How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

[Eric B]

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.

I believe now that you are deliberatly closing your mind to plain English to maintain your charge of "contradiction". I never said the universal laws were cancelled, nor implied that being codified in the Decalogue was what defined them as universal. That is your cyclical fallacy. The universal laws existed BOTH in the Decalogue and outside of it before the Decalogue was even given. Maybe I should recite them again: (Idolatry: Gen. 31:19-36; Blasphemy: Gen. 3:1-4, Murder: Gen. 4.8-10-16, 6:11, 9:6, Theft: Gen. 3:6, Gen. 31:19, Forbidden sexual relationships: Gen. 19:5-7, 20.3, Establishing courts of justice: Gen. 19:1-9. (The Gates of a city were where Judges sat to convene Courts of Justice), Eating the Limb of a Living Animal: Gen. 9.4-5 was the only one not in the Decalogue, but was elsewhere in the Law). So no one is saying that any universal laws were ever cancelled.

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.

It is not comparing apples to oranges, because the issue was not the children, but the use of the term "the least". In that case, it was a figure of speech. If you want to prove the standing in the Law, that is not the place to do it, because even the SDA's here do not agree that "the least" shall ever pass.

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.

No, there is nothing here but a liberal concept of the sabbath. You are supposed to be resting your mind. Jesus would not have typed on a computer all day; instead, he went out and was directly involved in people. Being on a computer is indirect, and can be done any other day. And is is very mentally draining, and once again, it is not essential work for that day. This is RECREATION. You are not healing me or saving my soul or anyone else. (and once again, if you are trying to, that is against the BB rules). It is not like plucking grains. If you can't see that, then I would like to ask then, what is OK on the sabbath? I'm wrong for working, but then it seems you can do anything else you want to.

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.

Childish? So you expect me to just chew on your words, I guess, because you think you're so right, right? You have no excuse for the accuatory tone and some of the things you have said you have come out with. We've been talking about the magnification of the Law, but then what does Jesus and the rest of the Bible say about the tongue? There are ways to have a civil dscussion, and you used my responses to you as an excuse, so I pointed out that you are the one who set the tone here by coming in an such accusatory judgmental fashion. Children may often say "he started it", and we call that childish but then that does not mean it is right for people to start things, and the other one has to just "have a stiff upper lip" all the time. These are very serious charges you are bringing against me and the rest of us before God. Don't forget that He is the real audience, and every idle word you speak you shall give account for.

I came into this on the thread entitled “SDA Hypocrisy” and there was a lot of accusations and rebukes flinging about on both sides.

So now you're the one saying "He [they] did it first", and this is the second time (the first being "I'm only doing what you are doing", which you repeat below, and then another mention of people accusing sabbathkeepers somewhere). But the difference is, that I am directly rersponding to your accusations of me, not to what some other people said in some other thread in the past. I was in that thread, and it is the same thing. It is the sabbatarians who were doing the accusing, and back then, spamming new threads everyday, posting volumes of EGW material on a Sunday Conspiracy, and people got tired of it, and lashed back. You're lucky, because several Catholics were banned for much less proseletyzing. Still, it was mostly the SDA side doing the accusing, and people responded in the defensive. I would not have named that thread that, but just because others may hurl accusations does not give you the excuse to. That is the childish response, because you are not discussing this with them anymore in this thread, you are discussing with me, and I have not made the accusations of sabbatarianism that they have.

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

Yeah, you're trying to rebuke, but many people do not know how to do this right. They just attack. Once again, many of the things you are saying are not just. Calling me antinomian, and stuff like that, which challenges my own inward motives (ad-hominem). I feel like I am on trial, and that is not right. You cannot call just any harsh language "rebuking" in the Biblical sense. That's what all of those KJV fundamentalists do, plus those who condemn all sabbathkeepers as legalists believing in a false "galatian" gospel". I do not do that, and it is not a biblical rebuke. Once again, if we were having this duiscussion with soene opely advocating homosexuality or murder, then you would have more of a case. But even then, if the person is not a Christian, we should be careful, and do it in a more gentle spirit. PEople don;t understand the other's view. You are approaching this as "You know you;re wrong, and I'm here to set you straight". That is not the right attitude, because we are all human and can be wrong and have our own biases.

 

[Eric B]

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.

Are you following the discussion with Michael? It is your side that makes the Ten a universal code. I believe it is part of the Law of Moses, and that there were universal Laws outside of the Law of Moses, some of which were included in it. So it is not "picking one out of the Ten" or "singling" it out, even though, unfortunately, many Christians have expressed it that way. Like I've just said above, the problem is, we drag too much baggage from past rhetoric by others into these discussion.

