How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

[Michaeneu]

Well, that just sounds to me like you've just decided for yourself that this one chapter in Hebrews is the ONLY teaching in the change of the Law, and you reject anything else (like the scriptures on the spirit vs. the letter. But that cannot be so, because you still have not explained the scriptural basis for why the "cvivil" laws are suspended, and also circumcision.

Hebrews IS the text dealing with “the change in the law” according to scripture. The preponderance of the extraneous texts that you import simply DO NOT deal with how the law changed, but merely deal with the character of the law: that it did not save anyone; spirit versus letter; how they hung on the greatest and etcetera. That the law did not save anyone pertains to its character, but this did not change from one covenant to another. That the prophets and all the law hung upon the greatest commandments did not change from one covenant to another (BTW, the prophets have not been done away with for the New Covenant continues to establish and fulfill them). The term “hung” communicates a characteristic between the ceremonial and the moral, but that does not preclude that one was ephemeral and the other was perennial either. That there was always a spiritual intent that was greater than the letter did not change from one covenant to another either. That the NT’s focus is upon the spirit simply does not address “how the law changed” either.

Nor does the issue of circumcision or the civil law distract from the issue that in Hebrews and throughout the NT that there is a distinction made between the law that was perfect and profitable and that which was imperfect and unprofitable pertaining to the law given at Sinai. Let me PULL you back to the point that while Hebrews deals with the cancellation of the law that falls under a criterion—there was/is still law under the first covenant that DID NOT fall under that criterion and is/was still profitable and perfect. These laws can never be cancelled! It is THIS law that Yah writes in the heart and mind and not some extraneous “natural law” that you attempt to import into the context. Again, the “natural law” argument is frivolous precisely because the context in Hebrews concerning the change in the law precludes any type of extraneous interpretation of the term “law” outside of what was given at Sinai.

Clearly, circumcision fell into the imperfect and unprofitable criterion according to scripture, while the civil was suspended even during Yahshua’s time, since they had to look to the Romans for corporal punishment because they were subject to Rome. In truth the civil was suspended when Yah took the crown from Israel (Ezekiel 21:26-27).

Your arguent above, on "covenant people" implies just that. You seem to be implying God's true universal laws were whatever He gave to physical Israel, and since we today are the covenant people, we must keep the same laws (with the sxception of the cancelled sacrifices and suspended national laws). That is transferring their law to us.
I do not use the words "the universal laws transferred over", because of the fact that they were universal. They do not have to transfer over; they were always binding on all, evicenced by their being written on man's conscience (not the same thing as "written on heart" which implies a desire to keep them in those who have been regenerated).

You can use whatever term (transfer) you want, but the truth still remains that there is a distinction made in Hebrews between the law that was perfect and profitable and that which was imperfect and unprofitable pertaining to the law given at Sinai—which is standing; some part was/is greater than another. Again, the “natural law” argument is frivolous precisely because the context in Hebrews concerning the change in the law precludes any type of extraneous interpretation of the term “law” outside of what was given at Sinai. Yah’s covenant people still establish and fulfill that part of the first covenant that was perfect and profitable according to the NT. Fulfill and establish can mean nothing other than TO KEEP.

Nor have you cancelled the issue of standing. You’ve attempted to trivialize the line of reasoning that the fourth commandment was listed side by side with the very law that was perfect and profitable, audibly given by Him to the whole congregation, kept apart from the ceremonial and civil law in the ark, and etcetera—which is standing. But you have yet to show thought the scripture that the fourth was cancelled or that is was a weak shadow that was neither profitable nor perfect.

You're making up your own definition. You admit the ceremonial laws were included (as "the least") in Jesus' "not one jot nor tittle shall pass until all be fulfilled" statement, so you have to acknowledge that the only way they could be cancelled" is because their spiritual intens were fulfilled…. He doesn't contiuously offer Himself; because the one sacrifice pays for all the sins, and thus FULFILLS the sacrifices, in the SPIRIT instead of the LETTER. See, all this stuff you deny is there. The PRINCIPLE of the sacrifices still carries on, even though the literal practice of them does not. THIS is how we "establish, confirm and fulfill" that part of the law. Remember, Paul's stement "yeah, we fulfill" was made in response of charges that he was teaching people to break the law. It looks like we are (in the letter), but in its spiritual intent, we are not.

Yet, Yahshua fulfilled the letter and spirit of: “Thou shalt not have any other elohims before Yah”. He fulfilled the letter and spirit of: “Remember the Sabbath”. He fulfilled the letter and spirit of: “Honor your father and mother.” He fulfilled the letter and spirit of: “Thou shalt not kill” and etcetera. He is my example, not you and your belief system! You have yet to provide any true exegesis that we are NOT to fulfill or keep the letter and spirit of that part of the OC that was perfect and profitable or that its been done away. Nor have you yet provided any true exegesis that the fourth was cancelled or that is was a weak shadow that was neither profitable nor perfect.

So now, there's NO COMMANDMENT mentioned in the chapter? I thought you were sayigng alla long that this chapter is telling us to still keep the sabbath. If that's true, how is there "no commandment" here? In any case, as I said, yes, God's rest was always the ideal, but the full fruition of it was still something they were said to look forward to (after all, it is a rest Joshua did NOT lead them into, and God swore in Ps.95:11 that they would NOT enter it), and this was contrasted with the "seventh day", which obviously was being used to ILLUSTRATE this true rest, and thus was a type of it.

NEVER once did I mention the fourth commandment in my exegesis of Hebrews chapter four. What I did state was that the seventh-day rest at creation is/was profitable and perfect, which is “a sign” of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

Again, that rest at creation did not point forward to anything according to Hebrews chapter four but was CONCURRENT with the rest from works in faith that Abel or Adam were able to enter. The text is Hebrews declared that there “remaineth” a rest, which confirms that it was accessible prior to the New Covenant.

“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.” Hebrews 4:9

Consequently, even before Sinai that rest from works in Yahshua was accessible to the people of Yah and not just Israel. How fully his people enter into that rest does not preclude that is was CONCURRENT with the seventh-day rest at creation. Under the Papal system faith was almost abandoned again, and it took the Protestant movement to regain the strides that had been lost from apostolic times. Thus, FRUITION has been something of vicissitudes, not of any fullness. The seventh-day rest at creation did not point forward to anything, period. You are adding to the scripture with your belief system.

In truth, the Israelites under the first covenant were able to enter into the rest in Yahshua while keeping the fourth commandment, which also makes your assertion erroneous.

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]

What I was saying was, if you take "least" and "greatest" commandment here literally, based on the
parallel with "least and greatest in the kingdom", that that would suggest that since whoever breaks the least is the least in the kingdom, then whoever breaks the greatest would be greatest. Of course, that is ridiculous, but then that shows that the "standing" in the Kingdom does NOT correspond to the "least" commandment. In fact, the "greatest" comandment is not even mentioned there, so there is no comparison of any "standing" in the Law with standing in the kingdom. What He says is that whoever KEEPS the "least" would be greatest in the kingdom. According to you, "the least" are sacrifices that would be cancelled shortly after. Shoudn't h have said "whoever keeps the GREATEST", then?
You must not understand the concept of Hebrew poetry

There is nothing ridiculous concerning standing in the kingdom of Yah. 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 be King of kings!

Clearly, I have context to rely upon in the passage, you have conjecture and “import”. We have a literal interpretation of rank in the passage, which supports the literal interpretation the phrase, “one of these least commandments”. Your interpretation of the latter phrase as poetic does not conform to the context. I understand the concept of Hebrew poetry, but it is clear that you have to import it into the context because you don’t understand lawful standing.

That sounds like convenience to me. What you fail to note (which I have pointed out before, but you were so quick to throw back "legalist", which is a great irony, because who is it here who is pitching "Law"?) is that Jesus was OUT in the temple, dealing with PEOPLE (FELLOWSHIP is a very important part of God's will for us), and HEALING people and such, or fedding himself and his disciples (both VITAL tasks) and then the Jews came and confronted him about it, and then he testified about the proper purpose of the sabbath.
That sounds quite different from spending the whole day on the internet, which is basically recreation, even if it's a debate ABOUT God. You have not shown where this is equal to the testimony and example of Jesus; you just keep repeating that it is. This is not something vital that is has to be done on the spot and can't wait until the next day.

It may be ironic but not without common occurrence. Many who reject the standing of the fourth always attempt to argue through legalism. I note very well that Yahshua was dealing with the people where they were to be found, like in the synagogues, to testify through example and word the holy intent of the Sabbath, on the Sabbath. He is my example and lawful support to my testifying of the holiness of the Sabbath, on the Sabbath.

You rely upon “what it sounds like” or the “appearance” but this is exactly why your position stems from legalism. I don’t spend all day on the internet nor is it recreation, but my time given to doing exactly what Yahshua did (of course I don’t claim to do it as well)—and that is testifying about the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, because it is also lawful to do good.

Michael

 

[Michaeneu]

>Moreover, the moral laws of the tables of stone are CONFIRMED thought the New Testament and we establish and fulfill them.<

Doesn't compute. Does a law enacted in England "confirm" a similar law passed in the USofA?

I guess your ignoring or are ignorant that it is Israel’s New Covenant that Yahshua ministers to the Church—not the USofA’s social contract.

