How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

[Eric B]

As to orthodoxy, you are right; duration of wrong exegesis does not make it right; the papacy is prima fascia evidence of this. Historically there has always been a minority of seventh-day Sabbath keepers, but then again, majority consensus is a poor excuse for poor exegesis. Clearly, your belief system has some great discrepancies with the scriptures as I’ve pointed out and if you can’t reconcile them then the problem lies with your doctrine, not mine.

And the "sabbath keepers" were not some underground Church suceedded fromt he apostles driven down by some Sunday conspiracy. They were sects that arose, from time to time. At first, many Jews originally continued to keep the day, while gentiles did not. As Paul taught, they were not to judge each other over it. Unfortunately, the Church began to necome anti-semitic, and then discouraged sabbathkeeping. It would later surface here and there in Church histoey. Remember; I was once a sabbathkeeper, and well familiar with SDA and Armstrong literature, including their claims of an undergound sabbathkeeping succession. But looking at their opwn literature, you can see it is overblown. Bacchiochi mentions groups where they kept both Sabbath and Sunday. Then you had the Ebionites who did likewise, but were aberrant, later rejecting Paul (I wonder why!!) There is no evidence that this was any succesion from the apostles, since these groups stood out from the rest of the Church. They even try to claim that the Waldensians were sabbathkeepers, but the SDA's own book "History of the Waldensians" shows that they were nothing more than 8th-12th century Catholics who opposed Rome's increasing corruption. People even try to use the Albigenses/Catharii, but these groups were completely paganized. Then, some few obscure anabaptist groups kept the sabbath. But that is IT. No unbroken succession of any "true" sabbathkeeping Church.
You speak of "arbitrariness" and "capriciousness", but you argue here of some "forgotten commandment", which one one hand, is completely obscured in the NT, not even commanded or instructed on there, and was not recognized by the testimony of Christ's Church (true or corrupted) from the beginning, but it is the greatest commandment of God, so great Satan launched a great conspiracy to bury it, and we "should know" it is still in effect anyway.

As to your interpretation of “but now I say unto you”, that is nothing more than magnification of the law. 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 is magnified concurrently.

My point there was that it still was a different Law, not "the Law of the [Old] Covenant", as you assert. And you do not whow where the sabbath is reinstituted, let alone "magnified" in the New. You just insist on transferring it over from the Old Covenant.

Concerning the criterion of HOW the law changed you have yet to show that the fourth commandment was a weak shadow that was unprofitable and imperfect. Obviously Hebrew chapter four does nothing to support such a notion and Colossians 2:14-17 actually supports the criterion given in Hebrews because the list of ceremonial oblations in Colossians were “a shadow of good things to come” from the perspective of the Old Covenant. The sabbath days (from when the italicizes word comes from) in Leviticus chapter twenty-three satisfies the sabbath days in Colossians. The ceremonial list of oblations is followed with an adjective clause, WHICH ARE, that introduces and noun clause that modifies the list. The sabbaths in Colossians chapter two are modified to represent shadows. As I stated previously you have yet to show in the scriptures that the Sabbath prefigured anything. The Sabbath is revealed as a MEMORIAL in scripture, not a shadow that prefigures something! Memorials point backwards not forward! There is not one place in the NT where it states that the fourth commandment was done away with at the cross because it was a weak shadow that was unprofitable and imperfect, and what Yah has sanctified let no man desecrate without the specific command by Yah that its holiness has abated.

As I stated previously you have yet to show in the scriptures that the fourth commandment prefigured anything. There is nothing added by my exegesis, while yours takes away from what the texts truly states.

Your whole little grammar lesson there still ignores the basic fact that "sabbath" ("days" is added") is still distinct from "an holy day". The Holy days are the annual sabbaths of Lev.23. The "Sabbath" then is the weekly sabbath. Here is you scriptural proof that it is a shadow, whether you think a memorial can point forward or not. (It's not the "memorial" aspect of it that makes it a shadow anyway, but rather the purpose of "resting" as will be discussed later). Why do you keep ignoring pertinent points like they were never said, and then keep beating up straw men? You cannot prove that the sabbath was not a shadow by rejecting the proof that it is and substituting it with your own system of criteria.

