law of Moses, then you'll see how well you did. We'll see if He accepts people spending all sabbath day on the computer as true sabbath-rest and not personal recreation. As you judge so shall you be judged. Instead, Jesus says the one who smote his breast and says "God be merciful to me, a sinner" is the one who is justified, not the one who judges and compares himself and his works. You yourself (IIRC), even recently cited the passage that if you do what God commands you should say "I'm an unworthy servant". Well, that's not the attitude I am seeing here. All I see is judgement, and you cannot even back it up with scripture in its proper CONTEXT without turning our words around so that you can claim we are teaching lawlessness. Straw man, after straw man, after straw man, after straw man! Cleverly crafted, but ultimately flimsy arguments. Why are these tactics so necessary if your position is so "clear"?

 

[Michaeneu]

You're still getting hung up on "relaxation" versus "cancellation". I explained where I got the term "relaxation" from (from YOUR side of the debate). Whether you call it "relaxation" or "cancellation" you stil have not shown which were cancelled or which were not.

I know very well where you got the term and it wasn’t from the scriptures! But it was you that accuses me of fabricating the criterion of how the law changed, but in truth it is you that is fabricating here; to cancel is not the same as relax.

You assert that “the letter is relaxed in the case of the ceremonial law” as to the change of the law which is to be found nowhere in scripture. And of course this fabrication does nothing to contrast the moral law from the ceremonial, but your extraneous idea is not the criterion given in Hebrews. The criterion and change is set forth as a cancellation of the law which was weak, unprofitable, imperfect and typical or shadows. Of course with the proper criterion then the Decalogue is sanctified or set apart because it wasn’t weak, unprofitable, imperfect or typical.

That says NOTHING about "the Decalogue". You can't just assert it does when it says no such thing.

The object of your response concerns what I asserted about the meaning of shadows from Colossians 2:14-17. The text list several ritual rights and terms them “a shadow of things to come.” The moral laws upon the stone tables were not ritual rights pointing forward to Yahshua. Of course you attempt to make the forth ceremonial, but that’s arbitrary—especially because you fair poorly on dispelling standing.

The problem is, you are overgeneralizing. The decalogue includes both universal moral laws (some of the same as the original seven), plus the sabbath. The sabbath was both a memorial of creation (this old creation which is passing away) and also DID in fact look forward to the spiritual rest we have in Jesus (Heb.4) plus the future kingdom. Why would we continue to keep a memorial to a fallen creation that is passing away? We look forward, not back. That is precisely why the sabbath is classified among the weak shadows. (And it says nothing about 'rituals') Your whole case rests on proving that is was not simply because it was in the Decalogue… Your argument basically goes the sabbath is universal because it is in the Decalogue, because all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue is made up of universal commands. That is a circular argument. It just doesn't work. The passage in Hebrews says no such thing. The Decalogue contains some universal commands, and it also has one that clearly is not universal in its literal application.

You’re the one over generalizing because I’m dealing with but a few aspects concerning the forth commandment; I’ve left other issues to others. You’ve attempted to trivialize the line of reasoning that the fourth commandment was listed side by side with the most substantive moral law ever given to man, written by the finger of Yah, audibly given by Him to the whole congregation, kept apart from the ceremonial and civil law in the ark, and etcetera. That is quite a list of distinguishing attributes and scriptural exegesis so my argument simply DOES NOT solely hinge on one proof text. Moreover my exegesis is supported by the criterion on how the law changed under the New Covenant in Hebrews, which concerns the standing of the Decalogue. This is further substantiated by my exegesis on Matthew chapter five concerning rank in the law that Yahshua confirmed and exegesis on the greatest commandments in Matthew 22. Circular arguments don’t substantiate assertions with numerous proofs as I do. And yet, I’m not through with my work as you will see below.

Yet, your argument rest upon extraneous ideas that are not found in scripture such this “relaxation of the letter for the spirit” concept. And now you add this extraneous idea that the Sabbath was a shadow! To coin a phrase you used: “where do you get this stuff?” You need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything. Hebrews chapter four uses the creation as an allegory for the rest in Yahshua, but NEVER states that the commandment was a shadow of anything to come! Your exaggeration and pulling in extraneous and alien ideas seems to know no bounds.

The fourth commandment mentions nothing about what is to come. It does point back continuously to the creation and that it was good according to Yah in the beginning. You may trivialize that but that is the difference between the antinomian and those who keep the Sabbath.

You're so busy trying to fabricate contradictions on my part, that you don't even read. I said that the commands were apart of the original universal laws, and were also then incorporated into the decalogue given to Israel. The Decalogue was cancelled, but the universal laws still exist apart from it. Why is that so hard to understand? There wouldn't be so much misunderstanding if you weren't so busy interrogating.

Your so busy feeling persecuted you fail to truly address the issues or see your contradictions. Again, you can’t resist contradictions. If even nine of the laws on the tables of stone were universal then they can’t be cancelled, period. Nine parts were cancelled—only they still exit—according to your view. That’s confusion; that’s obfuscation.

 

[Michaeneu]

…you now trying to say that the "greatest" commandments are referring to the Decalogue, and the "least" are the rest…This [sermon on the mount] is the same passage you all always use to refer to the Decalogue as being eternal, because it says "Not one jot nor tittle shall pass...so whoever shall break THE LEAST OF THESE...". Since "the least" are said to continue, your side has always been forced to say that ONLY the Decalogue was being discussed there. Now you're trying to say this part was referring to the ceremonial laws?....Jesus also said "whoever offends the least of these [children] who believes in me". Are some children 'greater' than others…

Your two part response is mere caviling along with poor understanding. As to the first part you’re failing to take into account context; Yahshua is testifying about the law before the cross, while the author of Hebrews is testifying about the law after the cross. We know that the laws that represented shadows that were weak and unprofitable or imperfect were nailed to the cross or cancelled. Yahshua is testifying about the law prior to this event and not one jot or tittle was to pass away UNTIL all be fulfilled. I hope you know the meaning of UNTIL! (Amillennialist seem to have trouble with the word.) Yahshua declared he had not come to destroy the law but to FULFILL it! Consequently, having fulfilled the law at the cross the law which was weak, imperfect, unprofitable and shadows was nailed to the cross.

Again, unless one is willing to contest the author of Hebrews that some PART of the law was unprofitable or imperfect then we are left with standing in the law again; some part was perfect and profitable while another was imperfect and unprofitable—some part is greater than another.

As to rank concerning the children, let me burst your bubble, there is standing in the kingdom of Yah according to scripture! When queried upon who would sit at his right hand in the kingdom (that’s standing) Yahshua didn’t deny this standing—he merely stated that it was his Father’s to give and not his. Again, when the disciples squabbled about standing in his kingdom Yahshua stated that if they wanted to be chief they had to be the GREATEST servant; that’s standing. And again, Yahshua promised those disciples who followed him in the regeneration would sit upon twelve thrones as judges; that’s standing. When Yahshua returns he renders everyone his reward and there is a precise place for us in the kingdom according to our gifts; that’s standing. Yahweh is not a respecter of persons; nevertheless, there is standing in the kingdom otherwise Yahshua cannot even be King of kings!