“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

“But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” Hebrews 12:22-24

Michael

 

[Eric B]

Hebrews IS the text dealing with “the change in the law” according to scripture. The preponderance of the extraneous texts that you import simply DO NOT deal with how the law changed, but merely deal with the character of the law: that it did not save anyone; spirit versus letter; how they hung on the greatest and etcetera. That the law did not save anyone pertains to its character, but this did not change from one covenant to another. That the prophets and all the law hung upon the greatest commandments did not change from one covenant to another (BTW, the prophets have not been done away with for the New Covenant continues to establish and fulfill them). The term “hung” communicates a characteristic between the ceremonial and the moral, but that does not preclude that one was ephemeral and the other was perennial either. That there was always a spiritual intent that was greater than the letter did not change from one covenant to another either. That the NT’s focus is upon the spirit simply does not address “how the law changed” either.

And the reason some laws passed is very much tied into the "character" of the Law, which you do not seem to understand. So those other passages ARE addressing the change as well. Here's another one: Romans 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit".
According to you, "weak" could only be the "ceremonial commands", but in the previous chapter, he mentions "I had not known lust, except the law had said, 'You shall not covet'" (v.7), then he continues discussing the same Law. Of course, now you will say "but that is just the character of the Law". But we see there Paul is talking about the whole system. The fact that he in the same sentences states "Is the law sin? God forbid" and "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." (v.12-14) shows us one aspect of the Law that is "weak", and another that is perennial, but not the distinction that you have drawn, of "ceremonial" versus "the Ten Commandments". The whole code is what was "weak", and "now we are delivered from" (7:6) and was sent to point out sin (v.13). However, it does contain some universal precepts which we are to still keep. So then continuing in ch.8, we get what else, but "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and
death". "Sin and death" is what he elsewhere calls "the letter".

You at will, simply reject all of these other scriptures as "extraneous" and take one chapter in isolation, but they all work TOGETHER, and it's your BELIEF SYSTEM that is forced to make this outrageous claim that this single chapter is THE only one "according to scripture". What other scripture anywhere says "Hebrews chapter seven is THE sole text describing the change in the Law"? That, my friend is YOUR "belief system"

Nor does the issue of circumcision or the civil law distract from the issue that in Hebrews and throughout the NT that there is a distinction made between the law that was perfect and profitable and that which was imperfect and unprofitable pertaining to the law given at Sinai. Let me PULL you back to the point that while Hebrews deals with the cancellation of the law that falls under a criterion—there was/is still law under the first covenant that DID NOT fall under that criterion and is/was still profitable and perfect. These laws can never be cancelled! It is THIS law that Yah writes in the heart and mind and not some extraneous “natural law” that you attempt to import into the context.

Again, the “natural law” argument is frivolous precisely because the context in Hebrews concerning the change in the law precludes any type of extraneous interpretation of the term “law” outside of what was given at Sinai.

Let me pull you back to the point that I nver denied that this chapter teaches that distinction in the Law; the debate is to whether that is the ONLY one dealing with it, and therefore only the ceremonies "weak". Even you say "throughout the NT", so there ARE other scriptures on the issue besides this one.

And you keep saying "natural law", but that is a gross misconstruction of what I have said, and your side deliberately keeps using it to try to turn it into something else. I did not say "NATURAL". I said "UNIVERSAL". There is a BIG DIFFERENCE! Natural law is about NATURE, and you know it, so by using that; you are attempting to turn my argument into something totally foreign to the discussion of MORALITY and SPIRITUALITY. "Universal" is the same thing as your "perennial".

You keep saying "It is THIS law that Yah writes in the heart and mind", but that IS the UNIVERSAL or perennial (not "NATURAL") Law, and while mankind without the spirit knows that killing, stealing, lying and adultery are wrong he would never figure out that he needed to keep a sabbath even if he knew which day. It is not written on the conscience. And even those WITH the Spirit, are convicted of all the SAME LAWS, plus more; but NOT the sabbath. It is NOT written on our HEARTS. That is, UNLESS, you are willing to conclude that every Christian outside sabbathkeeping sects has quenched the spirit, and you all don't like to be accused of saying that, even though it would be consistent with your belief system.

This right here, by your own criterion, proves it is not apart of the law that is perennial.
And you keep saying not to discuss those outside Israel/Sinai/the covenant; but you cannot say they had no law from God of ANY kind, because then; they would not be guilty of "sin"! The fact that God condemns them means he does have a standard they are held accountable to, and it is not the Law of Israel until they actually join Israel (which never did come true, as Israel herself broke the covenant), yet outside of Israel, He did still have basic laws they were to keep.

Clearly, circumcision fell into the imperfect and unprofitable criterion according to scripture, while the civil was suspended even during Yahshua’s time, since they had to look to the Romans for corporal punishment because they were subject to Rome. In truth the civil was suspended when Yah took the crown from Israel (Ezekiel 21:26-27).

You can use whatever term (transfer) you want, but the truth still remains that there is a distinction made in Hebrews between the law that was perfect and profitable and that which was imperfect and unprofitable pertaining to the law given at Sinai—which is standing; some part was/is greater than another. Again, the “natural law” argument is frivolous precisely because the context in Hebrews concerning the change in the law precludes any type of extraneous interpretation of the term “law” outside of what was given at Sinai. Yah’s covenant people still establish and fulfill that part of the first covenant that was perfect and profitable according to the NT.

Once again, you said Hebrews 7 was THE text that dealt with this. Now you're coming up with other stuff, because circumcision was not mentioned there. So you need to rethink that "THE text" statement.
Even still, it does not meet the criteria you have given based on Heb7. Circumcision and the civil laws were NOT "shadow sacrifices offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin", which you said were the sole criteria. (You forget all of these broad statements you make, and now you contradict them, admitting oh, there are other criteria after all). This shows that there ARE some other LAWS BESIDES sacrifices mentioned in Heb7. that ARE "Weak shadows" after all!

Nor have you cancelled the issue of standing. You’ve attempted to trivialize the line of reasoning that the fourth commandment was listed side by side with the very law that was perfect and profitable, audibly given by Him to the whole congregation, kept apart from the ceremonial and civil law in the ark, and etcetera—which is standing. But you have yet to show thought the scripture that the fourth was cancelled or that is was a weak shadow that was neither profitable nor perfect.

You have yet to show that those criteria are what SCRIPTURE says determines the perennial laws from the weak shadows. Even Hebrews does not say that, but actually included the "tables" inside the ark with the very "tabernacle" system it says was passing away.

 

[Eric B]

Fulfill and establish can mean nothing other than TO KEEP.

Yet, Yahshua fulfilled the letter and spirit of: “Thou shalt not have any other elohims before Yah”. He fulfilled the letter and spirit of: “Remember the Sabbath”. He fulfilled the letter and spirit of: “Honor your father and mother.” He fulfilled the letter and spirit of: “Thou shalt not kill” and etcetera. He is my example, not you and your belief system! You have yet to provide any true exegesis that we are NOT to fulfill or keep the letter and spirit of that part of the OC that was perfect and profitable or that its been done away. Nor have you yet provided any true exegesis that the fourth was cancelled or that is was a weak shadow that was neither profitable nor perfect.

And Jesus also fulfilled the sacrifices, by BEING the sacrifice. He fulfilled circumcision in us be circumcising our ears and hearts. Once again, these other laws were not just thrown out without any sort of fulfillment.

NEVER once did I mention the fourth commandment in my exegesis of Hebrews chapter four. What I did state was that

the seventh-day rest at creation is/was profitable and perfect, which is “a sign” of moral significance and not a ceremonial type or shadow!

Again, that rest at creation did not point forward to anything according to Hebrews chapter four but was CONCURRENT with the rest from works in faith that Abel or Adam were able to enter. The text is Hebrews declared that there “remaineth” a rest, which confirms that it was accessible prior to the New Covenant.

“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.” Hebrews 4:9

Consequently, even before Sinai that rest from works in Yahshua was accessible to the people of Yah and not just Israel. How fully his people enter into that rest does not preclude that is was CONCURRENT with the seventh-day rest at creation. Under the Papal system faith was almost abandoned again, and it took the Protestant movement to regain the strides that had been lost from apostolic times. Thus, FRUITION has been something of vicissitudes, not of any fullness. The seventh-day rest at creation did not point forward to anything, period. You are adding to the scripture with your belief system.

In truth, the Israelites under the first covenant were able to enter into the rest in Yahshua while keeping the fourth commandment, which also makes your assertion erroneous.

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.

I don't get what you're trying to do, when you deny mentioning the fourth commandment, but then go on and discuss God's rest at Creation, which you tie to the fourth commandment, and the claim it didn't point to anything which is supposed to prove the fourth commandment is still in effect.

You seem to be admitting that the "rest" there is the spiritual rest. yet you keep trying to tie it to the literal sabbath day rest. And even though they had both under the Old Covenant; still, as was stated, the law was added because of sin until the promise. You point out that they always had "salvation by faith" and looked forward to a Messiah, but they at the same time still had those "weak" physical sacrifices to remind them. I also can point out that God always expected them to be "circumcised in the heart and ears" yet they still had the practice of physical circumcision. So something coexisting with its spiritual reality does not prove it is not at the same time still a shadow of it, and don't give me that "shadow means forward in time" argument either. We see in these other examples that they DO coexist, and what was in the future was the NEW covenant when the realites would REPLACE the letter of the physical shadows for good because of Christ.