As to the forth commandment being written it the heart of the believer, since you or I can’t look into the heart and mind of the believer this evidence is not PRIVY to either of us. But what is PRIVY to both of us is that in order to uphold your doctrine we must reason from scripture that all 613 commandments were of equal rank and that Yah’s act of placing the fourth commandment together with the greatest of all commandments was a superfluous act of caprice and His purpose in providence is arbitrary. For someone who states that he understands the issue of STANDING and the criterion of how the law changed the aforementioned is contradictory and based upon unsound doctrine and exegesis.

That's a non-answer, and you even recycle what you've already said before, (which was answered above). That is the ultimate disproof of your view, You claim the "perennial, greatest moral commands" are written on our hearts. But the sabbath is not. W vannot look into other believer's hearts, but I can remember my own, before I was a Christian, and while I knew that killing and stealing were wrong, abd had some sense that there was a God who should be respected, though I felt there wasn;t enough proof of the Bible's view, and even had the sense that adultery was wrong, even though I despised the preachers' constant shouting of thes Law. I had no knowlede that the 7th day sabbath existed. Then, when I became a Christian, I was of a sabbatarian persuasion through Armstrongism and SDAism. But this was purely an intellectual assent, not in the heart, and it quickly melted away when I was shown the scriptures on the Law and the NT. And then, there's the testimony of all the other born again believersm unless you are going to say we are all lost reprobates.

Until you understand that everyone’s sins WERE remitted by ONE ACT of the new Melchisedec order (the very first act of the Melchisedec order), then you’ll continue an attempt to transfer some part of the ceremonial law into the New Covenant to uphold the untenable idea that the spirit of the law is kept while the letter was done away in the New Covenant. We no longer HAVE the remission of sin because they WERE ALREADY remitted, even the elect who have not yet been born.

“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Hebrews 9:24-26

The remission of sin is past tense, fulfilled, not a continuing action that upholds this untenable doctrine of yours that the letter was “relaxed” for the spirit of the law.

Yes, the act that gave us remission of sins is past, and that means it affects us today, and hence the principle of the atonement system continues. If it does not continue, then the remission of sins does not continue, and the act apparently does not reach forward to us.

 

[genesis12]

Too lerned stuff for a weary man. Plain Scriptures would much better explain 'how the Law' was changed! And was it changed! It was nailed to cross.

Thank you, Gerhard.

 

[Eric B]

One can attempt to stick their head in the sand concerning the lawlessness of our time, but it certainly cannot be upheld that legalism is a problem with the majority of the Christians believing as you do that the Ten Commandments were, as you put it, NEVER a perfect perennial unit (at least not until the issue of the Sabbath rears itself). It becomes easily upheld that legalism is not a major problem with the majority of Christianity today, but to deny that lawlessness abounds today is a denial of the abortion statistics, divorce statistics, the crime statistics and I could go on and on. But I did not merely rely on such criterion but quoted scripture that supports that, “in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof…” 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

You start talking about Christians not "believe the Ten Commandments were a perfect perennial unit", then you go on with the sins common in the world. Yes, some of those things do occur in the Church, but not as rampant as in the world, and not among true believers (unless severly backslidden and none of us condones that) as the Church has been the leading voice against oll of this. You're making the old sabbatarian fallacy that because we do not keep the sabbath, we are "against all law", and therefore lump us together with modern society and attribute all the sins of the world to us. That is fallacious reasoning. Like another statement from last week I meant to address: We think the Law is "superflous" because we do not keep the sabbath because we do not believe your system of "standing". (once again, we do acknowledge standing, else we would either be breaking ALL, or keeping ALL). We have a disageeement as to whether the sabbath is still in effect. The does not equal "lawlessness", and has nothing to do with the sins of the unregenerate world. As I said, much of the world was driven to its lawlessness precisely because the Church of the past was so legalistic (even if it did replace the sabbath with Sunday).

All of the above is in the nature of antinomianism, lawlessness, not legalism. Legalism is a problem with those who are jealous for the law but percentile wise those who are jealous for the law are but a minority in Christendom. For this reason legalism is simply not a personal problem with your belief system; antinomianism is. While I have no problem admitting that legalism can be a personal problem in my belief system (doesn’t have to be though, because legalism wasn’t a problem for Yahshua who fulfilled the law); nevertheless, your belief system relies on legalism against any who uphold the perennial nature of the fourth commandment.