And you're not humorous. You basically make up your own interpretation of Jesus' example and what is lawful, or constitutes "testifying". And then coma and try to judge me with it. You have no defense for it, and that's why you just reiterate the same statement I have already answered without even dealing with the answer I gave…

The rest of what you wrote simply can’t overcome the testimony and example of Yahshua. I love Isaiah chapter fifty-eight. I’m not doing my pleasure by testifying about the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath; I’m building up the waste places! Sorry you don’t grasp that!

It IS a judgment on individuals! You have done nothing but accuse me of being an antinomian, a cavil, obfuscation, evasion, contradiction/double talk, and Phariseeism. You have continuously skirted right by the doctrine, (because you can't scripturally refute it), and instead have gone after my intentions more than anything else, (as if that by itself is what disproves the doctrine). That is judging, and that's what makes this discussion so aggrivating.

I’m doing nothing more or less than what you are doing. I’m critiquing your work and the nature of HOW you support your work, as your doing to me. At least I’m not whining about it. Eric, what I do is in the spirit of love; it may be tough love, but then your techniques are not so different.

And do you take care of your parents if they cannot take care of themselves? For that is what that command means.

Aren’t you stating the obvious?



Michael

 

[Claudia_T]

Judging?

Don't forget, missy, you too will stand before God, and if you want to judge on the Law of Moses, then you'll see how well you did. We'll see if He accepts people spending all sabbath day on the computer as true sabbath-rest and not personal recreation. As you judge so shall you be judged. Instead, Jesus says the one who smote his breast and says "God be merciful to me, a sinner" is the one who is justified, not the one who judges and compares himself and his works. You yourself (IIRC), even recently cited the passage that if you do what God commands you should say "I'm an unworthy servant". Well, that's not the attitude I am seeing here. All I see is judgement, and you cannot even back it up with scripture in its proper CONTEXT without turning our words around so that you can claim we are teaching lawlessness. Straw man, after straw man, after straw man, after straw man! Cleverly crafted, but ultimately flimsy arguments. Why are these tactics so necessary if your position is so "clear"?

Eric,

I truly dont understand where you are getting some of the things that you are saying to me?

First of all, I never judged you. I am just trying to have a conversation about this. I dont know why you feel like you are being accused of anything by me?

With each topic, one person takes one side and another takes the other side. Why do you take this one so personally and feel like you are under attack?

Then you say I am accusing you of lawlessness? I dont think so. Perhaps you are a person who believes in keeping the law? But you think it has nothing to do with your salvation? Is that correct? Thats the impression I got.

If so, then THAT is what I am talking about, your idea that keeping the law has nothing to do with your salvation. It has nothing whatever to do with accusing you of anything.

I do however take exception to the fact that normally persons on these chatboards claim that those of us who believe that keeping the law has something to do with your salvation are "Legalists". Its just not true at all.

Im just wondering, how does one express his or her view that the law has something to do with your salvation, if any time you mention it, people take it personally and feel they are being "attacked"? Its hard to even talk about it.

Honestly, to me it feels like you are trying to intimidate people and make them feel afraid to even bring up this subject for fear you will hollar they are persecuting you. At least thats how Im feeling right now. I mean, why cant you just discuss the topic with out accusing people of accusing you? Just discuss it and dont take it so personally. Im not trying to accuse you of anything.

All I am saying is that I believe the Bible talks ALOT about the Law having something to do with the Judgment.

Jms:2:12: So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

Rom:2:13: (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Eccl:12:13: Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Rv:20:12: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rv:20:13: And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rv. 22:
12: And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Now if you think thats judging you or accusing you, well its the Bible doing that and not me.

 

[Eric B]

I know very well where you got the term and it wasn’t from the scriptures! But it was you that accuses me of fabricating the criterion of how the law changed, but in truth it is you that is fabricating here; to cancel is not the same as relax.

You assert that “the letter is relaxed in the case of the ceremonial law” as to the change of the law which is to be found nowhere in scripture. And of course this fabrication does nothing to contrast the moral law from the ceremonial, but your extraneous idea is not the criterion given in Hebrews. The criterion and change is set forth as a cancellation of the law which was weak, unprofitable, imperfect and typical or shadows.

Why are you still harping on "relaxation"? If it's not biblical, then jump on your cohorts for first coning it. I was only giving back what your side tossed at me. Forget relaxation. The letter was cancelled for the spirit? (Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6)Happy? (But so you don't have an opportunity to jump on that as lawlessness, this isn't saying there are no more laws, because there are still the spiritual laws).

Of course with the proper criterion then the Decalogue is sanctified or set apart because it wasn’t weak, unprofitable, imperfect or typical.

The object of your response concerns what I asserted about the meaning of shadows from Colossians 2:14-17. The text list several ritual rights and terms them “a shadow of things to come.” The moral laws upon the stone tables were not ritual rights pointing forward to Yahshua. Of course you attempt to make the forth ceremonial, but that’s arbitrary—especially because you fair poorly on dispelling standing.

that doesn't say that the only things that were shadows were rituals. That is overgeneralizing. And the sabbath is not a moral law. We cannot have a relationship with or neigbor if we kill, steal, take each other's wives, lie and covet. We cannot have a relationship with God if we worship other Gods, or fail to respect His name. Those are universal, and if you say the sabbath is universal in rest, most people are able to have a relationship with God and with their neigbor and function in society without one particular day. You say you can be on the computer all day, and that is still good, so you prove more than anyone else that it is not universal. It was a specific sign given to Israel throughout THEIR generations. (Ex.31:13) Use God's definitions of what's "mora" or universal, not your own.

You’re the one over generalizing because I’m dealing with but a few aspects concerning the forth commandment; I’ve left other issues to others. You’ve attempted to trivialize the line of reasoning that the fourth commandment was listed side by side with the most substantive moral law ever given to man, written by the finger of Yah, audibly given by Him to the whole congregation, kept apart from the ceremonial and civil law in the ark, and etcetera. That is quite a list of distinguishing attributes and scriptural exegesis so my argument simply DOES NOT solely hinge on one proof text.

Not ONE of those examples SAYD (DEFINES) "This makes all of these precepts on these stones universal for all and eternal". You just read it in there. You, like the other here think that the mere volume of book:chapter:verse references piled on top of one another proves a doctrine, despite the contexts, and you then call that "exegesis". That's proof-texting, whether it's one verse or a thousand.

Moreover my exegesis is supported by the criterion on how the law changed under the New Covenant in Hebrews, which concerns the standing of the Decalogue.

No, you paste that passage together with all the others, and once again think that equals a proof. It doesn't.

This is further substantiated by my exegesis on Matthew chapter five concerning rank in the law that Yahshua confirmed and exegesis on the greatest commandments in Matthew 22. Circular arguments don’t substantiate assertions with numerous proofs as I do.

You're the one making the circular arguments. And I showed you how Christ's "the least" is not talking of any difference between the Decalogue and the rest of the commandments. It's just not there. Even if it did refer to some commandments being universal and others tempoiral; it doesn;t define it along the lines of the Decalogue. The Decalogue was a SUMMARY of the WHOLE LAW anyway, Just like "Love God and Neighbor" is a summary of the Ten, and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Sums up the whole thing. The Law is not as cut and dry as you think it is. When I first went into Jewish bookstores and looked up books containing the list of 613, I expected to find 1-10 in Ex. 20, and then 11-613 afterward, but it's just not like that. The Ten themselves are divided among the 613.The Second "You shall not make any graven image" and "you shall not bow down to them" are two separate commands in that numbering system! So your dichotomu of the Ten and the rest is illusory.