There is nothing ridiculous concerning standing in the kingdom of Yah. 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 be King of kings!

Clearly, I have context to rely upon in the passage, you have conjecture and “import”. We have a literal interpretation of rank in the passage, which supports the literal interpretation the phrase, “one of these least commandments”. Your interpretation of the latter phrase as poetic does not conform to the context. I understand the concept of Hebrew poetry, but it is clear that you have to import it into the context because you don’t understand lawful standing.

I don't see where you got the idea I was denying there was standing in the Kingdom. And I don't deny standing in the Law either. The issue is, that you're snatching up another diminuative term you see in the passage and pasting it together with standing in the Kingdom. By Least commandments"; Christ is not saying anything about the sacrifices or whichever other Laws you believe were "Least" That is not the discussion there! That is NOT the discussion there! You cannot find that anywhere in the CONTEXT.

It may be ironic but not without common occurrence. Many who reject the standing of the fourth always attempt to argue through legalism. I note very well that Yahshua was dealing with the people where they were to be found, like in the synagogues, to testify through example and word the holy intent of the Sabbath, on the Sabbath. He is my example and lawful support to my testifying of the holiness of the Sabbath, on the Sabbath.

You rely upon “what it sounds like” or the “appearance” but this is exactly why your position stems from legalism. I don’t spend all day on the internet nor is it recreation, but my time given to doing exactly what Yahshua did (of course I don’t claim to do it as well)—and that is testifying about the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, because it is also lawful to do good.

I don't belive it is a sin to be on the internet on Saturday. You're the one who belives there are restrictions on the day's activities, only you seem to be picking and choosing which, and I don't see where they match up with Jesus' example and testimony. Jesus did not spend the day writing letters arguing with other believers over the sabbath. (that would be the closes thing back then to the Internet). that could wait. Direct interaction with people is what he did. Internet boards are usually recreation.
My going to work for my household is "good" also, so under that criteria, there should not be an argument at all over the sabbath. Even Gerhard and I came to that agreement a while back.

But I'll for now grant you all of this, yet now show you how it ultimately proves my point.
So we see with this "doing good" clause that technical 'work' is OK on sabbath, so you can go on this board and argue about the sabbath (as mentally exhausting as this can be), and to you this is the same as plucking ears of grain to feed yourself, healing someone, and lifting an ox out of the ditch, the priest in the Temple, etc. just as long as it is "good".
Then by your own testimony and example, as well as the principles Jesus was giving, here is your proof that the sabbath IS "weak and unprofitable" —IN THE LETTER! The command says "REST" and "NO WORK". But THAT is UNPROFITABLE, because there is GOOD that needs to be done for the Kingdom! What does this leave us with? Physical rest on a particular day of the week is NOT the perfect, profitable intent of the Law. This is all I have been saying, and it the ultimate proof that all the judging over the day is unscriptural. (While not telling them not to keep the day at that [pre-Cross] point, Jesus was showing in principle that it was not perennial).

 

[BobRyan]

God shows that HE created something for MANKIND on each day of creation WEEK - including the Seventh day "made Holy FOR MANKIND".

Recall that in Gen 2:3 there is only Adam and Eve as "mankind".

Genesis 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

And there is where the 7th day of the week given to mankind finds it's origin!

Hence Christ said it was "MADE FOR mankind" Mark 2:27


But Eric says

"Make holy" still does not equate "command everyone else to cease from work on that day immediately and forever".

 

[BobRyan]

We see in Isaiah 66 that the Holy Day of Christ the creator called "the Day of the LORD" in Isaiah 58 - is CONTINUED in the New Heavens and the New Earth for ALL MAKIND "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND" come before Me to Worship.

Hence it is obvious that Christ the Creator did not "Abolish" His own Holy day in the New Covenant.

 

[Eric B]

You have forgotten already the example of marriage, which was also "made holy at Creation", and "for mankind", but not all are obligated to participate in it.

The conditional Milennium under OC Israel has nothing to do with us, now, even if it wasn't derailed by Israel's breaking of the covenant, and God turning to all nations in spite of them.
And ACTUALLY, here's another point: That passage does not say they were RESTing on the day; only coming to worship.

Answer me this.
Man knows that murder and stealing are wrong, but tells us all over the Bible, in both Testemants that it is sin. Man would not know anything about a sabbath except for reading the Law of Moses, and today, people are still not naturally convicted of it.
So why then do we get all of this indirectness in conveying that it's still in effect? We are supposed to figure that
"It was made holy at Creation"
+"God pointed back to this when commanding it to the Israelites"
+"He prophesied it being kept in the Kingdom under Israel"
+"Jesus said it was made for mankind"
="It is still in effect for us now"

How come God is not so indirect with any other command?

 

[Michaeneu]

And the reason some laws passed is very much tied into the "character" of the Law, which you do not seem to understand….
According to you, "weak" could only be the "ceremonial commands", but…. You at will, simply reject all of these other scriptures as "extraneous" and take one chapter in isolation, but they all work TOGETHER, and it's your BELIEF SYSTEM that is forced to make this outrageous claim that this single chapter is THE only one "according to scripture". What other scripture anywhere says "Hebrews chapter seven is THE sole text describing the change in the Law"? That, my friend is YOUR "belief system"

I don’t see anything new here but the same old assertions upon the character of the law, but we are not addressing the character of the law here but HOW IT CHANGED and by what criterion. The character of the law DOES address WHY it changed but it doesn’t address HOW and by what criterion it changed. It can also be upheld that some of the attributes of the ceremonial are also met in the moral—while at the same time that the moral stood alone, but that still does not preclude that Hebrews deals specifically with HOW the law changed while the texts you attempt to import predominately address character. The perfect and profitable laws of the OC are the very precepts pertaining to the “law” intended to be written in the heart and mind of the people of the New Covenant.

“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

You have admitted that some laws passed and that is a tacit acknowledgement of the point I made concerning what the scriptures state concerning HOW THE LAW CHANGED. The laws that Yah declared were “His” pertain to those of the OC and not some mysterious UNIVERSAL laws that are not even addressed in the texts. In truth, one can quote any text in the NT with the term “law” and it can only mean the “law” as it was pertained to Yah’s covenant people unless the context specifically says otherwise and this is why the concept of UNIVERSAL law as your belief system uses it IS frivolous. It is also contradictory to continually uphold the character that the law “hung” together and then attempt to import an alien interpretation of the law concerning the change that occurred.

Let me pull you back to the point that I nver denied that this chapter teaches that distinction in the Law; the debate is to whether that is the ONLY one dealing with it, and therefore only the ceremonies "weak". Even you say "throughout the NT", so there ARE other scriptures on the issue besides this one…. And you keep saying "natural law", but that is a gross misconstruction of what I have said….
And even those WITH the Spirit, are convicted of all the SAME LAWS, plus more; but NOT the sabbath. It is NOT written on our HEARTS. That is, UNLESS, you are willing to conclude that every Christian outside sabbathkeeping sects has quenched the spirit, and you all don't like to be accused of saying that, even though it would be consistent with your belief system….
And you keep saying not to discuss those outside Israel/Sinai/the covenant; but you cannot say they had no law from God of ANY kind, because then; they would not be guilty of "sin"! The fact that God condemns them means he does have a standard they are held accountable to, and it is not the Law of Israel until they actually join Israel (which never did come true, as Israel herself broke the covenant), yet outside of Israel, He did still have basic laws they were to keep.

Let me be clear, since you obviously misconstrued my prior statement, when I stated “throughout the NT” is was referring to the texts that confirm the law that was perfect and profitable and is still part of the New Covenant, such as “thou shalt not kill.” In no way was I stating that these texts address how the law changed, for that is found in Hebrews.

As to the term “natural” versus “universal” I must apologize for my faux pas due to my alacrity. I get to typing quickly and sometimes make such mistakes but let me state that it still doesn’t change the clear evidence from scripture that when the law is addressed it does not mean any type of universal system extraneous from what Yah entrusted to His covenant people.

As to the “quench the spirit” issue, we are addressing a difference of doctrine here on the position of how the law changed, and I could as easily make the same accusations. Are you attempting to quench the Spirit that reveals to me that there is nothing capricious about the issue of standing? Are you attempting to quench that we don’t just merely interpret the morality of the fourth commandment by helter-skelter and whim but by standing, decisiveness and order? That it is fair 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 He gave it the same standing?

Are you suggesting the contrary that Yah is capricious, indecisive and had no reason to place it at parity with other moral precepts? Am I to neglect the essence of context, which is NOT to take something out of its setting? Am I to ignore for the sake of your belief system that it wasn’t man that placed the commandment in the setting of morality?

And as to you last point above, one can discuss UNIVERSAL law all they want; Paul addressed it in Romans chapter two, but then he specifically told us he made reference to the concept. Nevertheless, it is clear that the laws that Yah declared were His pertain to the Old Covenant and not some mysterious UNIVERSAL laws that are not even addressed in the texts. In truth, one can quote any text in the NT with the term “law” and it can only mean the “law” as it was given to Yah’s covenant people unless the context specifically says otherwise and this is why the concept of UNIVERSAL law as your belief system uses it IS frivolous. It is also contradictory to continually uphold the character that the law “hung” together and then attempt to import an alien interpretation of the law concerning the change that occurred.