Yes, I’d rather error on the side of the law than pursue the antinomianism of your belief system, which too often resorts to legalism to expedite its arguments against the law. It is the tenets of antinomianism and legalism that twists upholding the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath as unlawful.

You are tossing around that word "antinomian" with abandon again. Do you even know the meaning of these words you love to use? "Antinomianism" is no mere synonym for "lawlessness", which is what you are accusing me of. It specifically means "AGAINST THE NAME". "anti"-against, "nom"-name. The "name" in this case is "Christian". So this is those who live conrary to Christian doctrine and practice. People who live in adultery, murder, stealing, blasphemy and call themselve a Christian are "antinomians". You're claiming we are antinomian for not keeping the sabbath or "recognizing its standing". Which means that we are not living as Christians. But Christians have never been known by keeping the sabbath. The sabbath is still associated by everyone with the Jews. Meanwhile, Jesus Himself tells us "By THIS shall men know you are my disciples: If you have LOVE for one another" (Certainly not fighting and accusing over the sabbath!) All of history and scripture speaks against your view, so you cannot say we are living contrary to the name "Christian" for not keeping the sabbath. Once again, all you can appeal to is some ahistorical Sunday conspiracy, or that God was playing a game with us by allowing the entire Church to stamp out His most important commandment (when no others have been stamped out like that), thus creating as Armstrong calls it "the test commandment", where we are "supposed to know" that it is still in effect, let alone the greatest, even though it is obscured -- not even commanded or instructed in the NT. However, those who place themselves under the Law are closer to anything to being "against the name", as Paul shows in Galatians and elsewhere.
And at the same time; I'n ot using "legalism" to expedite my argument; you are using lawlessness to expedite yours. This shows that both legalism and lawlessness are two sides of the same coin (they both stem from the sin problem of man), so "whichever one is the worse problem" is a distraction.

Again, I have Yahshua example and testimony; you have neither.

Yes, I have Christ's example and testimony of the principle that while "work" was "forbidden" on the day, it was still allowable. The command said "NO WORK". Christ even said that the examples He used (David and the priests) VIOLATED the command, but were "blameless". You're basically saying they did not violate the command, because the sabbath never really restricted that much; it is only my "legalistic" argumet used to expedite antinomianism. While they were still under the LAw then, and Christ kept the sabbath, this shows us the principle of the spirit of the Law that physical rest is not the perennial command of the Law.

And of course it never entered your mind that I was speaking of erring on the side of liberality, which is contrary to legalism, but which also strives to hit the mark concerning the law.

Your legalist view of the law is revealed immediately when you interpret “magnify” to mean severity or mortification, which is simply not the meaning, otherwise the law would not be called “the perfect law of liberty”.

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

Of course the context is the commandments of the stone tables, and this certainly applies to the forth commandment that frees us from toil (buying merchandise, which causes others to labor, or selling our labor) in a perennial periodic rest for the benefit of our minds and bodies and our relation with Yah. It is your belief system that must associate magnification with severity and mortification concerning the fourth commandment in order to place a stigma upon the commandment, which is nothing less than an expedient, legalist argument for the sake of a psychological edge.

When I claim that the sabbath is "magnified" in Heb.4 by applying to our rest in Jesus, the first thing you and your side argues is "when Jesus magnified adultery and murder, they became more restrictive, never 'relaxed'". That's where the whole stupid argument about "relaxation" first originated! Now once again, you project it onto me. I was simply turning your own logic back to you. I'm not the one who believes magnfication always means "increased severity", you do; else, once again, how could I be the one argue about any laws being "relaxed" in the spirit? But once again, why now with the sabbath does "magnification" mean "liberality", bit not with the other commandments? Sounds like you have made your own rules of convenience for the sabbath to me. It is not consistent at all.
And your argument here turns the law into pure pragmatism. We can be freed from toil by resting any day of the week. that is not what the significance of the seventh is about. Especially when we see that the work of the Kingdom was to be done, or that you can write these long argumentative posts on the day. Where's the "freedom from toil" at? Where's the "periodic rest for the body and the mind"? You yourself prove it is not perennial. It as purely a sign for Israel, but we have a different sign now.