And yet, I’m not through with my work as you will see below.

Yet, your argument rest upon extraneous ideas that are not found in scripture such this “relaxation of the letter for the spirit” concept. And now you add this extraneous idea that the Sabbath was a shadow! To coin a phrase you used: “where do you get this stuff?” You need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything. Hebrews chapter four uses the creation as an allegory for the rest in Yahshua, but NEVER states that the commandment was a shadow of anything to come! Your exaggeration and pulling in extraneous and alien ideas seems to know no bounds.

The fourth commandment mentions nothing about what is to come.

Read how Hebrews applies it to today. It may not say "this is an allegory", but it conveys that fact by reapplying it to a spiritual reality. Instead of literally resting from all work ona a day of the week, He refers to that "certain day" as something spoken of in the past (v.4). Then, in v.10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own workS, as God did from his." You all gloss right over this and try to apply it back to a literal day, but it is clearly not.

It does point back continuously to the creation and that it was good according to Yah in the beginning. You may trivialize that but that is the difference between the antinomian and those who keep the Sabbath.

And once again, show me one place where we are supposed to look back at this old creation passing away. Everything in the NT looks forward to the new Creation, and the same God that created the old cwill create the new.

Your so busy feeling persecuted you fail to truly address the issues or see your contradictions. Again, you can’t resist contradictions. If even nine of the laws on the tables of stone were universal then they can’t be cancelled, period. Nine parts were cancelled—only they still exit—according to your view. That’s confusion; that’s obfuscation.

You gloss over everything I say to bring out a charge of "contradiction", and tnow you have the nerve to say I'm feeling persecuted. You refuse to register that there were universal commands, that were already OUTSIDE the Decalogue. If these commands were REITERATED in the Decalogue and then the Decalogue gets cancelled, then those laws still stand outside of it! But any laws that existed only in the Decalogue are cancelled along with it. So simple! You're deliberately skimming over these points, because your whole arguing tactic is to try to cast the other person as so off the wall or just some lawless antinomian, that your arguments win by default, even though you haven't proven anything. Noone is an antinomian, or contradictory, because of your out of context prooftexting!

 

[Eric B]

Your two part response is mere caviling along with poor understanding. As to the first part you’re failing to take into account context; Yahshua is testifying about the law before the cross, while the author of Hebrews is testifying about the law after the cross. We know that the laws that represented shadows that were weak and unprofitable or imperfect were nailed to the cross or cancelled. Yahshua is testifying about the law prior to this event and not one jot or tittle was to pass away UNTIL all be fulfilled. I hope you know the meaning of UNTIL! (Amillennialist seem to have trouble with the word.) Yahshua declared he had not come to destroy the law but to FULFILL it! Consequently, having fulfilled the law at the cross the law which was weak, imperfect, unprofitable and shadows was nailed to the cross.

Again, unless one is willing to contest the author of Hebrews that some PART of the law was unprofitable or imperfect then we are left with standing in the law again; some part was perfect and profitable while another was imperfect and unprofitable—some part is greater than another.

Well, then your argument is different then that of the SDA's here, for they claim Jesus was speaking of the Ten Commandments ONLY, since it says "not one jot nor tittle". Your argument here is the same as mine, because I kept trying to tell them about "UNTIL all be FULFILLED", and it just goes right over their head. They seem to think "fulfilled" refers to the end of the world, and thus all f the commandments Jesus was talking about are still in effect, so therefore it is the Ten. You are saying like me that the fulfillment was the Cross.

So then we're in agreement that one part of the law was weak and profitable, but the issue is the criterion by which fall into that category. You agree with the SDA's that it's "the Ten versus the rest", only they use a different approach to this passage in Matthew.
(What is your church anyway?)

As to rank concerning the children, let me burst your bubble, there is standing in the kingdom of Yah according to scripture! When queried upon who would sit at his right hand in the kingdom (that’s standing) Yahshua didn’t deny this standing—he merely stated that it was his Father’s to give and not his. Again, when the disciples squabbled about standing in his kingdom Yahshua stated that if they wanted to be chief they had to be the GREATEST servant; that’s standing. And again, Yahshua promised those disciples who followed him in the regeneration would sit upon twelve thrones as judges; that’s standing. When Yahshua returns he renders everyone his reward and there is a precise place for us in the kingdom according to our gifts; that’s standing. Yahweh is not a respecter of persons; nevertheless, there is standing in the kingdom otherwise Yahshua cannot even be King of kings!

Jesus is talking about little chidren (literal) that people were bringing to him, and the apostles were turning away, and now you have jumped the discussion to the disciples themselves, and positions in the Kingdom! Can't you take ANY scripture in CONTEXT without mashing together two unrelated things?

The rest of what you wrote simply can’t overcome the testimony and example of Yahshua. I love Isaiah chapter fifty-eight. I’m not doing my pleasure by testifying about the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath; I’m building up the waste places! Sorry you don’t grasp that!

Looks like you are puffing up your pride to me. You would at least have more of an argument if you were stating your case, without going on the attack and hurling out accusation after accusation. And you can do it on the sabbath without staring at a computer screen all day. Once again, is that MENTALLY restful? Isn't the sabbath supposed to be about FELLOWSHIP (and computer discussions are no substitute for fellowship).
Don't forget, if you've seen it before, that I once was a sabbathkeeper, and heavily read SDA, Armstrong, and even Sacred Namer literature on how to keep the sabbath, and even though we didn't have the Internet back in the '80s, still; I know good and well spending hours engaging in discussions like this, as stressful as it can be, is not conducive to a sabbath rest. They all warned about getting hung up on such distractions, even if it was "about" God. I more recently had been tempted to say that this was my "personal time with God", but that doesn't fly either. It is corban, any way you look at it. Anyone who doesn't realize that hasn't grasped the holiness of God, and what He really requires, and that is the true antinomianism. Testifying and arguing/debating are two different things. One should be done anytime the opportunity comes up; the other can wait. What you're doing is like someone throwing the ox into the ditch to have a justification for doing work, and then still judging others who do not profess to keep it at all.

I’m doing nothing more or less than what you are doing. I’m critiquing your work and the nature of HOW you support your work, as your doing to me. At least I’m not whining about it. Eric, what I do is in the spirit of love; it may be tough love, but then your techniques are not so different.