 

[Michaeneu]

Once again, you said Hebrews 7 was THE text that dealt with this. Now you're coming up with other stuff, because circumcision was not mentioned there. So you need to rethink that "THE text" statement.
Even still, it does not meet the criteria you have given based on Heb7. Circumcision and the civil laws were NOT "shadow sacrifices offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin", which you said were the sole criteria. (You forget all of these broad statements you make, and now you contradict them, admitting oh, there are other criteria after all). This shows that there ARE some other LAWS BESIDES sacrifices mentioned in Heb7. that ARE "Weak shadows" after all!
You have yet to show that those criteria are what SCRIPTURE says determines the perennial laws from the weak shadows. Even Hebrews does not say that, but actually included the "tables" inside the ark with the very "tabernacle" system it says was passing away.

Sorry, your belief system doesn’t work for you here either; circumcision was joined to the shadow of the Passover and the civil law in the OC. In the former, IT IS covered in Hebrews seven through ten, in the latter it was suspended when the crown was taken.

And Jesus also fulfilled the sacrifices, by BEING the sacrifice. He fulfilled circumcision in us be circumcising our ears and hearts. Once again, these other laws were not just thrown out without any sort of fulfillment.

Your neglecting that Yahshua also fulfilled the letter of the ceremonial laws as well as the spirit. And your point still doesn’t overcome that we fulfill the letter and spirit of the OC law that was perfect and profitable, as opposed to any frivolous import of UNIVERSAL law.

I don't get what you're trying to do, when you deny mentioning the fourth commandment, but then go on and discuss God's rest at Creation, which you tie to the fourth commandment, and the claim it didn't point to anything which is supposed to prove the fourth commandment is still in effect.
You seem to be admitting that the "rest" there is the spiritual rest. yet you keep trying to tie it to the literal sabbath day rest. And even though they had both under the Old Covenant; still, as was stated, the law was added because of sin until the promise. You point out that they always had "salvation by faith" and looked forward to a Messiah, but they at the same time still had those "weak" physical sacrifices to remind them. I also can point out that God always expected them to be "circumcised in the heart and ears" yet they still had the practice of physical circumcision. So something coexisting with its spiritual reality does not prove it is not at the same time still a shadow of it, and don't give me that "shadow means forward in time" argument either. We see in these other examples that they DO coexist, and what was in the future was the NEW covenant when the realites would REPLACE the letter of the physical shadows for good because of Christ.

It’s clear that you don’t get what I’m stating about many things here, which I’m not too concerned with; others will understand. But what I will continue to expound upon and clarify is that Yah’s rest at creation DID NOT prefigure the rest in Yahshua; they both were CONCURRENT. The proof is that the Israelites under the first covenant were able to enter into the rest in Yahshua while keeping the fourth commandment, which simply makes your assertion erroneous. Hebrews chapter four cannot be used in any assertion that the fourth commandment prefigured anything!

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.

I don't see where you got the idea I was denying there was standing in the Kingdom. And I don't deny standing in the Law either. The issue is, that you're snatching up another diminuative term you see in the passage and pasting it together with standing in the Kingdom. By Least commandments"; Christ is not saying anything about the sacrifices or whichever other Laws you believe were "Least" That is not the discussion there! That is NOT the discussion there! You cannot find that anywhere in the CONTEXT.

The point I made through the text was that Yahshua is supporting that the law has standing: some part is greater than another, which is also supporting in Hebrews. Some law given as Sinai was imperfect and unprofitable, while some was perfect and profitable. That was the point Yahshua supported by relating the least commandment with standing in the kingdom.

I don't belive it is a sin to be on the internet on Saturday. You're the one who belives there are restrictions on the day's activities, only you seem to be picking and choosing which, and I don't see where they match up with Jesus' example and testimony. Jesus did not spend the day writing letters arguing with other believers over the sabbath. (that would be the closes thing back then to the Internet). that could wait. Direct interaction with people is what he did. Internet boards are usually recreation.
My going to work for my household is "good" also, so under that criteria, there should not be an argument at all over the sabbath. Even Gerhard and I came to that agreement a while back.

Yea, there is a difference in doing our own pleasure and doing Yah’s will. Doing our own pleasure only profits self, while doing Yah’s profits His kingdom. The former is transgression and the latter lawful. Commerce for personal gain is doing our own pleasure, while testifying about the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath profits His kingdom. We can go on about this, but there is still a difference between what is lawful and what is not and you have yet to show that the fourth commandment was a weak shadow that was imperfect or unprofitable.

Michael

 

[Eric B]

I don’t see anything new here but the same old assertions upon the character of the law, but we are not addressing the character of the law here but HOW IT CHANGED and by what criterion. The character of the law DOES address WHY it changed but it doesn’t address HOW and by what criterion it changed. It can also be upheld that some of the attributes of the ceremonial are also met in the moral—while at the same time that the moral stood alone, but that still does not preclude that Hebrews deals specifically with HOW the law changed while the texts you attempt to import predominately address character. The perfect and profitable laws of the OC are the very precepts pertaining to the “law” intended to be written in the heart and mind of the people of the New Covenant.

Let me be clear, since you obviously misconstrued my prior statement, when I stated “throughout the NT” is was referring to the texts that confirm the law that was perfect and profitable and is still part of the New Covenant, such as “thou shalt not kill.” In no way was I stating that these texts address how the law changed, for that is found in Hebrews.

Once again, "How" and "why" are very much tied together here. It seems you're nitpicking with semantics now. The reason it changes is based on the character. God did not just arbitrarily decide to cancel some laws or one arbitrary category of laws ("ceremonial"). You are the one who keeps emphasizing "weak and unprofitable'. That is CHARACTER, and speaks to WHY it changes as well as HOW. Once again, you make up these concepts of distinction that are just not there.

“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

You have admitted that some laws passed and that is a tacit acknowledgement of the point I made concerning what the scriptures state concerning HOW THE LAW CHANGED. The laws that Yah declared were “His” pertain to those of the OC and not some mysterious UNIVERSAL laws that are not even addressed in the texts. In truth, one can quote any text in the NT with the term “law” and it can only mean the “law” as it was pertained to Yah’s covenant people unless the context specifically says otherwise and this is why the concept of UNIVERSAL law as your belief system uses it IS frivolous. It is also contradictory to continually uphold the character that the law “hung” together and then attempt to import an alien interpretation of the law concerning the change that occurred.

As to the term “natural” versus “universal” I must apologize for my faux pas due to my alacrity. I get to typing quickly and sometimes make such mistakes but let me state that it still doesn’t change the clear evidence from scripture that when the law is addressed it does not mean any type of universal system extraneous from what Yah entrusted to His covenant people.

And as to you last point above, one can discuss UNIVERSAL law all they want; Paul addressed it in Romans chapter two, but then he specifically told us he made reference to the concept. Nevertheless, it is clear that the laws that Yah declared were His pertain to the Old Covenant and not some mysterious UNIVERSAL laws that are not even addressed in the texts. In truth, one can quote any text in the NT with the term “law” and it can only mean the “law” as it was given to Yah’s covenant people unless the context specifically says otherwise and this is why the concept of UNIVERSAL law as your belief system uses it IS frivolous. It is also contradictory to continually uphold the character that the law “hung” together and then attempt to import an alien interpretation of the law concerning the change that occurred.

Ah, Romans 2. That was coming up next in my response anyway, and don't forget chapter 1, which goes along with it.
The Laws being "written on the heart" there as well came from God. They are HIS Laws. Man did not write any Laws on his own heart or conscience. Man is fallen for one thing, and only gravititates towards sin anyway, And even when he wasn't fallen, still, the commandments he was to keep came from God who created man.

Obviously these laws that God held even the lost gentiles up to were universal (or perennial) in scope. The same laws would naturally be included in the legal code given to Israel, along with the ceremonial and civil commands of that nation. That is all I have been pointing out, yet you keep denying it, and insisting that the Ten Commandments, no more and no less, are what God writed on man's heart or conscience, then and now. But once again, the sabbath is not written on men's hearts, and even though it was given a high "standing" in the Legal code of Moses, it is still a civil law for that nation only, and you cannot transfer it to everyone else (inclusing "spiritual" Israel). The proof is in the fact that it is not written on our hearts.

As to the “quench the spirit” issue, we are addressing a difference of doctrine here on the position of how the law changed, and I could as easily make the same accusations. Are you attempting to quench the Spirit that reveals to me that there is nothing capricious about the issue of standing? Are you attempting to quench that we don’t just merely interpret the morality of the fourth commandment by helter-skelter and whim but by standing, decisiveness and order? That it is fair 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 He gave it the same standing?

Are you suggesting the contrary that Yah is capricious, indecisive and had no reason to place it at parity with other moral precepts? Am I to neglect the essence of context, which is NOT to take something out of its setting? Am I to ignore for the sake of your belief system that it wasn’t man that placed the commandment in the setting of morality?