 

[Eric B]

I repeat what hasn’t been properly refuted by you or others. I gave you the texts in Exodus and Leviticus that support that circumcision was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and the civil law. In the former, IT WAS covered in Hebrews seven through ten, in the latter it was suspended when the crown was taken. You have yet to properly or overwhelmingly refute the aforementioned.

You gave me the text, but read your own meaning into it, when it did not say any such thing. Circumcision was established before the Passover, and when both were included in the Law of Moses given to Israel; anyone joining the nation of Israel would be required be circumcised. They also would be required to keep the passover. So to keep the passover, they must also have been circumcized. BOTH hinged on partaking in the covenant, not circumcision hinging on the passover, or on the crown.

And don’t confuse hardship with severity or mortification because the SOURCE of hardship is society NOT the law. Society reviles the righteousness of those who TRULY uphold the covenant law of Yah, while the law grants the covenant keeper true peace and liberty even in the midst of hardship from those who hate Yah’s law.

It wasn’t I that brought up the issue of hardship as an excuse for the abrogation of the fourth commandment; it was you that did that. In truth, my experience was that it caused a hardship with the world, but it was a personal blessing by Yah. So I say, to hell with the world; I’d rather receive the blessing for obedience.

That's some attitude to have! Anyway, it is true that the source of hardship is not the Law. It is not only society, but our own flesh. Yet, once again, we do not see any conflict in the NT where people's flesh was causing them to break the sabbath, and believe me, all those gentiles coming in, never used to keeping it, with masters who would not have honored it, their own pursuits they would no want to give up, we would see some instruction on it in the. Instead, we are told not to judge on it. And then you use another pragnmatic argument regarding "receiving a blessing". But God's blessing is not tied in with "obligations". Once again, that would not be the sabbath being made for mankind, but mankind made for the sabbath.
Our blessing today is freedom in Christ, not freedom to get a free day off where we can do anything except have to work.

Again, your continued cry for instructions is nothing but a common resort to legalism by the same tenets of antinomianism.

You are the one coming here claiming that I am breaking some Law that is still in effect, so if that is true, then I need some instruction from the Gospel (NT) on it. You can give none, but make up your own criteria that "we have complete liberty except for commerce", but no such instructions are given on even that much. So then, we are supposed to rely on your "standing of the Ten" concoction, but even this is not expounded in scripture. With all the big talk you use, you have no argument. You are just making up your own system of belief, and keep just enough of a "sabbath" to judge everyone else, but then speak of "liberty" when you are questioned. But we are not bound by your system, and thus have the liberty in Christ not to keep the day. Your system, rarther than being some proper exegesis from scripture, and handed down through the true Church is just a retrospective attempt to answer our belief and boast of being a truer Christian.

 

[Eric B]

How the Jews now say the Law changed!

On one of my hobby boards http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=279736, the issue of the Law came up, (and is way OT; we are all surpised they didn't move it), because of the controversy this past week in the news, of the Jews for Jesus targeting several subway stations for increased evangelistic campaign (their pamphlets are EVERYWHERE, as well as purchasing ads on the subway called "Jesus for Jews").
Of course, there are a lot of [non-Christian] Jews on the board, and some of them began voicing their objection to J4J, and while I try to avoid religious debate there (as if I don't have enough here), the stuff some have posted from Jewish apologetic websites could no longer let pass unanswered. I had already seen some of these arguments from www.noahide.com, who are very critical of Jesus. But other Jews also use them to disprove that Jesus was the fulfillment of the sacrifices. It is obvious to us that the fact that the sacrificial system has ceased is proof that God has ended it because of Christ. But the Jews can't allow for this, so now they have to explain how they an be justified without blood.