 

[Claudia_T]

But even then, if the person is not a Christian, we should be careful, and do it in a more gentle spirit. PEople don;t understand the other's view. You are approaching this as "You know you;re wrong, and I'm here to set you straight". That is not the right attitude, because we are all human and can be wrong and have our own biases.

Eric,

I think you are right about that, we should all have a more gentle spirit and I am sorry if I havent been doing that. It was unintentional if I did.

 

[Michaeneu]

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."…. 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.

Hebrews does much more than merely advocate a distinction; it meets the criteria with the unprofitable and imperfect shadow sacrifices offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin. In essence Hebrews continues to expound upon the distinction, which you go on ignoring.

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.” Hebrews 10:1

Again, the criterion is meet by the shadow law that was offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin and it is this law that was cancelled at the cross—or nailed as it is put in Colossians.

“The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.” NIV Hebrews 10:15-18

And still again, the commandments that were written upon “the tables of stone” neither concerned anything offered periodically for the transgression of sin nor were they a shadow of good things to come; nor was the forth as I shall continue to expound upon below. The commandments that were written upon “the tables of stone” are still profitable and perfect for revealing transgression of the law. The foundation of these precepts was abstinence, as I’ve stated before, and are still confirmed ceaselessly (or transgressed) through man’s intercourse with men (the second table) or Yah (the first table). The periodic performance/offering of the sacrifices for sin done under the first covenant was cancelled but we still ceaselessly confirm the precepts of the tables of stone.

“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

Yours is a non sequitur concerning the law and a capricious import of unrelated passages for your eisegesis! You merely feign context. Nowhere is there any support in Hebrews for the import of spirit versus letter passages concerning the change of the law when the criterion is met with the periodically offered shadow sacrifices for the transgression of the law which were unprofitable and imperfect. The criterion in Hebrews is clearly revealed and exposes a contrast between the moral precepts of the Decalogue and the ceremonial law.

For brevity I’m not going to deal with some of the nuances that you continually bring up to point out your position on the law is eisegetical and frivolous. To begin let me deal with the extraneous and non sequitur idea of yours that the law of Moses still exits outside of the law as universal precepts.

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.

First, the use of synonyms for the law does nothing to help you assertions for it’s a mere ploy; universal precepts are still law so your position that we are “released from the law” is frivolous or merely a play on words (for this reason your interpretation of Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6 are also erroneous or frivolous). That some of the covenant laws exit(ed) outside of the covenant people is also frivolous because the law was nevertheless committed to Israel or the Jews and still is—albeit spiritual in both cases now (the object of Romans 2:29). One of the objects of being the covenant people is in revealing the law to the Ethnos by conduct and through the oracles committed to them.

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God…. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:1-2, 31

The assertion that some moral laws exited outside those given at Sinai is frivolous because we are concerned with Israel’s new covenant and the change in the law as it pertained to the covenant people; this we see this confirmed in chapter eight—the very next chapter that develops the theme of how the law is said to change.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people…” Hebrews 8:10

Consequently, we are dealing with the law given Israel and through Hebrews it is revealed that some part of THIS law was perfect and profitable while another was imperfect and unprofitable—some part is/was greater than another. Again that part that was imperfect and unprofitable was offered periodically for the transgression of sin and as a shadow of good things to come. This is in complete contrast to the Decalogue. According to Hebrews and other texts there is no support for the cancellation of the Ten Commandments. The New Covenant is established upon better promises and a more excellent ministry—the order of Melchisedec (you need to study Hebrews 8 a little better). By this superior ministry Yahshua has offered himself once canceling the ceremonial rituals.

 

[Michaeneu]

You continue to show your ignorance of the Law if you think there were only "Moral" and "ritual" laws and NOTHING ELSE….

It’s never been my position that there were only two classifications of the law and I already addressed this in my last post so you’re baring false witness here. There where many civil laws in addition that separated Israel from the Ethnos, but at this time the covenant people are enduring captivity to the Ethnos—there is no kingdom as yet—so the civil laws are rendered moot. Israel is spiritual today and our principle concern is ecclesiastical matters and that makes the ritual rights relevant. The point that you go on ignoring is the clear distinction that is made in Hebrews concerning the how the law changed by importing unrelated passages for your eisegesis on how it changed, like Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6.

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.

I would guess that you’ve been ignorant that the new covenant still pertains to Israel. And they still have a sign that distinguishes them from the Ethnos because it can’t be verified that the seventh-day Sabbath is an unprofitable and imperfect shadow sacrifice offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people…” Hebrews 8:10

Moral involves "Morality

That’s like the frivolous statement: “they still exist OUTSIDE that law as universal precepts.” Using synonyms as definitions reveals one’s lack of understanding when they imply the synonyms are antonyms or that they define anything. The Ten Commandment’s standing is at the pinnacle of the law Yahweh gave Israel. They were profitable and perfect for pointing out transgression of the law or sin, and still are. The ceremonies and shadows were unprofitable periodic offerings for the transgression of sin and made nothing perfect.