You are completely misunderstanding what I was saying regarding "quencuing the Spirit". By trying to turn around an "accussation" tback to me, you must think I was accusing you of quenching the Spirit. Thatis not what I said. What I was saying was that you insist the sabbath is a part of the laws that God writes on our (believers') hearts, but God had not written it on our hearts. That leaves two choices. Either it is not a law that God writes on the heart (and therefore not universal or perennial), or God is trying to write it on our hearts, but WE (all non-sabbathkeeping Christians) are quenching the Spirit through which He writes it (or never had the Spirit to begin with).
And of course, God is not capricious about the Law and its standing, but we are having a misunderstanding about the criterion involved.

 

[Eric B]

Sorry, your belief system doesn’t work for you here either; circumcision was joined to the shadow of the Passover and the civil law in the OC. In the former, IT IS covered in Hebrews seven through ten, in the latter it was suspended when the crown was taken.

What? Where do you get that from? It is not even mentioned in those chapters. Circumcision goes back even before Sinai and the Passover to Abraham. I do believe they were joined to the Law of Moses, and with the concept of universal vs. Mosaic laws can show how they were cancelled together with it. But in your system, where you try to rescue the sabbath out of this, you have to come up with these other systems of division, and they just are not working.

Your neglecting that Yahshua also fulfilled the letter of the ceremonial laws as well as the spirit. And your point still doesn’t overcome that we fulfill the letter and spirit of the OC law that was perfect and profitable, as opposed to any frivolous import of UNIVERSAL law.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled them in the letter when He was alive; and He fulfilled them in the spirit for good when He died. And you keep denying "universal law", but all that is is what is "perfect and profitable". You also called it "perennial". So this is all semantics.

It’s clear that you don’t get what I’m stating about many things here, which I’m not too concerned with; others will understand. But what I will continue to expound upon and clarify is that Yah’s rest at creation DID NOT prefigure the rest in Yahshua; they both were CONCURRENT.

The proof is that the Israelites under the first covenant were able to enter into the rest in Yahshua while keeping the fourth commandment, which simply makes your assertion erroneous. Hebrews chapter four cannot be used in any assertion that the fourth commandment prefigured anything!

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.

[anyone know why it keeps breaking this quote by adding quote tags in the middle?]

I don't think others will understand. Notice, with one recent exception, everyone else has bowed out of the discussion. You are saying a lot of things that don't make sense, and then misunderstand some things I say. So it is not my understanding that is the problem.

Once again, I never said thet God's original rest was a shadow of our spiritual rest. Why do you keep insinuating that? What I said was that it was the model for the literal rest commanded in the Law given to moses/Israel, and that it was this literal rest man was commanded that is a shadow of the spiritual rest. And yes, the shadow and the reality could exist at the same time, just like all the other shadows existed with the realities they pointed to, which one back then could find if they looked hard enough. Physical laws like the sabbaths, sacrifices and circumcision were reminders of the reality, which the people nevertheless often missed (especially when focusing on the letter). That was the point. All throughout Paul's writings and Hebrews, we see that people described as being "under the condemnation of the Law", because they kept missing the reality. But now, it is brought out in focus for us. So we are said to have something they did not have; something BETTER; not just a rehash of all the same laws, only with the sacrifices and civil laws removed. All of this stuff was a tutor to bring us to Christ, and now that we have christ, we are no longer under that tutor of physical do's or don'ts other than the perennial moral commandments of how to love God and our neighbor.
(You earlier tried to say that the sabbath was "abstinence" only, but it is not, because to keep it, many of us have to get up and do something; either find a new job, or in my case, because I am civil service, but don't have seniority to pick Saturdays off; I would end up being forced to midnights (a provision mde for sabbathkeepers without seniority), which, rather than me even getting physical "rest"; I would be jacked up every day, because I cannot sleep during the day and don't recover from being up all night. While this would have been no excuse under the Old Covenant, still, that was Israel's own nation (where they made their own work schdule, and not working for people who did not regard the day), and such law was clearly bound to that nation (Ex.31:13), and therefore would have passed with "the crown" as well as the others, as you said. (we are not a physical nation, so that does not pass over to the "new covenant", even though we do inherit the the position of eing "the people of the covenant"). So putting ones self through this has nothing to do with loving God, or any "moral" principle, --ESPECIALLY if man is not made for the day, but the day made for man-- and is obviously a "tutor" shadow given to Israel to represent the rest we have that most of them didn't).

The point I made through the text was that Yahshua is supporting that the law has standing: some part is greater than another, which is also supporting in Hebrews. Some law given as Sinai was imperfect and unprofitable, while some was perfect and profitable. That was the point Yahshua supported by relating the least commandment with standing in the kingdom.

No, because it did not matter which law you broke, because if you could break this supposed "least" one and be least in the kingdom, then if you broke a "greater" one, you would still be least in the Kingdom. So the standing of the Law is not even the subject there, because it has no bearing on the results.
But since you insist on taking that word so literally, then Jesus must have had a particular law in mind as "the least". Do you know which one it was? Perhaps Lev.22:27? Or maybe Ex.29:31?

Yea, there is a difference in doing our own pleasure and doing Yah’s will. Doing our own pleasure only profits self, while doing Yah’s profits His kingdom. The former is transgression and the latter lawful. Commerce for personal gain is doing our own pleasure, while testifying about the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath profits His kingdom. We can go on about this, but there is still a difference between what is lawful and what is not and you have yet to show that the fourth commandment was a weak shadow that was imperfect or unprofitable.

And now you show a continuation of a legalist concept, which does not withstand the principles Jesus gave, as well as your own reasoning. You now go to the letter of the Law when it suits you, but when shown that you are bending it, then you try to go to the spirit of the Law. (i.e. some physical 'work' IS OK, only if it is in the name of God). Why is working for my household "my own pleasure" or "personal gain/profit", but going on some internet debate which could easily be done any other day is not? You forget the priests in the Temple, and today, the pastors in 7th Day Churches (who generally "profit" personally from it far more than I do). Providing for my household is a "good" God has commanded us to do; just as testifying about God is (and it is the holiness of God that should be the focus of our testimony! We do not worship a DAY!!!) I am not "gaining" anything but food and shelter. i would be not much good for the Kingdom on the streets, (or messed up from working midnights). To flip it around, going to work is God's will, going on this board to just announce to everyone how they are breaking the law and only you are keeping "all the commandments" is your own profit and personal gain as well. (Especially if your doctrine is not even correct!)
God is supposed to be Lord of EVERY day-- our WHOLE lives; not just one day, or particular activities. (which is probably what Jesus would have said if He had extended His "magnification" of the Law on the Sermon on the Mount to the sabbath). So your division of "commerce" and "the Kingdom" just is not as great as you think it is. We are ALWAYs supposed to be doing His will.

Once again, the burden is on you to show that the letter of this is a universal (perennial) necessity in order to love God OR be "moral". Just assuming "all Ten of the Ten commandments are perennial and only the ceremonies were unprofitable" just doesn't do it. As I have asked elsewhere, why isn't it ever a subject of teaching in the NT? Why wasn't anyone keeping it wrong, and being instructed on how to keep it right? Why isn't anyone warned about not keeping it? With all the Gentiles, who had never been accustomed to keeping it now in the fold, and their masters probably not honoring it and making them work, we would have more than just the reference in Heb.4. I know you all like to make this "the test of faith", but clearly it is absent from the NT, depite paltry attempts to read it into Revelation.

 

[Michaeneu]

Once again, "How" and "why" are very much tied together here. It seems you're nitpicking with semantics now. The reason it changes is based on the character. God did not just arbitrarily decide to cancel some laws or one arbitrary category of laws ("ceremonial"). You are the one who keeps emphasizing "weak and unprofitable'. That is CHARACTER, and speaks to WHY it changes as well as HOW. Once again, you make up these concepts of distinction that are just not there.

Weak and unprofitable is the criterion given in Hebrews concerning the change in the law; I’m not importing anything—you are. Clearly, the reason that you have to import the alien idea of universal law is because you attempt to make the character of the law, spirit versus letter, the issue but the issue here is HOW IT CHANGED and by what criterion. That there was always a spiritual intent that was greater than the letter did not change from one covenant to another either. That the NT’s focus is upon the spirit simply does not address “how the law changed” either.

Again, I don’t see anything new here but the same old assertions upon the character of the law, but we are not addressing the character of the law here but HOW IT CHANGED and by what criterion. The character of the law DOES address WHY it changed but it doesn’t address HOW and by what criterion it changed. It can also be upheld that some of the attributes of the ceremonial are also met in the moral—while at the same time that the moral stood alone, but that still does not preclude that Hebrews deals specifically with HOW the law changed while the texts you attempt to import predominately address character.

Ah, Romans 2. That was coming up next in my response anyway, and don't forget chapter 1, which goes along with it.
The Laws being "written on the heart" there as well came from God. They are HIS Laws. Man did not write any Laws on his own heart or conscience...

Again, this simply does not overcome the issue that universal law is frivolous concerning this matter. That Paul addressed that some moral precepts are indicative throughout humanity DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO the import of the concept into the subject of the change of the law as it pertained to the OC. Even Paul made a clear distinction between the covenant law committed to Yah’s covenant people and this concept of universal law.