How they do this is basically to discredit the sacrificial system was ever legitimate to begin with. They appeal to a prophecy in Hosea, and claim that it is only "prayer and repentance" that is necessary, or "five steps" that include that and other things like "resolve not to do it again". Much like Michael, here, they come up with some new division in the Law, in this case "intentional sins", versus "inadvertant", claiming that "sin offerings" were only for the latter, and thus could not be replaced by "a demigod dying on a cross".
So I have pointed out there, that while they frequently hold Roman Catholicism up as the epitome of Christian doctrine, they are actually more like the Catholics than we are. Just try your best. Total ignorance of the fact that we do not even try our best, and also denial that the Fall of Adam really affected us other than "destroying our innocence of knowledge of evil and giving us a choice to do good or evil". This debate mirrors the debates here with Catholics, and to a certain extent, the Church of Christ.

So you can see my responses in this branch of the thread. Clicking "view flat" will display the posts with a similar format as this board, in posting order, but then that will include posts from all other branches of the thread, which are many.
I was thinking of making a new subject for this, as it is interesting, and then figured I could just add it here, since it is an alternate view of "how the Law changed", by the side of the issue admittedly still under the Old Covenant. Still; I don't know how many are still following this battle of two of us, so maybe I still should make a new topic.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting EricB,

"I was once a sabbathkeeper".

I can understand your frustration! But can you truly claim you are no longer a 'sabbth'-keeper? Don't you go to Church - assemble with "the Body which is of Christ's own"? You do? Then don't you by so congregating, live out the true essence of the Christian Day of Worship? You do? But then you are a 'sabbath'-keeper.

Only problem remaining is that now you are one in defiance of the Scriptures as the Word of God, as well as in defiance of every worthiness the Sabbath Day received by Christ through His great salvation wrought.

Now you are a 'sabbath'-keeper falsely so, and protagonist-activist by agitation or / and 'peaceful' or 'passive' resistance. To whose glory, eventually? Can it ever be to the glory of God, Author of both the Scriptures and our Salvation?

Sunday honours idolatry and is great in transgression of the Law of God and triumphant in its campaign the Lord Protector of the Seventh day Sabbath of the Bible.

It is a matter of being the servant of anti-Christ and the devil; or of Jesus Christ, yesterday today and tomorrow always the same: the same as before the Incarnation and from eternity; the same during His Life on Earth; and the same in victory over sin, death and grave in resurrection from the dead.

There is only ONE Sabbath Day: The one "remaining valid for the People of God" the Chistian Church - that Sabbath that was and is and ever shall be "the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the Lord your God". It's Scripture - away with the world and philosophy and wisdom and tradition and warmongery! It's the old time religion; it's good enough for me! I won't have the devil's design to mislead God's People - there is NO word of it in the Scriptures - the Law!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting EricB,

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

Eric, I agree with you the Sabbath pointed to Christ - that was its WHOLE sense. If not it did, "unprofitable" it would have been like nothing else. Poor SDA's they cannot - or will not - accept the simplicity of this truth.

But Hebrews does a lot more than "CONTRAST the literal DAY-- "the seventh day spoken of in this wise" with the "rest" IN JESUS from our "workS" now"!, It namely COMPARES the literal DAY-- "the seventh day spoken of in this wise" with the "rest" BY Jesus, OF Jesus, THROUGH Jesus, who, 2enetered into HIS OWN REST AS GOD", and, who, "had GIVEN them REST" -- How? These two quoted paradigms - of entering into His own rest, and of having given them rest - speak of Jesus resurrection from the dead - His final work of finishing and of rest and of blessing and of sanctification : the four main deeds of God through His Word Christ of old "on the Seventh Day", and which "He THUS CONCERNING SPAKE (through the Son) and "in these last days" AGAIN, that "IN IT, God from ALL His works (speaking eventually of His ultimate rest through Christ by raising Him from the dead) RESTED".

God NEVER "thus concerning the day" of the lord Sun did speak! sacriligious, blasphamous idea!

 

[Eric B]

When I said I used to be a sabbathkeeper, I meant one who tries to keep it according to the Law, like the SDA's.
Just going to Church on a particular day is not keeping the day as a sabbath (a mistaken assumption advocates of both days make when reading of a meeting on either day in the NT).

I am not in defiance of the Word of God as far as the spiritual intent of the sabbath is concerned, and I do not hold any special reverence for Sunday. I never sait it was the rest spoken of in Heb.4 either. I end up going to Churches that meet on Sunday because nearly all churches that meet on the sabbath legalize it like the SDA's. And even still, the churches I have gone to will acknowledge that Sunday is not specifically a mandatory day, and esecially not a new sabbath, so all those statements about "the day of the Sun" and who it honors have no meaning to me. It is just a weekend day when most churches have come to hold their primary meetings on.