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…. 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.

You should have remained silent then because you are relying upon deduction for you assertion that the patriarchs did NOT keep the Sabbath. It is written that Abraham kept Yah’s commandments, statues and laws; consequently, it is arbitrary whether the patriarchs kept the Sabbath, for the OT is silent upon whether they did not did not. And I believe the greatest evidence falls upon the side that they did.

But that wasn’t my affirmation in the first place! My affirmation was that from Adam until now we have always had the rest from works depicted in Hebrews chapter four. That rest from works is FAITH according to the chapter and that is why I made the affirmation that salvation has always been through faith in the Messiah: either the Messiah to come or the Messiah that came. Look at Hebrews chapter eleven. That is why Joshua and David are said to have spoken again of the rest even after they entered the land and had a period of rest from their enemies. FAITH is the rest in Yahshua and faith is neither a shadow that prefigures Yahshua nor is it imperfect or unprofitable offering for sin. Again, you have failed miserable in proving the seventh-day Sabbath was a shadow through this chapter and your next response doesn’t fair any better.

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.

Funny how you changed the word to contrast which is an antonym of allegory, which is the term you first used.

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.

First you stated that the rest at the creation was an allegory of the spiritual rest in Hebrews but then you changed to a contrast. That’s interpretation by expedience and points to how your belief system has to resort to obfuscation. Allegories highlight parallels or similarities not contrasts and my prior response brought out how the chapter points to the parallel or similarities between Yah’s rest at creation and the rest we enter in Yahshua.

“There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.” NIV Hebrews 4:9-10

This is a parallel—not a contrast!

The ceremonial types concerned works or performance of rituals shadows for the transgression of sin 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 rest is depicted in the chapter as profitable and perfect unto salvation which is “a sign” of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow! And again if we can still enter that rest today it doesn’t prefigure Yahshua as the shadows did.

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]

It is not comparing apples to oranges, because the issue was not the children, but the use of the term "the least". In that case, it was a figure of speech. If you want to prove the standing in the Law, that is not the place to do it, because even the SDA's here do not agree that "the least" shall ever pass.

Nevertheless, children can't be compared to the law, so it is apples to oranges.

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:19

Standing in the kingdom is right there in the same text. Clearly Yahshua is drawing a parallel, not a contrast. 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.

No, there is nothing here but a liberal concept of the sabbath. You are supposed to be resting your mind. Jesus would not have typed on a computer 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.

Childish? So you expect me to just chew on your words, I guess, because you think you're so right, right? You have no excuse for the accuatory tone and some of the things you have said you have come out with. We've been talking about the magnification of the Law, but then what does Jesus and the rest of the Bible say about the tongue? There are ways to have a civil dscussion, and you used my responses to you as an excuse, so I pointed out that you are the one who set the tone here by coming in an such accusatory judgmental fashion....

And yours was an accusatory tone from the beginning also. I don’t have to hurl accusation, merely point out unsound doctrine and the methodology in attempting to uphold it. Its clear that you have done the same and are merely attempting to change the issue to the aforementioned. But let me just say that if you withhold all hard language from this point I shall also. I’ll go one farther, I apologize and I’ll end it now and my next post shall be more gentle. Let us both attempt to regain the high ground.

Michael

 

[Michaeneu]

Eric,

I think you are right about that, we should all have a more gentle spirit and I am sorry if I havent been doing that. It was unintentional if I did.

From what I've experienced I think you been quite gentle Claudia. You just stick to what you believe.

Michael

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible says NOTHING about "universal law TRUMPS the Word of God spoken at Sinai". The Bible says NOTHING about man-made-tradition being an "Acceptible excuse" for editing God's Word or trashing His Word!

Those who make up such stories do so at the expense of sound Bible exegesis and a faithful rendering of the text.

IF ANY law is to be accepted as UNIVERSAL to mankind from our very MAKING it is the "SANCTIFIED" Holy Day of Christ our Creator in Gen 2:3 "MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 AND it is the Law regarding Marriage that we see in Gen 2 ALSO made for MANKIND!

But those who imagine "universal law that edits or abolishes" the Word of God spoken at Sinai - will not admit to this obvious fact "either".

THEN when we have the future World with "ALL mankind coming before God to WORSHIP from Sabbath to Sabbath" Isaiah 66 in the NEW Heavens AND in the New Earth - we have the most obvious excuse removed for those who imagine that this LAW given at creation week FOR MANKIND is not to be CONTINUED for all eternity!

 

[Eric B]

Hebrews does much more than merely advocate a distinction; it meets the criteria with the unprofitable and imperfect shadow sacrifices offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin. In essence Hebrews continues to expound upon the distinction, which you go on ignoring.