The laws that Yah declared were “His” pertain to those of the OC and not some mysterious UNIVERSAL laws that are not even addressed in the texts. In truth, one can quote any text in the NT with the term “law” and it can only mean the “law” as it pertained to Yah’s covenant people unless the context specifically says otherwise and this is why the concept of UNIVERSAL law as your belief system uses it IS frivolous. It is also contradictory to continually uphold the character that the law “hung” together and then attempt to import an alien interpretation of the law concerning the change that occurred.

You are completely misunderstanding what I was saying regarding "quencuing the Spirit". By trying to turn around an "accussation" tback to me, you must think I was accusing you of quenching the Spirit. Thatis not what I said. What I was saying was that you insist the sabbath is a part of the laws that God writes on our (believers') hearts, but God had not written it on our hearts. That leaves two choices. Either it is not a law that God writes on the heart (and therefore not universal or perennial), or God is trying to write it on our hearts, but WE (all non-sabbathkeeping Christians) are quenching the Spirit through which He writes it (or never had the Spirit to begin with).
And of course, God is not capricious about the Law and its standing, but we are having a misunderstanding about the criterion involved.

And again, from my experience Yah’s Spirit reveals that there is nothing capricious about the issue of standing and that we don’t just merely interpret the morality of the fourth commandment by helter-skelter and whim but by standing, decisiveness and order? It is fair to say Yah does nothing by chance or whim, but is decisive and there is order to His every act and by placing the fourth commandment in the setting of other moral laws He gave it the same standing. These things can be upheld in the scriptures and lead to sound doctrine on the law that Claudia, Bob and I are in one accord. I simply do not find your doctrine sound or given to proper order concerning what the scriptures state about the law.

What? Where do you get that from? It is not even mentioned in those chapters. Circumcision goes back even before Sinai and the Passover to Abraham. I do believe they were joined to the Law of Moses, and with the concept of universal vs. Mosaic laws can show how they were cancelled together with it. But in your system, where you try to rescue the sabbath out of this, you have to come up with these other systems of division, and they just are not working.

I see how easily you get off point. We were addressing the change of the Old Covenant, not the change of Abraham’s covenant, and by which criterion we determine the ritual of circumcision. Under the OC circumcision was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and a civil ordinance. Again, since it was bound to the shadow law, IT IS covered in Hebrews seven through ten; as it was bound to the civil it was suspended when the crown was taken.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled them in the letter when He was alive; and He fulfilled them in the spirit for good when He died. And you keep denying "universal law", but all that is is what is "perfect and profitable". You also called it "perennial". So this is all semantics.

Nevertheless, Yahshua fulfilled a greater covenant at the cross which the OC ceremonial law had nothing to say about according to scripture.

“If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?... For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” Hebrews 7:11, 14

“For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” Hebrews 8:4-6

The OC ceremonial law prohibited any member of the tribe of Judah as high priest and this becomes the reason why the ceremonial law had to be CANCELLED and not “relaxed” according to scripture. There is simply no scripture that states that the ceremonial sacrifice for sin continues or is relaxed in any “spiritual” capacity into the new covenant, but to the contrary Hebrews declares their end because of the remission of sin. You’re attempting to ease in the concept of “relaxation” of the law again that has no scriptural support. And I don’t have to deny what simply is not there!

 

[Michaeneu]

Once again, I never said thet God's original rest was a shadow of our spiritual rest. Why do you keep insinuating that? What I said was that it was the model for the literal rest commanded in the Law given to moses/Israel, and that it was this literal rest man was commanded that is a shadow of the spiritual rest. And yes, the shadow and the reality could exist at the same time, just like all the other shadows existed with the realities they pointed to, which one back then could find if they looked hard enough. Physical laws like the sabbaths, sacrifices and circumcision were reminders of the reality, which the people nevertheless often missed (especially when focusing on the letter). That was the point. All throughout Paul's writings and Hebrews, we see that people described as being "under the condemnation of the Law", because they kept missing the reality. But now, it is brought out in focus for us. So we are said to have something they did not have; something BETTER; not just a rehash of all the same laws, only with the sacrifices and civil laws removed. All of this stuff was a tutor to bring us to Christ, and now that we have christ, we are no longer under that tutor of physical do's or don'ts other than the perennial moral commandments of how to love God and our neighbor.

If you think that Hebrews chapter four says all that, then it is clear that you are the one not making sense here. As I stated the text says absolutely NOTHING about the law or any commandment. You are adding volumes to Yah’s word here. I don’t think that’s hard for anyone to understand. The text in question is merely and profoundly an analogy of Yah’s rest at creation and the rest in Yahshua, which is of faith. You go way beyond what the texts say to further your personal belief system!

According to Hebrews chapter four Yah’s rest at creation DID NOT prefigure the rest in Yahshua; they were CONCURRENT. The proof is that the Israelites under the first covenant were able to enter into the rest in Yahshua while keeping the fourth commandment, which simply makes your assertion erroneous. Hebrews chapter four cannot be used in any assertion that the fourth commandment prefigured anything!

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.

No, because it did not matter which law you broke, because if you could break this supposed "least" one and be least in the kingdom, then if you broke a "greater" one, you would still be least in the Kingdom. So the standing of the Law is not even the subject there, because it has no bearing on the results.
But since you insist on taking that word so literally, then Jesus must have had a particular law in mind as "the least". Do you know which one it was? Perhaps Lev.22:27? Or maybe Ex.29:31?

Clearly, we are judged by the law.

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

Even amongst the heathen great rule is determined by knowledge and ministry of their law and it is no difference in Yah’s kingdom. The greatest ability to minister belongs to those who have the greatest understanding of the law and adhere to it with the proper spirit. Ignorance of the law and opposition to it SHALL NOT receive great standing in Yah’s kingdom, which is the essence of what Yahshua relates in the text in question.

As to rank Matthew chapter twenty-two summarizes the law into two great commandments and those relating to man are second to those relating to Yah for it is ultimately a greater offence to transgress against Yah than it is against men. Blasphemy is unpardonable and against the first commandment, but there is noting unpardonable concerning the second commandment; that is standing; the first commandment is greater than the second. Consequently, if someone were to break and teach others to offend on a point of the second table and then repent, his standing would yet be better than someone who offended against the first table in like manner, since the greater offence is against Yah, while the lesser is against another man.

Why is working for my household "my own pleasure" or "personal gain/profit", but going on some internet debate which could easily be done any other day is not? You forget the priests in the Temple, and today, the pastors in 7th Day Churches (who generally "profit" personally from it far more than I do). Providing for my household is a "good" God has commanded us to do; just as testifying about God is (and it is the holiness of God that should be the focus of our testimony! We do not worship a DAY!!!) I am not "gaining" anything but food and shelter. i would be not much good for the Kingdom on the streets, (or messed up from working midnights)….
Once again, the burden is on you to show that the letter of this is a universal (perennial) necessity in order to love God...

First, upholding the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath is exactly what Yahshua did, so I have his precedent; you have no precedent in scripture whatsoever that commerce for personal gain is lawful on the Sabbath. Pulling an ox out of the ditch or healing is not commerce for personal gain. The debate is whether the fourth commandment was cancelled at the cross because it was a weak shadow that was unprofitable and imperfect, which you have yet to do.

Let me respond here to a previous statement made. Following Yahshua always costs us something, otherwise he would not have warned us that he had not come to send peace or beckon us to take-up his cross. This is a perennial principle in the scriptures and what separates us from the Ethnos. Consequently, I can empathize about hardships that are encountered when one is confronted with choices on the straight and narrow road, but I can’t empathize when one uses hardships as an excuse not to take up the cross. I have endured and am enduring too much hardship for living by the Word to empathize with those who use hardship to deny sound doctrine. In the end many will come to him and be turned away because of lawlessness, and not legalism. Let us error on the side of the law and not on the side of lawlessness.

“Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but the ones who do the will of My father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name,... And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, those working lawlessness!” The Interlinear Bible, Matthew 7:21-23

Michael

 

[Eric B]

Weak and unprofitable is the criterion given in Hebrews concerning the change in the law; I’m not importing anything—you are. Clearly, the reason that you have to import the alien idea of universal law is because you attempt to make the character of the law, spirit versus letter, the issue but the issue here is HOW IT CHANGED and by what criterion. That there was always a spiritual intent that was greater than the letter did not change from one covenant to another either. That the NT’s focus is upon the spirit simply does not address “how the law changed” either.

Again, I don’t see anything new here but the same old assertions upon the character of the law, but we are not addressing the character of the law here but HOW IT CHANGED and by what criterion. The character of the law DOES address WHY it changed but it doesn’t address HOW and by what criterion it changed. It can also be upheld that some of the attributes of the ceremonial are also met in the moral—while at the same time that the moral stood alone, but that still does not preclude that Hebrews deals specifically with HOW the law changed while the texts you attempt to import predominately address character.

Again, this simply does not overcome the issue that universal law is frivolous concerning this matter. That Paul addressed that some moral precepts are indicative throughout humanity DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO the import of the concept into the subject of the change of the law as it pertained to the OC. Even Paul made a clear distinction between the covenant law committed to Yah’s covenant people and this concept of universal law.