I wish you would cut out the judgmental language when I have not even launched any offensive against your particular beliefs. I notice you do that a lot, and it is not necessary, especially since I do not even believe what you think I do concerning Sunday.

 

[Michaeneu]

Order or Rank also Written Upon the Heart

And that definition of "circular reasoning is EXACTLY what your argument is…. Where do any of those scriptures say… that the whole unit of the Ten is perennial? …. Your answer… the other commandments in it are perennial, but the scriptures do not say this…. But God can speak for Himself. He doesn't need you to define what His intent is, when He has said no such thing…. without the slightest scriptural proof that that was what was meant for it to point to…. Our difference is not that I do not recognize standing, but that we have different beliefs as to what the standing is. I have shown the scriptures own differentiation between the orginal universal seven laws ("called the "Noahide" laws) and then the letter of the Law of Moses versus the spirit of the Law of Christ, but you reject this and have come up with a new unique way to try to prove that the the division is simply between the Ten and "the rest". So stop trying to prove "standing" to me. I know there is standing on the Law. Else how could I believe some laws like the sabbath ceased while others continue in the first place… What I said before regarding "severity" was no "concession"

Your responses are rife with your lack of understanding on many issues and the proposition of “circular reasoning” is just one of them. A circular fallacy IS NOT defined by “shallow and non-conclusive” deductive arguments but by a lack of such arguments! A circular fallacy IS supported by a single premise or assertion and is lacking any deductive arguments whatsoever. Consequently, by acknowledging my deductive arguments, shallow or otherwise, you’re conceding that my argument IS NOT a circular fallacy. In other words, every assertion (and even you make assertions Eric) proceeds as if it were correct but what separates a true logical argument from a circular fallacy is the lack of deductive arguments in the latter. Again, it is apparent that you don’t understand exactly what a circular fallacy is, which I’ve attempted to share with you before.

Again, STANDING, in reference to the covenant law, is the rank or order of importance in which the law was to be perceived from Yah’s perspective. Contrary to your shallow and non-conclusive arguments, Yahshua gave us this rank or order concerning the Decalogue at his declaration the two greatest commandments. At the top of this rank or order where the laws that IMMEDIATELY hung to the FIRST and greatest commandment: thou shalt not have any other gods; nor make any graven images; nor take His name in vain, and remember the Sabbath. These are the laws that IMMEDIATELY hung upon the FIRST and greatest commandment according to Yahshua and it is totally deceptive to suggest that the fourth commandment was NOT to be taken with the UNIT because the New Covenant had not even been ratified by the cross when Yahshua declared the aforementioned! Further, Yahshua upheld that it would continue to have the same standing even after his departure in the Olivet Discourse when he warned the disciples to pray that their flight from the destruction of Jerusalem would not be on the Sabbath (Matthew 24:20). You have to prove by the scriptures that Yahshua excluded the fourth commandment from the UNIT in Matthew chapter twenty-two, verses thirty-six through forty in order to elevate your “shallow and non-conclusive” arguments. Like I stated previously, it is clear that you really don’t understand STANDING.

The object is that Yah DID give the forth commandment the same UNIT standing as the other commandments that immediately hung to the greatest commandment through the greatest witness of all: His one and only begotten Son! Your arguments about “Noahide” law and the “original universal seven laws”, are frivolous because what was written in the heart of the heathen is not the object of what was changed concerning the Old Covenant law! How could it have been when the heathen had no shadow ordinances from Yah written in their hearts to cancel?

And your concession concerning severity within the ten (which is a concession of standing) is a concession that the laws that hung IMMEDIATELY upon the FIRST and greatest included the fourth, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Let me give you a clue, my challenge above is rhetorical because there simply is no reputable exegesis that can prove that the fourth was excluded from the UNIT when Yahshua made the aforementioned declaration in Matthew upon the greatest commandment. It is clear that your arguments are an exercise of desperation and futility.

My point there was that it still was a different Law, not "the Law of the [Old] Covenant", as you assert. And you do not whow where the sabbath is reinstituted, let alone "magnified" in the New. You just insist on transferring it over from the Old Covenant.