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.” Hebrews 10:1

Again, the criterion is meet by the shadow law that was offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin and it is this law that was cancelled at the cross—or nailed as it is put in Colossians.

“The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.” NIV Hebrews 10:15-18

Yours is a non sequitur concerning the law and a capricious import of unrelated passages for your eisegesis! You merely feign context. Nowhere is there any support in Hebrews for the import of spirit versus letter passages concerning the change of the law when the criterion is met with the periodically offered shadow sacrifices for the transgression of the law which were unprofitable and imperfect. The criterion in Hebrews is clearly revealed and exposes a contrast between the moral precepts of the Decalogue and the ceremonial law.

Hebrews is giving ONE eaxample of a part of the law that has ceased. That still does not say that ONLY sacrifices have ceased. I gave you examples of others we do not keep which are not sacrifices.

And still again, the commandments that were written upon “the tables of stone” neither concerned anything offered periodically for the transgression of sin nor were they a shadow of good things to come; nor was the forth as I shall continue to expound upon below. The commandments that were written upon “the tables of stone” are still profitable and perfect for revealing transgression of the law. The foundation of these precepts was abstinence, as I’ve stated before, and are still confirmed ceaselessly (or transgressed) through man’s intercourse with men (the second table) or Yah (the first table). The periodic performance/offering of the sacrifices for sin done under the first covenant was cancelled but we still ceaselessly confirm the precepts of the tables of stone.

“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

Still the fallacy of "all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue is made up of universal commands."

For brevity I’m not going to deal with some of the nuances that you continually bring up to point out your position on the law is eisegetical and frivolous. To begin let me deal with the extraneous and non sequitur idea of yours that the law of Moses still exits outside of the law as universal precepts.

First, the use of synonyms for the law does nothing to help you assertions for it’s a mere ploy; universal precepts are still law so your position that we are “released from the law” is frivolous or merely a play on words (for this reason your interpretation of Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6 are also erroneous or frivolous). That some of the covenant laws exit(ed) outside of the covenant people is also frivolous because the law was nevertheless committed to Israel or the Jews and still is—albeit spiritual in both cases now (the object of Romans 2:29). One of the objects of being the covenant people is in revealing the law to the Ethnos by conduct and through the oracles committed to them.

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God…. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:1-2, 31

The assertion that some moral laws exited outside those given at Sinai is frivolous because we are concerned with Israel’s new covenant and the change in the law as it pertained to the covenant people; this we see this confirmed in chapter eight—the very next chapter that develops the theme of how the law is said to change.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people…” Hebrews 8:10

Consequently, we are dealing with the law given Israel and through Hebrews it is revealed that some part of THIS law was perfect and profitable while another was imperfect and unprofitable—some part is/was greater than another. Again that part that was imperfect and unprofitable was offered periodically for the transgression of sin and as a shadow of good things to come. This is in complete contrast to the Decalogue. According to Hebrews and other texts there is no support for the cancellation of the Ten Commandments. The New Covenant is established upon better promises and a more excellent ministry—the order of Melchisedec (you need to study Hebrews 8 a little better). By this superior ministry Yahshua has offered himself once canceling the ceremonial rituals.

So what you're doing id denyint that the world outside Israeal had ANY law at all; only Israel. So NONE of the Law was actually "universal", but it becamse eternal when God established them fro Israel, and then TRANSFERRED the covenant to the rest of man after Christ.
Sorry, but that is the frivolous and eisegetical fabrication. God always expected certain behavior of man, long before Sinai. That's how man sinned. God condemns man because of his behavior all throughout Genesis.
And you twist my words by saying "COVENANT Law existing outside the covenant", or even "Law of MOSES outside the Law". That's NOT what I said! I specidfically said it existed OUTSIDE the covenant, so then how is that saying they were "covenant Laws". They were universal laws included in the covenant.
And that covenant ended, and was replaced by a spiritual one, hence the "spirit vs letter" you keep denying, as opposed to the "Same exact law as Moses with only the sacrifices removed". In other words, yes, Israel was to reveal the Law, but they didn't even keep that law, so God changed the covenant alltogether, not simply transferred it to a greater number of people.

 

[BobRyan]

I deny that the law of the Philistines trumps,edits, abolishes the Words of God spoken at Sinai.

I deny that on the Seventh-day of Creation week - there were "Philistines outside the Garden keeping their own natural law". I CLAIM that Adam and Eve WERE MANKIND -- ALL MANKIND at that time and they were AWAKE and IN HARMONY with God as HE gave them His Holy Day AND Marriage "MADE FOR MANKIND".

Just the obvious - that comes from sound Bible exegesis.