The laws that Yah declared were “His” pertain to those of the OC and not some mysterious UNIVERSAL laws that are not even addressed in the texts. In truth, one can quote any text in the NT with the term “law” and it can only mean the “law” as it pertained to Yah’s covenant people unless the context specifically says otherwise and this is why the concept of UNIVERSAL law as your belief system uses it IS frivolous. It is also contradictory to continually uphold the character that the law “hung” together and then attempt to import an alien interpretation of the law concerning the change that occurred.

This does not answer my point that all moral laws come from God. Man did not write the laws aginst kippling or stealn on his own heart, so your distinction between "universal law" and "God's LAws is what is frivolous.

And again, from my experience Yah’s Spirit reveals that there is nothing capricious about the issue of standing and that we don’t just merely interpret the morality of the fourth commandment by helter-skelter and whim but by standing, decisiveness and order? It is fair to say Yah does nothing by chance or whim, but is decisive and there is order to His every act and by placing the fourth commandment in the setting of other moral laws He gave it the same standing. These things can be upheld in the scriptures and lead to sound doctrine on the law that Claudia, Bob and I are in one accord. I simply do not find your doctrine sound or given to proper order concerning what the scriptures state about the law.

This does not answer my point that the sabbath is not written on the heart. So even with your "distinction of "My [God's] Laws" versus man's laws, it does not fit the description. Your side's doctrine is not sound at all, but based on inference piled up on top of inference. You have absolutely no scriptural proof that the sabbath is still binding today. Even Isaiah 66 does not say they would be refraining from work then.

I see how easily you get off point. We were addressing the change of the Old Covenant, not the change of Abraham’s covenant, and by which criterion we determine the ritual of circumcision. Under the OC circumcision was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and a civil ordinance. Again, since it was bound to the shadow law, IT IS covered in Hebrews seven through ten; as it was bound to the civil it was suspended when the crown was taken.

I;m not the one getting off the point. You are the one claiming circumcision is apart of the Passover, and you do not show this, you just assert it. You haven't even given a single proof-text for this assertion.

Nevertheless, Yahshua fulfilled a greater covenant at the cross which the OC ceremonial law had nothing to say about according to scripture.

“If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?... For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” Hebrews 7:11, 14

“For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” Hebrews 8:4-6

The OC ceremonial law prohibited any member of the tribe of Judah as high priest and this becomes the reason why the ceremonial law had to be CANCELLED and not “relaxed” according to scripture. There is simply no scripture that states that the ceremonial sacrifice for sin continues or is relaxed in any “spiritual” capacity into the new covenant, but to the contrary Hebrews declares their end because of the remission of sin. You’re attempting to ease in the concept of “relaxation” of the law again that has no scriptural support. And I don’t have to deny what simply is not there!

This still does not answer my points that even though the covenant passed, and the laws were "cancelled"; they were still not just thrown away with no sort of fulfillment. You then go back to the debate of "relaxation versus cancellation"; But I was not even discussing that, at this point. What you seem to be arguing now sounds like it would suggest then that the sacrifices were not even shadows of Jesus. They were just dumped altogether and Jesus had nothing to do with them.

If you think that Hebrews chapter four says all that, then it is clear that you are the one not making sense here. As I stated the text says absolutely NOTHING about the law or any commandment. You are adding volumes to Yah’s word here. I don’t think that’s hard for anyone to understand. The text in question is merely and profoundly an analogy of Yah’s rest at creation and the rest in Yahshua, which is of faith. You go way beyond what the texts say to further your personal belief system!

According to Hebrews chapter four Yah’s rest at creation DID NOT prefigure the rest in Yahshua; they were CONCURRENT. The proof is that the Israelites under the first covenant were able to enter into the rest in Yahshua while keeping the fourth commandment, which simply makes your assertion erroneous. Hebrews chapter four cannot be used in any assertion that the fourth commandment prefigured anything!

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.

Again, you gloss over what I have actually said and inject your own words into my mouth. I did not say God's rest prefigured rest in Jesus; and I explained how the literal rest and spiritual rest could exist at the same time and one still ebe a temporary shadow "reminder" of the other. (and it's your side that keeps saying the sabbath commandment is in the chapter).

You have skirted over all the above issues now, and are just repeating the same disproven things. That is not sound doctrine.

 

[Eric B]

Clearly, we are judged by the law.

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

Even amongst the heathen great rule is determined by knowledge and ministry of their law and it is no difference in Yah’s kingdom. The greatest ability to minister belongs to those who have the greatest understanding of the law and adhere to it with the proper spirit. Ignorance of the law and opposition to it SHALL NOT receive great standing in Yah’s kingdom, which is the essence of what Yahshua relates in the text in question.

As to rank Matthew chapter twenty-two summarizes the law into two great commandments and those relating to man are second to those relating to Yah for it is ultimately a greater offence to transgress against Yah than it is against men. Blasphemy is unpardonable and against the first commandment, but there is noting unpardonable concerning the second commandment; that is standing; the first commandment is greater than the second. Consequently, if someone were to break and teach others to offend on a point of the second table and then repent, his standing would yet be better than someone who offended against the first table in like manner, since the greater offence is against Yah, while the lesser is against another man.

Well, at least in this area, we are getting somewhere outside of the same old cycle.
The unpardonable sin was not just any blasphemy; but blasphemy against the Spirit. Look where He even says there that blasphemy aginast the Son shall be forgive. Blasphemy against the Spirit was denying the power, by which they would cut off all acess to God's regeneration and salvation.
And even the distinction between the greatest Two commandments says nothing about the ceremonies, or that this "standing" is why some laws woudl pass.

First, upholding the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath is exactly what Yahshua did, so I have his precedent; you have no precedent in scripture whatsoever that commerce for personal gain is lawful on the Sabbath. Pulling an ox out of the ditch or healing is not commerce for personal gain. The debate is whether the fourth commandment was cancelled at the cross because it was a weak shadow that was unprofitable and imperfect, which you have yet to do.

Let me respond here to a previous statement made. Following Yahshua always costs us something, otherwise he would not have warned us that he had not come to send peace or beckon us to take-up his cross. This is a perennial principle in the scriptures and what separates us from the Ethnos. Consequently, I can empathize about hardships that are encountered when one is confronted with choices on the straight and narrow road, but I can’t empathize when one uses hardships as an excuse not to take up the cross. I have endured and am enduring too much hardship for living by the Word to empathize with those who use hardship to deny sound doctrine. In the end many will come to him and be turned away because of lawlessness, and not legalism. Let us error on the side of the law and not on the side of lawlessness.

“Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but the ones who do the will of My father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name,... And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, those working lawlessness!” The Interlinear Bible, Matthew 7:21-23

So now salvation rests on one putting thelselves through that "hardship" in the name of "the cross". But once they do, they can spend the day on the computer in almost fruitless debates about the sabbath, and as long as it is about God, it is not personal recreation. This sounds so much like the meticulous rationalization schemes the Jews used to set their standards on the sabbath and the rest of the Law, and we know what Jesus said about them. The only difference is, yours is less "restrictive". But it is restrictive enough to cause problems, yet once again, I do not see this ever as such a problem in the NT, which it would be if all those gentiles all of a sudden had to start keeping the sabbath.
Since you reject the concept of the spirit vs. the letter and how it is being addressed in Heb4, you continue to make this discrtinction of "commerce" and "the Kingdom", but in a very spiritual sense, we are in the Kingdom, and the two areas have combined, as God is to be Lord of our whole lives, meaning every day, not just one day. Focusing on the letter, you miss this, and still have lists of accepatable and unacceptable activities, which are set in a way to be "hard" enough that you can boast of "hardship for the Cross" and judge others, but still convenient enough where you want it to be. But in all this, you forget that "by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified". And not just any hardship one putes themselves through is really of the Cross. Look at many other religions that think and live that way.

 

[BobRyan]

We see in Isaiah 66 that the Holy Day of Christ the creator called "the Day of the LORD" in Isaiah 58 - is CONTINUED in the New Heavens and the New Earth for ALL MAKIND "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND" come before Me to Worship.

Hence it is obvious that Christ the Creator did not "Abolish" His own Holy day in the New Covenant.

God shows that HE created something for MANKIND on each day of creation WEEK - including the Seventh day "made Holy FOR MANKIND".

Recall that in Gen 2:3 there is only Adam and Eve as "mankind".

Quote:
Genesis 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.


And there is where the 7th day of the week given to mankind finds it's origin!

Hence Christ said it was "MADE FOR mankind" Mark 2:27


But Eric says

Quote:
"Make holy" still does not equate "command everyone else to cease from work on that day immediately and forever".

Eric said
You have forgotten already the example of marriage, which was also "made holy at Creation", and "for mankind", but not all are obligated to participate in it.

Marriage was MADE for mankind. That means that ALL must respect and honor Marriage. ALL are "Children" of parents (as it turns out). ALL must honor and respect the marriage of OTHERS and of their parents.

For marriage was made FOR mankind as a blessing. However God does not say of marriage the SAME sweeping statements that he makes for HIS OWN Seventh-day Holy day!

In the case of the Seventh day God says "From Sabbath to Sabbath SHALL ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

He does not say "From Year to year shall ALL MANKIND come before me to be married or renew marriage vows".

God says "that as GOD rested on the Seventh-day" - SO shall you BECAUSE of the Gen 2:3 fact "alone" where God "MADE the Day Holy"!