And my point is that the scriptures reveal that the perennial law of the Decalogue was never canceled because it did not fall under the criterion of weak shadows that were imperfect and unprofitable. And you’ve yet to prove through the scriptures that the fourth commandment was a weak shadow that was unprofitable and imperfect or that it was not part of the UNIT that hung IMMEDIATELY to the greatest command.

Your whole little grammar lesson there still ignores the basic fact that "sabbath" ("days" is added") is still distinct from "an holy day"… You cannot prove that the sabbath was not a shadow by rejecting the proof that it is and substituting it with your own system of criteria.

Your whole response does not prove that the Memorial to the Creation pointed to anything in the future, which the sabbaths in Colossians must to remain in context. You’re ignoring context. There is nothing in your response that proves the forth commandment was “a shadow of anything good to come”. And your continued allusion to the “rest” in Yahshua fails because this rest was concurrent with Yah’s rest, which proves that it did not prefigure anything.

That's a non-answer, and you even recycle what you've already said before…. unless you are going to say we are all lost reprobates.

Again, since you or I can’t look into the heart and mind of the believer this evidence is not PRIVY to either of us. Your personal experiences are countered by the experience of may devout believers who study His covenant and find the perennial nature and STANDING of the fourth commandment, or are you attempting to say they are all lost reprobates! You arguments are non-conclusive and shallow because they continue to take heathen perspectives of the law and at the same time the legalist arguments of antinomianism.

But what is PRIVY to both of us is that in order to uphold your doctrine we must reason from scripture that all 613 commandments were of equal rank and that Yah’s act of placing the fourth commandment together with the greatest of all commandments was a superfluous act of caprice and His purpose in providence is arbitrary. Yet, the folly of this is immediately exposed in the scriptures because Yahshua would have been guilty of a gross misapprehension for speaking in terms of the “greatest” if the 613 laws were of equal rank or the moral STANDING and the fourth commandment was to be excluded in terms of the greatest. For someone who states that he understands the issue of STANDING and the criterion of how the law changed the aforementioned is contradictory and based upon unsound doctrine and exegesis.

 

[Michaeneu]

Yes, the act that gave us remission of sins is past, and that means it affects us today, and hence the principle of the atonement system continues. If it does not continue, then the remission of sins does not continue, and the act apparently does not reach forward to us.

It is the Melchisedec order that prevailed, which remitted sin in ONE act, ending the Mosaic ceremonial ordinances. This precludes your attempt to transfer some part of the Mosaic ceremonial law into the New Covenant to uphold the untenable idea that the spirit of the law is kept while the letter was done away in the New Covenant.

You gave me the text, but read your own meaning into it, when it did not say any such thing. Circumcision was established before the Passover, and when both were included in the Law of Moses given to Israel; anyone joining the nation of Israel would be required be circumcised. They also would be required to keep the passover. So to keep the passover, they must also have been circumcized. BOTH hinged on partaking in the covenant, not circumcision hinging on the passover, or on the crown.

Your response is quite often a mere rebuttal that I’m reading my own meaning, which is totally inadequate and is bordering on a circular fallacy itself. Again, we are not addressing the change of the covenant ordinances that were given to Abraham but those of the Mosaic covenant. Under the Mosaic covenant circumcision was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and the civil law. In the former, IT WAS covered in Hebrews seven through ten, in the latter it was suspended when the crown was taken. You have yet to properly or overwhelmingly refute the aforementioned.

You start talking about Christians not "believe the Ten Commandments were a perfect perennial unit", then you go on with the sins common in the world…. You're making the old sabbatarian fallacy that because we do not keep the sabbath, we are "against all law", and therefore lump us together with modern society and attribute all the sins of the world to us…. You are tossing around that word "antinomian" with abandon again…. And at the same time; I'n ot using "legalism" to expedite my argument; you are using lawlessness to expedite yours. This shows that both legalism and lawlessness are two sides of the same coin (they both stem from the sin problem of man), so "whichever one is the worse problem" is a distraction…. Yes, I have Christ's example and testimony of the principle that while "work" was "forbidden" on the day, it was still allowable.