I CLAIM "The Gospel was PREACHED TO ABRAHAM" Gal 3:7.

I CLAIM the "GOSPEL was preached TO US JUST as it was to THEM ALSO" Heb 4:1-2.

I DENY the "TWO GOSPEL" fallacy that would place Israel under a false Gospel of no-grace and all-works!

I DENY a false Gospel that tries to abolish the Word of God at the Cross OR in 70 AD!

I DENY a false Gospel that would EDIT the Word of God in FAVOR of the Law of Philistines!

It was not right before the cross - it is not right after the cross!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Michaeneu]

Hebrews is giving ONE eaxample of a part of the law that has ceased. That still does not say that ONLY sacrifices have ceased. I gave you examples of others we do not keep which are not sacrifices.

Nevertheless, the criterion is met with the shadow law that was offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin and it is this law that was cancelled at the cross—or nailed as it is put in Colossians. The Decalogue clearly does not fall under this criterion, period. You have yet to show that the fourth commandment falls under any criterion that points to its cancellation as the sign for Israel, and the New Covenant certainly concerns Israel!

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people…” Hebrews 8:10

So what you're doing id denyint that the world outside Israeal had ANY law at all; only Israel. So NONE of the Law was actually "universal", but it becamse eternal when God established them fro Israel, and then TRANSFERRED the covenant to the rest of man after Christ.
Sorry, but that is the frivolous and eisegetical fabrication. God always expected certain behavior of man, long before Sinai. That's how man sinned. God condemns man because of his behavior all throughout Genesis.
And you twist my words by saying "COVENANT Law existing outside the covenant", or even "Law of MOSES outside the Law". That's NOT what I said! I specidfically said it existed OUTSIDE the covenant, so then how is that saying they were "covenant Laws". They were universal laws included in the covenant.
And that covenant ended, and was replaced by a spiritual one, hence the "spirit vs letter" you keep denying, as opposed to the "Same exact law as Moses with only the sacrifices removed". In other words, yes, Israel was to reveal the Law, but they didn't even keep that law, so God changed the covenant alltogether, not simply transferred it to a greater number of people.

What you’re evading is that Yah chose to use certain people to coven with and reveal himself and His law. That is a far cry from denying that moral laws are universal; nevertheless, Yah has not changed His predilection under the New Covenant. Yah still uses His covenant people as keepers of His oracles who establish the law.

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God…. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:1-2, 31

Consequently, the assertion that certain laws were universal is a frivolous point because as keepers of the law we simply have not been “released from the law” in the way your belief system insists; we establish the law as keepers of the oracles. This places your belief system concerning Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6 in poor standing. That the New Covenant is spiritual does not preclude the law that was perfect and profitable; it only magnifies it. After all, it is Israel’s covenant and not that of the nations. And you have yet to show that any one of the Ten Commandments were shadow laws that were offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin. In truth Hebrews chapter four parallels the seventh-day rest with the rest in Yahshua which is of faith. The seventh-day rest is depicted the chapter as profitable and perfect unto salvation which is “a sign” of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

Michael

 

[Eric B]

It's never been my position that there were only two classifications of the law and I already addressed this in my last post so youre baring false witness here. There where many civil laws in addition that separated Israel from the Ethnos, but at this time the covenant people are enduring captivity to the Ethnosthere is no kingdom as yet so the civil laws are rendered moot. Israel is spiritual today and our principle concern is ecclesiastical matters and that makes the ritual rights relevant. The point that you go on ignoring is the clear distinction that is made in Hebrews concerning the how the law changed by importing unrelated passages for your eisegesis on how it changed, like Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6.

I'm not bearing false witness, because while you did mention "civil laws", briefly, you basically glossed over them, and spoke as if it was only the Decalogue and the sacrifices. Now you add this new criteria that wasn't mentioned before. The civil laws are neither cancelled nor continue on, but were "rendered moot" (suspended) because Israel does not have its own Kingdom. So I guess they weren't weak and unprofitable" like the sacrifices, and would continue if Israel had a kingdom. So there are three divisions of the Law; one which is eternal, one which is cancelled, and another suspended only for a time. Where do you see that at?
We could still keep laws like the ox and the donkey (for those of us who have farms), and many of the other principles you are calling 'civil', as well as circumcision which is not even 'civil' (are you going to come up with another category?).
Also, if you were consistent on this, you would realize that the sabbath would fall into the same category, (civil) then. It is given solely to the physical nation of Israel, as their national sign.