God does not say "For as Adam was joined to Eve in Marriage so must you all do likewise" - rather he argues that those WHO DO participate in marriage must follow the "for all mankind" model when they do it and those who DO NOT participate in it must still show the honor and respect for the institution that all must have.

As Isaiah 66 shows this "does not change in the future" of the New Heavens and New Earth. Exegesis demands that we admit that Isaiah's concept of "Sabbath" was every bit what John the baptizer, David, and Adam would have had OT!

 

[Eric B]

Marriage was MADE for mankind. That means that ALL must respect and honor Marriage. ALL are "Children" of parents (as it turns out). ALL must honor and respect the marriage of OTHERS and of their parents.

For marriage was made FOR mankind as a blessing. However God does not say of marriage the SAME sweeping statements that he makes for HIS OWN Seventh-day Holy day!

God does not say "For as Adam was joined to Eve in Marriage so must you all do likewise" - rather he argues that those WHO DO participate in marriage must follow the "for all mankind" model when they do it and those who DO NOT participate in it must still show the honor and respect for the institution that all must have.

It is amazing how you are just make up this concept by fiat to justify your doctrine.
You seem to be trying to prove that even the person who does not participate in marriage is still "participating" in a way, or "honoring" it in the same way that a person "honors" the sabbath; as if he is under the "Law of marriage". And "honoring" one's parents' marriage? That is still not "participating" in what God made "for mankind".
All of that is not how the Bible defines "honoring" marriage. Romans 7:2-3 says "The woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband...she is free from that Law so that she is no adulteress though she be married to another man".

But Bob says "NO! She is STILL BOUND to the law of marriage, because she must 'honor' her parent's marriage, and everyone else's marriage". We must use scriptures definitions of its own concepts, Bob!

In the case of the Seventh day God says "From Sabbath to Sabbath SHALL ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

He does not say "From Year to year shall ALL MANKIND come before me to be married or renew marriage vows".

God says "that as GOD rested on the Seventh-day" - SO shall you BECAUSE of the Gen 2:3 fact "alone" where God "MADE the Day Holy"!

As Isaiah 66 shows this "does not change in the future" of the New Heavens and New Earth. Exegesis demands that we admit that Isaiah's concept of "Sabbath" was every bit what John the baptizer, David, and Adam would have had OT!

You missed where I said above to Michael "Even Isaiah 66 does not say they would be refraining from work then". He says "come before Me"; that alone is not "KEEPing" it in the sense that He commanded Israel. And you've repeatedly missed where I have said that to apply God's original "rest" to man is no comparison, because man was not creating, and God did not go back to work on the eighth day! There is no comparison. That was not a command for man to do likewise; and none was given until Exodus. God does not say "As I commanded all mankind, and all the faithful since Adam have kept the day since I sanctified it at Creation; so are you to rest". It was something He was giving them for the first time.

It's amzing that you can come up with such "mental gymnastics" (as one of the Cocers says), and think you really have a case against all non-sabbathkeepers.

 

[Eric B]

A couple of pertinent points I forgot from this morning, in the rush:

1) People will be lost because of lawlessness; not legalism; Let us error on the side of the law and not on the side of lawlessness.

This is precisely the mindset of the Jews, and precisely why they added so many "manmade restrictions" (which you all take care disclaim), in the first place! In fact, we can even see the latent lawlessness in the claim that it is actually OK to "error"; just as long as it is "on the side of Law". That is actually a form of lawlessness! Only the person comitting it decides for himself what is bends or does not bend the law; just like "corban".This is precisely the mindset that Christ and Paul attacked all ovetr the NT. AND; it also is precisely what the "rest in Christ" in Heb.4 is NOT! This "just to be on the safe side" mentality is exactly what the "rest" is FROM.
Ironic that claims of "legalism" were actually thrown at me for a long while; but this makes it further clear who the legalist really is!

2)using hardships as an excuse not to take up the cross

Once again, in the rush, I forgot to mention the obvious point that I have been through this "hardship" before, leaving one job, and losing another over it. So I am not just justifying avoiding a hardship. I have endure it before. I would not have abandened the practice if the argumentation used for it had not been so flawed; as someone showed me back then. These arguments are purely FLIMSY, and as I have said; it all boils down to mere inferences. You all have produced no scripture talling us to put ourselves through this burden today. Just Creation; Exodus, and Isaiah. Everything BUT NT instruction!

 

[Michaeneu]

This does not answer my point that all moral laws come from God. Man did not write the laws aginst kippling or stealn on his own heart, so your distinction between "universal law" and "God's LAws is what is frivolous.

No one is denying that moral law stems from Yah! That’s your straw man. But that DOES NOT automatically translate into the abolishment of the fourth commandment or that it was NOT intended as moral. And this straw man doesn’t preclude that you haven’t proven that “universal law” is the object when THE LAW is addressed in scripture OR that the fourth commandment fell under the criterion of the law that was cancelled. It is you that made the assertion that “universal law” had to taken into consideration concerning how the OC changed and so it is you that has to prove it and you have simply failed in this assertion. It was also you that made assertions concerning context and have failed to address that the context of the NT does not allow for any alien identity for the term “law” outside of the covenant UNLESS the context specifically states otherwise! As I stated previously, even in context of Romans chapter two there is a clear distinction between “universal law” and the covenant law.

Consequently, we ARE NOT to identify “universal law” as the object when THE LAW is addressed in scripture, but identify the LAW with the covenant when the law is addressed in scripture. Again, when the law is addressed in scripture it pertains to the covenant, which is distinguished from any “universal” identity. That the Ethnos had some part of the law written in their heart is incidental or frivolous to the issue of THE LAW OF THE COVENANT, not momentous as you are attempting to imply. (It is also noteworthy to address the perception of the law “written in the heart” concerning the Ethnos in Romans chapter two. It would be frivolous to interpret that it was written in any greater capacity than it was written in the covenant people—quite the opposite. Paul is addressing the hypocrites among the Jews, but not all Jews were hypocrites.)

This is what makes the issue of “universal law” frivolous concerning the issue of HOW THE LAW CHANGED. The object of how the law changed relates strictly to the covenant law and does not represent or include some identity to “universal law”.

This does not answer my point that the sabbath is not written on the heart. So even with your "distinction of "My [God's] Laws" versus man's laws, it does not fit the description. Your side's doctrine is not sound at all, but based on inference piled up on top of inference. You have absolutely no scriptural proof that the sabbath is still binding today. Even Isaiah 66 does not say they would be refraining from work then.

What is “inference” is that the fourth commandment was abrogated by the cross. There is not one place in the NT where it states that the fourth commandment was done away with at the cross, and what Yah has sanctified let no man desecrate without the specific command by Yah that its holiness has abated. What is unsound doctrine is attempting to assert that Yah commits acts of caprice and is arbitrary in His providence. Unsound doctrine upholds that the Spirit was capricious concerning the issue of standing and that is was a superfluous act by Yah to place the fourth commandment along side the greatest moral precepts of all? What is unsound doctrine is to suggest that Yah is anything other than immutable, that He is the same yesterday, today and forever—which would have THE SAME PROHIBITIONS connected with the law of the fourth commandment under the new heavens and earth!

I;m not the one getting off the point. You are the one claiming circumcision is apart of the Passover, and you do not show this, you just assert it. You haven't even given a single proof-text for this assertion.

You got off point when you attempted to import the circumcision of Abraham into the issue. We are dealing with the change of the Sinai covenant and not Abraham’s covenant. You’ve been the one making assertions without the aid of texts, so I just followed your example after some time. In Exodus chapter twelve they are first told that they are not to allow strangers or aliens to partake of the Passover without being circumcised. This is the issue in Galatians because the civil law required that upon the eighth-day after birth males were to be circumcised (Leviticus 12:3). It is clear that Paul was addressing the shadow law in Galatians because the Gentiles did not fall under the civil ordinance requirement. Circumcision was joined to the shadow of the Passover and the civil law in the OC. In the former, IT IS covered in Hebrews seven through ten, in the latter it was suspended when the crown was taken.

This still does not answer my points that even though the covenant passed, and the laws were "cancelled"; they were still not just thrown away with no sort of fulfillment. You then go back to the debate of "relaxation versus cancellation"; But I was not even discussing that, at this point. What you seem to be arguing now sounds like it would suggest then that the sacrifices were not even shadows of Jesus. They were just dumped altogether and Jesus had nothing to do with them.

Yes it does because it is a non sequitur that something is “cancelled” that is to “continue”. Something that is cancelled ends and does not continue. It is clear that you always have to resort to some re-interpretation of the term “cancel” as “to relax and carry on”, which is by definition contradictory and erroneous. Where there is remission of sin there in NO MORE offering for sin, which means an ending, not a continuation.

The reason that you attempt to transfer some part of the ceremonial law into the New Covenant is to uphold the untenable idea that the spirit of the law is kept while the letter was done away with in the New Covenant, but no such thing is supported in the NT. The focus changed to the spirit but the letter is still valid: the letter of “thou shalt not kill” is still written in the heart as well as the spirit of “love thy neighbor as thyself” and etcetera; that is how the law is magnified. That there was always a spiritual intent that was greater than the letter did not change from one covenant to another. That the NT’s focus is upon the spirit simply does not address “how the law changed” either since the letter of the laws that were not cancelled was magnified concurrently.