Michael

I'm the one on the defensive here, so I am giving you back what you are giving me. Notice, I do not initate cutting words like the ones you use; I only throw them back at you when you're found to be doing the same thing you accuse me of (contradiction, etc). If you hadn't come on here with such an accusatory tone, then I wouldn't react that way. It was totally unnecessary and inflammatory. "tough love" is no excuse. I am not your child or some alcoholic spouse. That's who tough love generally is for. The love we are to show to others, we are supposed to be "testifying" to is supposed to be much gentler and more civil than that. Also dealing with Claudia and Bob for some time, with pretty much the same tactics, also has me riled up. If you're going to call someone an antinomian and all of those other words, you had better have a stonger case than the unsubstantiated proof-texting you have presented. That is getting into ad-hominem, and it not a good debating tactic, unless you want a fight. You do what many debaters have done, and substitute verbal fervor for real proof. The fundamentalists do it all over the place, when attacking new evangelicals, and others on various issues, and often it's totally off the wall.
And now you infer that I am whining, but that's funny when the sabbathkeepers are always the ones coming with the conspiratorial language about how we are going to force Sunday on them in the future. And you had a martyr complex before when you thought I was trying to get you banned, and even mentioning how it would not be the first time, and all that.

 

[Eric B]

Eric,

I truly dont understand where you are getting some of the things that you are saying to me?

First of all, I never judged you. I am just trying to have a conversation about this. I dont know why you feel like you are being accused of anything by me?

With each topic, one person takes one side and another takes the other side. Why do you take this one so personally and feel like you are under attack?

Because it gets tiring being accused of antinomianism, teaching rebellion, and all the rest of the stuff your side has leveled at us, or told "just read the Bible's commands and and follow it", and then you accused me of [pretending to] not know what commands God expects of us, even saying "wake up". That was insulting, and was a total misrepresentation of my arguments. If you see someone here arguing that it is OK to live in adultery, or lying, killing, stealing, blasphemy, etc. then tell them that (1 Tim.1:8). But notice no one here argues anything like that. So there is no question on those commandments.
We all agree that God has rules He wants us to follow. We just disagree as to which on at least one point. Why can't you all come to the discussion on that point without telling us we are rebelling againt the Law and all of that stuff? That is inflammatory. You do not like it when people accuse sabbathkeepers of trusting in their works, and are therefore lost, and you have gone on persecution rants about that not too long ago. (in addition to the normal Sabbatarian conspiratorial jargon about Sunday enforcement and tha mark of the beast in all the EGW quotes). So why can't you return the respect?

Yea, I shouldn't take it too personally, and I really don't, but in the heat of the debate, it is stressful to open the page and find all of these strong words and accusations aimed my way, or even at my position when you are responding to someone else. You all like to set the tone in an accusatory, judgmental fashion, don't then ask why I react defensively.

Then you say I am accusing you of lawlessness? I dont think so.

See, you don't realize how the things you say comes across. "Just read the Bible's commands and follow them", and those stern warnings and the rest of that stuff you said the other night is saying that the person you are talking to is totally lawless.

Perhaps you are a person who believes in keeping the law? But you think it has nothing to do with your salvation? Is that correct? Thats the impression I got.

If so, then THAT is what I am talking about, your idea that keeping the law has nothing to do with your salvation. It has nothing whatever to do with accusing you of anything.

"Nothing to do with"? Most of us believe (as we point out in the OSAS debates) that if a person is truly saved, then he will keep the commandments (though not necessarily all the ones you think they should). Salvation is by faith, and "If we love Him, we will keep the commandments". LOVE is the motivator, not trying to make it into Heaven. The SDA's believe in that (at least in theory), but the problem occurs when we get intot he sabbath issue, and some people explain it as "the Law is abolished", and then you start accusing all of us of "laemessness" or "rebellion is salvation" as Bob would put it. You;re not reading the whole story. (and many times, people do not explain it completely. that's why I, for instance, am now emphasizing the universal seven commandments, which have basically been ignored by mainstream apologetics).
So just because someone says "we are not under the Law", or "we are not saved by keeping the Law" it doesn't mean thay are lawless and need to be admonished on obedience.

I do however take exception to the fact that normally persons on these chatboards claim that those of us who believe that keeping the law has something to do with your salvation are "Legalists". Its just not true at all.

Like I said, you don;t like it very much, do you? It seems almost as if you are trying to respond in kind, but you all have been doing so much propagandizing here lately, we are all on the defensive, so if someone responds with something liek that, it is giving you back what you are giving to them. And I have seen very fre say that. I certainly haven't.

Im just wondering, how does one express his or her view that the law has something to do with your salvation, if any time you mention it, people take it personally and feel they are being "attacked"? Its hard to even talk about it.

Because you cannot seem to do that without throwing in accusations that we are advocating living in sin, or talking to us like we are common criminals, and you're the prophets reprimanding us into line. It's not just you; when the old line fundies do that in the music issue, we react similarly, but they have been nowhere near as relentless as you and Bob.

Honestly, to me it feels like you are trying to intimidate people and make them feel afraid to even bring up this subject for fear you will hollar they are persecuting you. At least thats how Im feeling right now. I mean, why cant you just discuss the topic with out accusing people of accusing you? Just discuss it and dont take it so personally. Im not trying to accuse you of anything.

I'm not trying to intimidate anyone, but it seems your side is the one trying to intimidate, and perhaps wear us out, by constantly repeating that we are teaching rebellion (particularly Bob), and then your warnings about lawlessness, and such. Then, we try to respond to some of you, and we just get our own words twisted up and thrown back at us construed to be teaching lawlessness, and then Bob even comes on taunting, like he is doing to J Jump now that he has given up that debate because of being tired out from Bob's tactics. That is bullying! (notice; it's not just about me).
So if I look intimidating, once again, it is only a strong reaction to match the strong opposition we are getting. It gets tiring after awhile; and having been on the side of the sabbath once, but then seeing how the slick tactics and clever arguments don't hold up to close scrutiny, yet your side keeps repeating them; I am very vehement in defending my position on this. It is similar to the debates with the CoC'ers on the issues of faith, works and salvation, and I may get a bit riled up with them, because they are like a brick wall. Baptism saves us because faith is works and grace is instructions because the walls of Jericho fall by faith, and all of the rest of the prooftexting. That is very tiring to deal with every day, and you all do that, and are more accusatory than even they are. mman and bmerr aren't calling us antinomians and teaching rebellion against the Law, so you can imagine how much more stressful the atmosphere will be here with you, Bob and Micheanu.

All I am saying is that I believe the Bible talks ALOT about the Law having something to do with the Judgment.

Jms:2:12: So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

Rom:2:13: (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Eccl:12:13: Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Rv:20:12: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rv:20:13: And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rv. 22:
12: And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Now if you think thats judging you or accusing you, well its the Bible doing that and not me.

Quoting scriptures is one thing. But then when you all come accusing us of "ignoring, deleting, evading, rebelling against", etc them, [<Bob], and fail to acknowledge that we BELIEVE IN these scriptures, but simply don't agree on which "Law" they are referring to (Moses or Christ), then that is where the accusing is. If we kept throwing up Colossians, Galatians and Romans and saying "see, you're rebelling aginst these scriptures, and you're legalists and you better repent or God will judge you", you wouldn't like that, as you have already complained about it. I make my points without resorting tio such a tactic.

 

[Claudia_T]

the law fulfilled?

Well, then your argument is different then that of the SDA's here, for they claim Jesus was speaking of the Ten Commandments ONLY, since it says "not one jot nor tittle". Your argument here is the same as mine, because I kept trying to tell them about "UNTIL all be FULFILLED", and it just goes right over their head. They seem to think "fulfilled" refers to the end of the world, and thus all f the commandments Jesus was talking about are still in effect, so therefore it is the Ten. You are saying like me that the fulfillment was the Cross.