I would guess that youve been ignorant that the new covenant still pertains to Israel. And they still have a sign that distinguishes them from the Ethnos because it cant be verified that the seventh-day Sabbath is an unprofitable and imperfect shadow sacrifice offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people Hebrews 8:10

Nevertheless, the criterion is met with the shadow law that was offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin and it is this law that was cancelled at the cross or nailed as it is put in Colossians. The Decalogue clearly does not fall under this criterion, period. You have yet to show that the fourth commandment falls under any criterion that points to its cancellation as the sign for Israel, and the New Covenant certainly concerns Israel! For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people Hebrews 8:10
What youre evading is that Yah chose to use certain people to coven with and reveal himself and His law. That is a far cry from denying that moral laws are universal; nevertheless, Yah has not changed His predilection under the New Covenant. Yah still uses His covenant people as keepers of His oracles who establish the law.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:1-2, 31

Consequently, the assertion that certain laws were universal is a frivolous point because as keepers of the law we simply have not been released from the law in the way your belief system insists; we establish the law as keepers of the oracles. This places your belief system concerning

That the New Covenant is spiritual does not preclude the law that was perfect and profitable; it only magnifies it. After all, it is Israels covenant and not that of the nations.

Yes, the new covenant pertains to SPIRITUAL Israel, so you cannot transfer their physical sign over to us. That's why it is replaced by the spirit (rest in Jesus, plus LOVE for one another: "by THIS shall you know you are my disciples") In contrast, the sabbath is still associated by the world with the Jews, and even among those "Christian" or "messianic" groups that keep it, they still reject each other as false for other reasons. So it is PROVEN not to be even A sign for the true people of God today. That's why it's unprofitable. Anyone can keep it, and still not be a child of God. It is not even naturally on people's hearts, meaning we are automatically compelled to keep it out of love for God, apart from "just because the Law tells us to". That's what a Law being on the heart means. But no one can feign the love of God and rest in Christ. Just like I point out to the Church of Christ people here, physical signs like that are of the OT, and do not equal the spiritual realities.
Notice, the "oracles" you speak of include circumcision. NOT just the decalogue. So passages like this cannot be used to say we are under the law, with the exception of sacrifice rituals "offered daily and yearly". And notice hiow in Heb.9:4, "the tables of the covenent" placed inside the ark are apart of the whole "tabernacle" system that the writer is describing along with the ceremonial shadows. Rather than their place there proving the Decalogue was eternal, it proves that it was art of that whole "law" system being described there.

And you have yet to show that any one of the Ten Commandments were shadow laws that were offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin. In truth Hebrews chapter four parallels the seventh-day rest with the rest in Yahshua which is of faith. The seventh-day rest is depicted the chapter as profitable and perfect unto salvation which is a sign of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

You're still repeating two errors here. Nowhere does it say that ONLY "laws that were offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin" were cancelled. Even you admit now that the civil laws were set aside, and whether or not they shall be reinstituted in the Kingdom does not pertain to us now.
Also, as I pointed out, your still mistaking the spiritual rest of Heb.4 with a literal physical rest.

That

 

[Eric B]

[Note what those textbook style quotation marks do to a post when I post with the phone. (And the long dash, and the three periods in one character as well). I spent all day during breaks trying to delete them, but still missed one. Could you possibly use keyboard characters " ' -- instead? (I would think it would be easier, as they are ALT codes).]

That’s like the frivolous statement: they still exist
OUTSIDE that law as universal precepts. Using synonyms as
definitions reveals one’s lack of understanding when they imply the
synonyms are antonyms or that they define anything.

What in the world are you talking about?

The Ten Commandments standing is at the pinnacle of the law
Yahweh gave.Israel. They were
profitable and perfect for pointing out transgression of the law or sin,
and still are. The ceremonies and shadows were unprofitable periodic
offerings for the transgression of sin and made nothing perfect.

Once again, the sabbath does not "point out" sin. Not keeping a
sabbath is not the same as blasphemy, idolatry, or the laws governing
man's relation to his neighbor, which are universal in nature. God never
condemned the "ethnos" for not keeping it.

I have also explained to you that the Ten Commandments were not simply
the "first ten" of the 613. It was a summary of the whole law(which is
why it was given such prominence), which broke down into all the other
details. Just like the Ten break down the two.

You should have remained silent then because you are relying
upon deduction for you assertion that the patriarchs did NOT keep the
Sabbath. It is written that Abraham kept Yahs commandments, statues and
laws; consequently, it is arbitrary whether the patriarchs kept the
Sabbath, for the OT is silent upon whether they did not did not. And I
believe the greatest evidence falls upon the side that they did.

You just claimed above that the Law was given specifically to Israel.
In any case, since there were the seven universal laws I have been
discussing, and you denying, these are the "commandments" Abraham kept.