Jesus DID fulfill the law of God, He kept it perfectly.. but the law itself shall not pass away till heaven and earth pass away, and its still here.

Mt:5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


2Pt:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

There are many things yet that must be fulfilled having tp do with the Law of God... for instance, the Mark of the beast will be urged upon the whole world and all men will reveal whether they are loyal to God or to man.

These things havent been fulfilled yet.. re-read the passage

 

[billwald]

Moses doesn't apply to gentiles

Still say there isn't one verse in Exo thru Deut that refers/applies to gentiles living in Houston. The blessings are geographical and temporal.

 

[LeBuick]

If so, then THAT is what I am talking about, your idea that keeping the law has nothing to do with your salvation. It has nothing whatever to do with accusing you of anything.

I do however take exception to the fact that normally persons on these chatboards claim that those of us who believe that keeping the law has something to do with your salvation are "Legalists". Its just not true at all.

All I am saying is that I believe the Bible talks ALOT about the Law having something to do with the Judgment..

Claudia, your turn. Don't feel I'm picking on you.

If I'm understanding you right, you believe obeying the law is a condition of salvation? What exactly do you believe in regards to this? What happens if you transgress a law, do you just repent?

Excuse my questions but I have to admit I believe though the law still exist, that those who are covered with the blood of Jesus are no longer under the penalty of the law. So yes, I believe we obey the law but not to be saved, we obey the law because we are saved. I also don't believe the christian will be part of this judgment because there is no penalty. What good would it to do have a trial and convict a man of murder if he'll only go free in the end.

So as Paul put's it, does this mean we going around ignoring or living in transgression, GOD forbid!

Also, which priesthood do you feel we are under, Aaron, Melchisedec, Jesus, other?

 

[Eric B]

Jesus DID fulfill the law of God, He kept it perfectly.. but the law itself shall not pass away till heaven and earth pass away, and its still here.

Mt:5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


2Pt:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

There are many things yet that must be fulfilled having tp do with the Law of God... for instance, the Mark of the beast will be urged upon the whole world and all men will reveal whether they are loyal to God or to man.

These things havent been fulfilled yet.. re-read the passage

Well, you disagree with Michael on that, because he says that the fulfillment was the Cross, and that "the least" were the ceremonial laws that would pass under the Cross. I agree with certain aspects of the Law passing at the Cross, and the issue is whether the sabbath is included in that. You say no, because "all fulfilled" is not the Cross, but "until Heaven and earth pass away". But the fulfillment can still be before the heavens and earth pass away, and it would still stand that not one jot nor tittle passed until the fulfillment, and that that RULE stood until heaven and earth passed. In other words, to this day, not one jot nor tittle ever did pass without being fulfilled. The fulfillment was past, even though heaven and earth passing is future.

So we see two different interpretations even within sabbatarianism. I think you're all misunderstanding most of this stuff.

 

[Claudia_T]

destroy the law

Mt:5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus didnt say think not that I came to destroy the law but to destroy it, that makes no sense.

 

[BobRyan]

ERic said
that there were universal commands, that were already OUTSIDE the Decalogue. If these commands were REITERATED in the Decalogue and then the Decalogue gets cancelled, then those laws still stand outside of it! But any laws that existed only in the Decalogue are cancelled along with it.

#1. NO text says that the Word of God "is cancelled".
#2. NO text says that "Gods commandments are Cancelled".
#3. NO text says "The Sabbath is Cancelled".
#4. NO text says "The Ten Commandments are Cancelled".
#5. God DOES declare of the FUTURE "From SABBATH to SABBATH SHALL ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66 so IF we were to "imagine something got cancelled" it can not be the CONTINUED Seventh DAy Holy day of Christ our Creator!
#6. God DOES say "The Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND not mankind MADE for the Sabbath" Thus speaking of the MAKING of BOTH (Just as we see in Gen 1-2:3) - SHOWING that the Sabbath scope at its ORIGIN is the same as we see in the FUTURE "All MAnkind"

And BECAUSE it is in the STARTING Condition for mankind (The Garden of Eden Gen 2:3) then it is GLOBAL in scope having its origin BEFORE the giving of the Ten Commandments as formal written code in Exodus 20.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

1) Nobody is saying the Word of God was cancelled
2) some of "the commandments" were cancelled, or were the ceremonial laws all agree were cancelled not "commandments"? It's one thing to say they were weak and all that, but you all like to apply "commandments" to them alone when convenient. Now what about Heb.7:16? "commandment" there is the ceremonial law, right? Only thing is you have no scripture that changes the meaning of "commandment" from passage to passage like that.
3) We are told not to judge each other over days. Now you think that refers to annual days or whatever, but that is your own reading of the passages.
4) The Ten Commandments were apart of the Law addressed to Israel, as per #2.
5) Genesis is not a command and Isaiah is not a command for us today

Claudia_TMt:5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus didnt say think not that I came to destroy the law but to destroy it, that makes no sense.

It is not destroyed, but fulfilled, but you think fulfilled means still kept in entirety in the letter. Even Michael realizes that "fulfilled" refers to the Cross, and that some "commandments" would end there. You can argue that point with him.

Someone also explain why we are not having debates like this over adultery, murder lying , stealing blashpemy and idolatry. It is some conmspiracy against the sabbath? Or can you at least admit that it is not maintained in the NT like the others. I mean, we don't have to dig up some OT scripture on the Garden or future prophecy or paste together a bunch of other scriptures to prove that murder is still wrong.

 

[Claudia_T]

Eric

as far as I am concerned we are having debates over whether all the commandments should be kept today. The problem is many Christians think its not ok to murder, steal, commit adultery but when you get to the Sabbath sudenly they think they can single out that commandment and say it was obliterated.

But personally I think the entire arguement is whether or not the ten commandments should be kept or not. And I see absolutely no reason to make like the Sabbath is any different than the rest. The first 4 commandments are about love for God and the last 6 are about love for your neighbor. Dont know where anyone gets the audacity to try to pick one commandment out of there and try to throw it away or change it.

 

[Michaeneu]

Why are you still harping on "relaxation"? If it's not biblical, then jump on your cohorts for first coning it. I was only giving back what your side tossed at me. Forget relaxation. The letter was cancelled for the spirit? (Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6)Happy? (But so you don't have an opportunity to jump on that as lawlessness, this isn't saying there are no more laws, because there are still the spiritual laws).

Don’t know what you’re talking about here because I’ve NEVER used the term “relax” concerning anything I’ve written about the law; you used the term to promote the extraneous idea that “the letter was relaxed for the spirit”. OK, now you’ve changed it to “the letter was cancelled for the spirit” and of course this still is not what Hebrews clearly states about how the law changed. You feign context but abandon what Hebrews states and capriciously drift to unrelated support for your eisegesis, like Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6. It’s not as if there was NO definition of how the law changed in Hebrews.

Obviously you keep missing the crux of the matter that spirit versus letter is not even addressed in Hebrews concerning the change of the law. Let me continue to reiterate that Hebrews states very clearly that the criterion and change is set forth as a cancellation of the law which was weak, unprofitable, imperfect and typical or shadows—no mention is made of spirit versus letter in Hebrews.