But that wasnt my affirmation in the first
place! My affirmation was that from Adam until now we have
always had the rest from works depicted in Hebrews chapter four. That
rest from works is FAITH according to the chapter and that
is why I made the affirmation that salvation has always been through
faith in the Messiah: either the Messiah to come or the Messiah that
came. Look at Hebrews chapter eleven. That is why Joshua and David are
said to have spoken again of the rest even after they entered the land
and had a period of rest from their enemies. FAITH is the
rest in Yahshua and faith is neither a shadow that prefigures Yahshua
nor is it imperfect or unprofitable offering for sin. Again, you have
failed miserable in proving the seventh-day Sabbath was a shadow through
this chapter and your next response doesn’t fair any better.

Yes, we always had spiritual rest, which is faith, as well as all the
rest of the spiritual principles of the Law, like lust equaling adultery
in the heart. But because of sin, God added and focused on the "letter"
until the new covenant. Now, the true spiritual intent of the Law is
focused again. I never said that SPIRITUAL rest was a "shadow" or
"weak", but rather have always pointed to that as the true spiritual
reality the literal rest was to point to. You seem to be confusing the
spiritual spoken of in Hebrews for the literal.
I haven't failed to show this, you just choose not to recognize it.

Funny how you changed the word to contrast which is an
antonym of allegory, which is the term you first used.

First you stated that the rest at the creation was an
allegory of the spiritual rest in Hebrews but then you changed to
a contrast. Thats interpretation by expedience and points to how
your belief system has to resort to obfuscation. Allegories
highlight parallels or similarities not contrasts and my prior
response brought out how the chapter points to the parallel or
similarities between Yahs rest at creation and the rest we enter in
Yahshua.

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for
anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God
did from his. NIV Hebrews 4:9-10

This is a parallel not a
contrast!

Something can be a parallel and contrast at the same time. The fact that
it is a parallel, shows that it is somehow DIFFERENT from what it
is paralleling. Two lines that are parallel are different lines, not the
same line. I can have a red line and yellow line be parallel, and still
"contrast" them to one another. Even you used the term
"similarities", and things that are "similar" are still
different.

So God's rest from Creation parallels the literal sabbath rest of the
Law of Moses, as well as the spiritual rest of faith. Yet these are
still three different items, which can still be "contrasted" with each
other. The problem is not me confusing "allegory" or "parallel" with
"contrast", but rather you making parallel equal "identical". And you
are still to quick to throw out accusations.

The ceremonial types concerned works or performance of rituals
shadows for the transgression of sin 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 rest is depicted in the chapter
as profitable and perfect unto salvation which is a sign of moral
significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow! And again if we
can still enter that rest today it doesn’t prefigure Yahshua as the
shadows did.

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.

You're still confusing the spiritual rest taught in the chapter with the literal rest that pointed to it.

Nevertheless, children can't be compared
to the law, so it is apples to oranges.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and
teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:19

Standing in the kingdom is right there in the same text.
Clearly Yahshua is drawing a parallel, not a contrast. 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.

Still, "least" in Matthew does not correspond to the "weak" of Hebrews.
You are reading too much into that. Just because you see two words that
may hypothetically be parallel like that, you can't just paste them
together if the context doesn't demand it. Yes, we both agree that some
parts of the Law were weaker than others, but the point is, Jesus is
not discussing that there. The future cancellation of ceremonial
Laws is not the subject of that statement.

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.

You're just repeating that same sentence over and over. You have no
defense for this liberal view of the sabbath. The sabbath is not for
personal recreation, and this discussion is personal recreation, not a
vital work of the kingdom. ESPECIALLY when you reassert that the Law is
magnified! How does that allow for one to spend the day on the
internet? You keep calling my view of the sabbath legalist, but I asked
you last time what was allowed on the sabbath. How does being on a
computer all day square with Isaiah 58? What is the difference between
non-vital mentally exhausting "work" that does not earn a paycheck, and
non-vital work that does? Why are you bugging us about the sabbath if
you can do all of this stuff on it? If you think personal recreation is
allowed, and falls under the testimony and example of Jesus, then you
have to show me from the scripture where it is allowed, not continue
repeating that phrase which says nothing.

 

[Eric B]

And yours was an accusatory tone from the beginning also. I dont
have to hurl accusation, merely point out unsound doctrine and the
methodology in attempting to uphold it. Its clear that you have done the
same and are merely attempting to change the issue to the
aforementioned.

My tone was "accusatory" from the beginning,
because you just suddenly came out here out of nowhere tossing
accusations of "antimomianism". That is a serious charge, and most of us
are already stressed out from dealing with Bob and others who use
similar tactics. You keep excusing your behavior as "challenging unsound
doctrine and methodology" but what you have been doing is erecting straw
men, projecting them at me, and then "rebuking" your own caricatures of
our doctrines. I am not going to stand for that. I wasn't trying to
change the issue; only pointing out that your argumentation tactics were
getting very tiring, and are uncalled for.