Roman 2:29 has nothing to do with how the law was changed. Paul is merely begins to develop the theme that righteousness does not stem from the law which leads to his conclusion that a Jew is not determined by merely keeping the law but by the condition of his heart.

Again, Romans 7:6 has nothing to do with how the law was changed but continues to develop the aforementioned theme. We are released from the condemnation of the law to serve in spirit, but Paul confirms that the law is not sin and the letter is established again because, nevertheless, the commandment is holy, just and good. Paul delights in the law of Yah after the inner man but his concupiscence is at war with his understanding. Thus Paul develops the object of Yahshua in salvation from the inner conflict through the Spirit.

And still again, 2 Corinthians 3:6 has nothing to do with how the law changed. The object of Paul’s discourse is the ministration of the NT. There is not one mention of how the law changed. The ministration has changed to the spirit of the law but in no way does it cancel the letter either. It is still unlawful to murder according to the letter while the spirit was magnified that we must also love those who do us despite. It is in this capacity that the ministration of the NT is more spiritual. But it is absurd to imply that the letter of “thou shalt not kill” has been cancelled! You state that you understand the law has been magnified but your belief system implies something completely different.

Again, unless one is willing to contest the author of Hebrews that some PART of the law was unprofitable or imperfect then we are left with standing in the law again; some part was perfect and profitable while another was imperfect and unprofitable—some part is/was greater than another. The NT is clear upon which part was perfect and profitable by the continued confirmation of the precepts written upon the tables of stone; James called it the royal law.

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet….Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:7, 14

“For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” Romans 13:9-10

“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.” James 2:8-11

This is exactly why letter versus spirit cannot be the criterion for how the law changed: all 613 laws had letter and spirit. The criterion is the cancellation of the law which was weak, unprofitable, imperfect and typical or shadows. Of course with the proper criterion then the Decalogue is sanctified or set apart because it wasn’t weak, unprofitable, imperfect or typical and that is why it is confirmed in the NT.

 

[Michaeneu]

…that doesn't say that the only things that were shadows were rituals...

Your response is concerning Colossians 2: 2:14-17. Then are you willing to assert that what were nailed to the cross were moral or the universal laws written upon the stone? Do you think before you spew your thoughts? A precise study of the list of oblations in the text reveals them as rituals that revolved about the temple and it services. And a precise study of the oblations that revolved about the temple reveals them as typical of what Yahshua was to accomplish in the plan of salvation: the plan of salvation is found in the typical ceremonies and that is why they are said to be a “shadow of things to come”. Take for instance Passover, the lamb slain every year as a ritual oblation prefigured Yahshua from the perspective before the cross.

Again the seventh-day Sabbath did not point forward to anything in the plan of salvation and was not a shadow. The seventh-day Sabbath is a memorial to the creation. There is more on this below.

Not ONE of those examples SAYD (DEFINES) "This makes all of these precepts on these stones universal for all and eternal". You just read it in there. You, like the other here think that the mere volume of book:chapter:verse references piled on top of one another proves a doctrine, despite the contexts, and you then call that "exegesis". That's proof-texting, whether it's one verse or a thousand.

Your response concerns the distinguishing attributes I support the standing of the forth commandment through: written by the finger of Yah, and etcetera. 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 and by placing the commandment in the setting of other moral laws then He has the given it the same standing. To suggest the opposite is to suppose that Yah is capricious, indecisive and had no reason to place it at parity with other moral precepts. Again you feign context, but the essence of context is NOT to take something out of its setting and it wasn’t man that placed the commandment in the setting of moral precepts. Only Yahweh can take the commandment out of its setting and there is absolutely no warrant in the NT for such an act of capriciousness.

Further we reason that the commandment has either to be moral, civil or ceremonial concerning its substance. It is not civil because the civil law concerned intercourse between men. The forth commandment has no bearing on such intercourse; to the contrary men were to cease from intercourse to keep the day holy, which is rendering to Yah not man. Moreover, the Sabbath was pre-Sinai before the codification of any law (Exodus 16). There was no kingdom as yet to minister civil order. Again, the commandment is not typical or ceremonial and I have further information on this below. If not civil, or ceremonial then what is left is moral.

And I showed you how Christ's "the least" is not talking of any difference between the Decalogue and the rest of the commandments. It's just not there. Even if it did refer to some commandments being universal and others tempoiral; it doesn;t define it along the lines of the Decalogue. The Decalogue was a SUMMARY of the WHOLE LAW anyway, Just like "Love God and Neighbor" is a summary of the Ten, and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Sums up the whole thing...

There is no doubt about the truth that there are great and lesser commandments according to Matthew chapter five and twenty-two. Even you acknowledge that there are moral and universal precepts in the Decalogue. But you gloss right over Hebrews chapter seven and the cancellation of the shadows that were imperfect and unprofitable. You gloss right over how those same unprofitable shadows were nailed to the cross in Colossians. But the evidence still remains that unless one is willing to contest the author of Hebrews that some PART of the law was unprofitable or imperfect then we are left with standing in the law again; some part was perfect and profitable while another was imperfect and unprofitable—some part is/was greater than another. That greater part that was perfect and profitable was/is the Decalogue.

Read how Hebrews applies it to today. It may not say "this is an allegory", but it conveys that fact by reapplying it to a spiritual reality. Instead of literally resting from all work ona a day of the week, He refers to that "certain day" as something spoken of in the past (v.4). Then, in v.10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own workS, as God did from his." You all gloss right over this and try to apply it back to a literal day, but it is clearly not.

Pray tell me how your response reveals that the forth commandment was a ceremonial type or shadow that prefigured Yahshua? In truth man has always had access to this rest from works in Yahshua—from Adam until now. If the rest is still valid now, how does it point forward to Yahshua? Works has never saved anyone; salvation has always been through faith in the Messiah: either the Messiah to come or the Messiah that came. By faith we enter into the rest which is in the theme of Hebrews chapter four. Now read Hebrews chapter eleven—the faith chapter! The ceremonial types were in works or performance of rituals that were shadows that were neither profitable nor perfect. Consequently, the rest depicted in Hebrews chapter four is the direct opposite of the object of the ceremonial shadows that were neither profitable nor perfect. The seventh-day rest depicted in the chapter is profitable and perfect unto salvation which is a sign of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

I believe it is you that have glossed over the meaning of Hebrews chapter four. Again, you need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything.

 

[Michaeneu]

You gloss over everything I say to bring out a charge of "contradiction", and tnow you have the nerve to say I'm feeling persecuted. You refuse to register that there were universal commands, that were already OUTSIDE the Decalogue. If these commands were REITERATED in the Decalogue and then the Decalogue gets cancelled, then those laws still stand outside of it!...

You still don’t get it. If the universal laws were codified in the Decalogue then they can never be cancelled. Universal law is unconcealable because it is forever profitable and perfect. You are habitual in your contradictions.