But let me just say that if you withhold all hard language from
this point I shall also. I'll go one farther, I apologize and Ill end it
now and my next post shall be more gentle. Let us both attempt to regain
the high ground.
Michael

OK, I accept. I was trying to start toning down last week, esp. after
the 'truce' of sorts with Claudia (above), which I was hoping you would
see and follow suit.
But this means no more accusations of what you THINK my "belief system"
implies. We have a difference of viewpoint. I am not trying to
obfuscate, evade, lie, feign, be frivolous, or any so-called "ploy". Address
the issue, not my motives, which all of these statements are attacking.

 

[Eric B]

The Bible says NOTHING about "universal law TRUMPS the Word of God spoken at Sinai". The Bible says NOTHING about man-made-tradition being an "Acceptible excuse" for editing God's Word or trashing His Word!

Those who make up such stories do so at the expense of sound Bible exegesis and a faithful rendering of the text.

IF ANY law is to be accepted as UNIVERSAL to mankind from our very MAKING it is the "SANCTIFIED" Holy Day of Christ our Creator in Gen 2:3 "MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 AND it is the Law regarding Marriage that we see in Gen 2 ALSO made for MANKIND!

But those who imagine "universal law that edits or abolishes" the Word of God spoken at Sinai - will not admit to this obvious fact "either".

THEN when we have the future World with "ALL mankind coming before God to WORSHIP from Sabbath to Sabbath" Isaiah 66 in the NEW Heavens AND in the New Earth - we have the most obvious excuse removed for those who imagine that this LAW given at creation week FOR MANKIND is not to be CONTINUED for all eternity!

No one said that the universal laws "trump" or themselves "abolish" the Law given at Sinai. The law of Sinai passed with that covenant, (so it was the new covenant that abolished them) and the universal laws continue.

Your theory about Adam in Genesis and the Kingdon in Isaiah is no proof that the sabbath was a universal law. Give us a scripture that commands US TODAY to keep it, not vague indirect inferences. God rested from the work of creation the seventh day, but He did not then go back to work for the next six days, week after week, and Adam was not creating, and he was required to work week after week, so once again, God's keeping of a sabbath then is not something that all of man was expected to do at that point.

I deny that the law of the Philistines trumps,edits, abolishes the Words of God spoken at Sinai.

I deny that on the Seventh-day of Creation week - there were "Philistines outside the Garden keeping their own natural law". I CLAIM that Adam and Eve WERE MANKIND -- ALL MANKIND at that time and they were AWAKE and IN HARMONY with God as HE gave them His Holy Day AND Marriage "MADE FOR MANKIND".

Just the obvious - that comes from sound Bible exegesis.

I CLAIM "The Gospel was PREACHED TO ABRAHAM" Gal 3:7.

I CLAIM the "GOSPEL was preached TO US JUST as it was to THEM ALSO" Heb 4:1-2.

I DENY the "TWO GOSPEL" fallacy that would place Israel under a false Gospel of no-grace and all-works!

I DENY a false Gospel that tries to abolish the Word of God at the Cross OR in 70 AD!

I DENY a false Gospel that would EDIT the Word of God in FAVOR of the Law of Philistines!

It was not right before the cross - it is not right after the cross!

In Christ,

Bob

So now, you did more thinking, and come with this "law of the Philistines". That is a deceptive misreading of what I said. Why do you have to keep recasting what people say like that? The universal laws of God are not the same as the law of one heathen nation. The laws of one nation can be corrupt, incomplete, etc. but we do see laws that God always expected man to follow, and condemned nations for breaking, including the Philistines. But never the sabbath.

 

[Claudia_T]

From what I've experienced I think you been quite gentle Claudia. You just stick to what you believe.

Michael

Michael,

Thank you, I really appreciate you saying that to me

 

[Claudia_T]

obfuscate?

Could somebody please take a moment to explain to me what the word "obfuscate" means?

 

[Eric B]

I had to look that one up myself. From what I remember, it means something like the hide or obscure the truth or a pertinent fact in the matter.

 

[BobRyan]

Christ said - "The Sabbath was MADE for mankind" in Mark 2:27 just as we see it made in Gen 2:3 as THE HOlY day for MANKINd in creation week. JUST as we see in Gen 2 Marriage also MADE for mankind.

Obviously there are NO pagans OUTSIDE the garden NOT honoring marriage and NOT knowing about the Holy Seventh-day MADE for mankind!



But of course Eric says "Adam in Genesis and the Kingdon in Isaiah is no proof that the sabbath was a universal law" -- (I don't want to SEE it says Eric so it does not exist).

What a great argument!

 

[Eric B]

Good you mentioned marriage in this vein, because all are not obligated to be married, so "made for mankind" does NOT mean "All mankind are OBLIGATED".