Well, then your argument is different then that of the SDA's here, for they claim Jesus was speaking of the Ten Commandments ONLY, since it says "not one jot nor tittle". Your argument here is the same as mine, because I kept trying to tell them about "UNTIL all be FULFILLED", and it just goes right over their head. They seem to think "fulfilled" refers to the end of the world, and thus all f the commandments Jesus was talking about are still in effect, so therefore it is the Ten. You are saying like me that the fulfillment was the Cross.
So then we're in agreement that one part of the law was weak and profitable, but the issue is the criterion by which fall into that category. You agree with the SDA's that it's "the Ten versus the rest", only they use a different approach to this passage in Matthew.
(What is your church anyway?)

Fine, now you have to show me that the forth commandment was a shadow, imperfect and unprofitable, which you have yet to do!

Jesus is talking about little chidren (literal) that people were bringing to him, and the apostles were turning away, and now you have jumped the discussion to the disciples themselves, and positions in the Kingdom! Can't you take ANY scripture in CONTEXT without mashing together two unrelated things?

Adding the children to the issue was comparing apples to oranges in the first place. “The least” in the law has no relevance to children, for children are not classified by some that are profitable and imperfect and some that are perfect and profitable. If you want to relate standing with children then we must resort to standing in the kingdom. That is the only way there is any relevance.

Looks like you are puffing up your pride to me. You would at least have more of an argument if you were stating your case, without going on the attack and hurling out accusation after accusation. And you can do it on the sabbath without staring at a computer screen all day….

Again, there is nothing new here but a continuation of a legalist concept of the Sabbath. It simply can’t overcome the testimony and example of Yahshua.

I'm the one on the defensive here, so I am giving you back what you are giving me. Notice, I do not initate cutting words like the ones you use; I only throw them back at you when you're found to be doing the same thing you accuse me of (contradiction, etc). If you hadn't come on here with such an accusatory tone….

Isn’t he called me a name first thing kind of childish? Just get on with the issues and stiff upper lip and all that. I came into this on the thread entitled “SDA Hypocrisy” and there was a lot of accusations and rebukes flinging about on both sides. My position is to stand upon firm rebukes in my testimony according to second Timothy.

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” 2 Timothy 4:2

I’m rebuking what I see as unsound doctrine and I’m doing nothing more or less than what you are doing. I’m critiquing your work and the nature of HOW you do your work, as your doing with me.

Michael

 

[Eric B]

Don’t know what you’re talking about here because I’ve NEVER used the term “relax” concerning anything I’ve written about the law; you used the term to promote the extraneous idea that “the letter was relaxed for the spirit”.

I know you never used the term, and I never said you did. I used it way back in the past (stemming from discussion with Bob, and if I mentioned it to you, it was because I didn't realize you differed with the SDA's on that), and you have latched onto it and won't let it go.

OK, now you’ve changed it to “the letter was cancelled for the spirit” and of course this still is not what Hebrews clearly states about how the law changed. You feign context but abandon what Hebrews states and capriciously drift to unrelated support for your eisegesis, like Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6. It’s not as if there was NO definition of how the law changed in Hebrews.

OK, who really is "feigning" something now? You say "Hebrews CLEARLY STATES", but the only mention there is about "weak shadows", NOT "The rest of the Law outside The Ten Commandments are what is weak". You jump that over by INFERENCE, once again by your fallacy cycle of "all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue is made up of universal commands."

Obviously you keep missing the crux of the matter that spirit versus letter is not even addressed in Hebrews concerning the change of the law. Let me continue to reiterate that Hebrews states very clearly that the criterion and change is set forth as a cancellation of the law which was weak, unprofitable, imperfect and typical or shadows—no mention is made of spirit versus letter in Hebrews.

I never said the spirit versus letter was MENTIONED there either, but then neither is the Decalogue. YOU keep bringing this passage up as some conclusive proof for your categorization. It recognizes a distinction, but that is all. It does not tell us the EXACT criteria, except for some being "weak shadows". We obviously have to look elsewhere to find out which are and which are not.

Roman 2:29 has nothing to do with how the law was changed. Paul is merely begins to develop the theme that righteousness does not stem from the law which leads to his conclusion that a Jew is not determined by merely keeping the law but by the condition of his heart.

Again, Romans 7:6 has nothing to do with how the law was changed but continues to develop the aforementioned theme. We are released from the condemnation of the law to serve in spirit, but Paul confirms that the law is not sin and the letter is established again because, nevertheless, the commandment is holy, just and good. Paul delights in the law of Yah after the inner man but his concupiscence is at war with his understanding. Thus Paul develops the object of Yahshua in salvation from the inner conflict through the Spirit.

It does not say "condemnation" there. You all love to add that, just like Bob's "bill of debt". We are freed from the condemnation of course, but clearly we are freed from the Law, which BROUGHT the condemnation in the first place. Read v.2-4 also.

And still again, 2 Corinthians 3:6 has nothing to do with how the law changed. The object of Paul’s discourse is the ministration of the NT. There is not one mention of how the law changed. The ministration has changed to the spirit of the law but in no way does it cancel the letter either.

Read verse 3, please: 3:3 Forasmuch as all of you are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart". You'll still say that that was no change, but then why back in v.6 is it said that "the letter KILLS, but the Spirit gives life", if the spirit is nothing but the letter all over again PLUS some spiritual meaning added?

It is still unlawful to murder according to the letter while the spirit was magnified that we must also love those who do us despite. It is in this capacity that the ministration of the NT is more spiritual. But it is absurd to imply that the letter of “thou shalt not kill” has been cancelled! You state that you understand the law has been magnified but your belief system implies something completely different.

There you go ignoring the fact that some commands like "thou shall not kill" were universal. You think because I say the letter of the Law of MOSES was cancelled, then all the universal moral laws contained in it were cancelled as well, but I keep telling you that they still exist OUTSIDE that law as universal precepts. And yes, it is magnified to you shall not even be angry at your bother without cause, and love those who do you wrong. Still, just the fact that "the spirit" is spoken of here shows that there is a change.

Again, unless one is willing to contest the author of Hebrews that some PART of the law was unprofitable or imperfect then we are left with standing in the law again; some part was perfect and profitable while another was imperfect and unprofitable—some part is/was greater than another.

And I don't believe you dispute me on the spirit not changing anything and then turn right around and repeat this old line again. Don't you get it? It is obvious that parts of the Law were unprofitable, and that is what Paul was addressing in Romans and Corinthians.

The NT is clear upon which part was perfect and profitable by the continued confirmation of the precepts written upon the tables of stone; James called it the royal law.

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet….Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:7, 14

“For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” Romans 13:9-10

“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.” James 2:8-11

This is exactly why letter versus spirit cannot be the criterion for how the law changed: all 613 laws had letter and spirit. The criterion is the cancellation of the law which was weak, unprofitable, imperfect and typical or shadows. Of course with the proper criterion then the Decalogue is sanctified or set apart because it wasn’t weak, unprofitable, imperfect or typical and that is why it is confirmed in the NT.

Yes, all 613 had both letter and spirit, and the spirit of those laws continues on. Are you saying that the intent or principle of the sacrifices have been cancelled? That would render Christ's sacrifice null and void, and we are left without atonment. So as much as you try to eliminate letter vs. spirit, you just can't. And once again, your quotes above are insinuating "all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue contains universal commands." Or "no part of the Decalogue is weak and unprofitable because [some of] the commands are universal". But the sabbath is mentioned in NOT ONE such list in the NT. Are we to presume "well, they must have known it was included because 'it is apart of the same unit of the Decalogue'". But nce again, the reference above shows that the "tables of stone" are what are being deprecated in favor of the spirit, and while the universal moral laws (which can be found in Genesis before Moses) are retained and even magnified, the sabbath is carefully omitted every time. Put this together with the fact that the sabbath was said to be a "sign" of Israel under the Old Covenant, and then, you have verses in the NT telling us not to judge each other over days of worship, it seems much more clear than simply taking one passage in Hebrews and saying "some were unprofitable shadows, so there, that tells us it must be all except the Ten, because all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue contains universal commands."

 

[Eric B]

Your response is concerning Colossians 2: 2:14-17. Then are you willing to assert that what were nailed to the cross were moral or the universal laws written upon the stone? Do you think before you spew your thoughts? A precise study of the list of oblations in the text reveals them as rituals that revolved about the temple and it services. And a precise study of the oblations that revolved about the temple reveals them as typical of what Yahshua was to accomplish in the plan of salvation: the plan of salvation is found in the typical ceremonies and that is why they are said to be a “shadow of things to come”. Take for instance Passover, the lamb slain every year as a ritual oblation prefigured Yahshua from the perspective before the cross.

You continue to show your ignorance of the Law if you think there were only "Moral" and "ritual" laws and NOTHING ELSE in the entire code! But there's circumcision. that I'd think we'd agree, is one of the "unprofitable" commands that were shadows. But that's not a temple ritual. Neither is "You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together" (Deut.22:10). Then, the entire body of penalties for various sins, and all the other details on how to live together as a nation. Those were apart of the 613. Those are not temple rituals. Do you keep the dietary laws or not? If you do (like the other sabbathkeepers), then that contradicts your whole category of "the Ten" versus "the rest". If not, then they too were not temple rituals.

You have narrowed thew whole Law down to "moral" versus "RITUAL" to try to isolate the 10 Commandments, but it is far more than just that. So you're the one who needs to think before you spew your thoughts.

Again the seventh-day Sabbath did not point forward to anything in the plan of salvation and was not a shadow. The seventh-day Sabbath is a memorial to the creation.

I could make the same argument on some of those other commandments I just mentioned above. But we know they were still waek, and did in one sense or another point forward to the New Covenant.

Your response concerns the distinguishing attributes I support the standing of the forth commandment through: written by the finger of Yah, and etcetera. 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 and by placing the commandment in the setting of other moral laws then He has the given it the same standing. To suggest the opposite is to suppose that Yah is capricious, indecisive and had no reason to place it at parity with other moral precepts. Again you feign context, but the essence of context is NOT to take something out of its setting and it wasn’t man that placed the commandment in the setting of moral precepts. Only Yahweh can take the commandment out of its setting and there is absolutely no warrant in the NT for such an act of capriciousness.

You still forget that that writing with the finger and etcetera was ADDRESSED specifically to ISRAEL. "Hear O ISRAEL" it begins. So ye, it was on an equal standing TO THEM. In fact, it was their very SIGN of their covenant with God. Now you can argue that it was really supposed to spread to all, but God never did use the physical nation of Israel to spread the Gospel did He? They broke the covenant, and He started a NEW covenant.

Further we reason that the commandment has either to be moral, civil or ceremonial concerning its substance. It is not civil because the civil law concerned intercourse between men. The forth commandment has no bearing on such intercourse; to the contrary men were to cease from intercourse to keep the day holy, which is rendering to Yah not man. Moreover, the Sabbath was pre-Sinai before the codification of any law (Exodus 16). There was no kingdom as yet to minister civil order. Again, the commandment is not typical or ceremonial and I have further information on this below. If not civil, or ceremonial then what is left is moral.

OK, first, you are mixing up those categories. There are two primary divisions on the commandments; Like Jesus said, the TWO: "Love for God", and "love for neigbor". Moral involves "Morality", and thus our neighbor, the other involves our relationship to God. The last five are moral, and the first four are about God. The civil are all scattered throughout the rest of the law, and they are related to the last five, like the 9th "you shall not bear false witness" is definitely civil. The ceremonial are also scattered throughout the Law, and pertain to God.

Second, even though Exodus is before the final establishment of the Law of Moses, God did just give that commandment, as the Passover had also already been established. God was slowly giving parts of the Law as time went on, and then at Sinai, He finally delivered the whole thing. People always try to use ch15 as proof that something was before the Law, but no, that is still part of the Law in the process of being given.

There is no doubt about the truth that there are great and lesser commandments according to Matthew chapter five and twenty-two. Even you acknowledge that there are moral and universal precepts in the Decalogue. But you gloss right over Hebrews chapter seven and the cancellation of the shadows that were imperfect and unprofitable. You gloss right over how those same unprofitable shadows were nailed to the cross in Colossians. But the evidence still remains

that unless one is willing to contest the author of Hebrews that some PART of the law was unprofitable or imperfect then we are left with standing in the law again; some part was perfect and profitable while another was imperfect and unprofitable—some part is/was greater than another. That greater part that was perfect and profitable was/is the Decalogue.

I do not gloss over Hebrews; rather you read something into it that is not there. A division in the Law is there, but "Decalogue versus the rest" is NOT there. As we have just seen, you are confused on the categories in the law are such as "moral and ceremonial", and there lies part of the problem.

Pray tell me how your response reveals that the forth commandment was a ceremonial type or shadow that prefigured Yahshua? In truth man has always had access to this rest from works in Yahshua—from Adam until now. If the rest is still valid now, how does it point forward to Yahshua?

I hoping not to get Bob started again, because we have been through this, and he just does not listen, but the sabbath was not given to Adam. Once again, your side relies purely on your own deduction and supposed inference (and repeating it over and over) instead of letting the scripture speak for itself, or remain silent when it is silent. God resting from His work of Creation on the first sabbath says nothing about man, because man was not helping God create the world, for one thing. That's what God rested from. Nowhere afterward are men, not in the pre-flood period, or afterward, ever condemned for not keeping it, though they are condemned for every other moral and spiritual sin. The sabbath was first commanded to ISRAEL, and given as a SIGN for their covenant with God. Anything involving Israel and the Old Covenant is a SHADOW of Christ and the New Covenant.

Works has never saved anyone; salvation has always been through faith in the Messiah: either the Messiah to come or the Messiah that came. By faith we enter into the rest which is in the theme of Hebrews chapter four. Now read Hebrews chapter eleven—the faith chapter! The ceremonial types were in works or performance of rituals that were shadows that were neither profitable nor perfect. Consequently, the rest depicted in Hebrews chapter four is the direct opposite of the object of the ceremonial shadows that were neither profitable nor perfect. The seventh-day rest depicted in the chapter is profitable and perfect unto salvation which is a sign of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!
I believe it is you that have glossed over the meaning of Hebrews chapter four. Again, you need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything.

Fine, now you have to show me that the forth commandment was a shadow, imperfect and unprofitable, which you have yet to do!

Read it again. He CONTRASTS the literal DAY-- "the seventh day spoken of in this wise" with the "rest" IN JESUS from our "workS" now. That is what the literal sabbath of the OC pointed to.