Second Timothy chapter three and Matthew 7:21-23 do not merely concern the world but those “who have a form of godliness” which pertains to the church and not strictly the world. And these texts can be reconciled with the warning of a great falling away just before the return (2 Thessalonians 2:3). And the church of the Laodiceans when reconciled with the rest of scripture speaks predominately of our time. Consequently, speaking favorably upon the preponderance of contemporary doctrinal positions of Christendom is precarious at best and the issue of the law is not lost here either. There is a correlation with this lawlessness and this falling away from Yahshua in the time of the end.

I stated previously that the greatest ability to minister belongs to those who have the greatest understanding of the law and adhere to it with the proper spirit, which would be grace. Ignorance of the law and hostility to even the slightest point SHALL receive diminished standing in Yah’s kingdom, which is the essence of what Yahshua relates in Matthew 5:19. The greatest hostility to the law today is antinomianism and when someone uses many of its arguments against the fourth commandment then it’s my responsibility to point that out. That does not mean those of your belief persuasion are NOT living as a Christian entirely, but only that they stumble concerning how the law changed and their walk must ultimately be a reflection of that fall. The most outrageous examples that lead to antinomianism must ultimately lead completely away from Yahshua according to Matthew 7:21-23.

Your stumble upon the change in the law includes this coterminous “it is” and “it isn’t” equivocation that permeates almost every facet of your doctrine on the law: the law was cancelled but it wasn’t cancelled but “relaxed”; while "work" was "forbidden" on the day, it was still allowable. This coterminous “it is” and “it isn’t” conflict is evidence of unsound doctrine. The proper reconciliation of the examples and testimony of Yahshua did not condone buying merchandise, which causes others to sell their labor, or selling our labor on the Sabbath, which was already upheld in the Old Covenant as transgression of the law. What Yahshua did magnify was that it was lawful to do good upon the Sabbath and not just twiddle our thumbs as your legalistic stigma on the Sabbath suggests and which I deal with at greater length below.

When I claim that the sabbath is "magnified" in Heb.4 by applying to our rest in Jesus, the first thing you and your side argues…. I'm not the one who believes magnfication always means "increased severity", you do…. And your argument here turns the law into pure pragmatism…. we do not see any conflict in the NT where people's flesh was causing them to break the sabbath,… But God's blessing is not tied in with "obligations"…. You are the one coming here claiming that I am breaking some Law that is still in effect, so if that is true, then I need some instruction from the Gospel (NT) on it. You can give none, but make up your own criteria that "we have complete liberty except for commerce", but no such instructions are given on even that much.

Don’t presume to speak for me by what others have stated! I’m sure that with the proper encouragement they might agree that their choice of wording, if I can trust your fidelity to their what they actually stated, did not accurately portray how the law was magnified being that the law was and is never to be construed as restrictive, severe or mortifying but liberating (James 2:12). Through grace the law is written in the heart to free us from our concupiscence and the ways of the heathen in the world (the Sabbath still being the moral sign that separates Israel from the heathen, albeit spiritual Israel today). Your insistence that I am restricted to nothing more than twiddling my thumbs according to the fourth commandment is the same legalism of the Pharisees and an expedient, legalist argument for the sake of a psychological edge. (And I would state that it’s YOUR conscience that you’re attempting to sooth.)

Again, I’d rather error on the side of the law than pursue the antinomianism which is part of your belief system and which too often resorts to legalism to expedite its arguments against the fourth commandment. It is clear to me that you lean on the tenets of antinomianism and legalism to twist my upholding the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath as unlawful hypocrisy or pragmatism. But my aim is that if I error, let it be on the side of charity, which is contrary to legalism but which also strives to hit the mark concerning the law. And the blessings from Yahweh, which include standing, are inhibited by those who strive against even the slightest nuance of the greatest commandment.

As to instruction, as I stated previously, the instruction is there; you just refuse to see it and rather make legalistic arguments. You’ve stumbled upon how the law has changed and refuse to see that Yahshua included the fourth commandment with the UNIT that hung upon the greatest commandment and then confirmed its standing even after his departure to sit at the right hand of the Father.

Michael

 

[Eric B]

Your responses are rife with your lack of understanding on many issues and the proposition of “circular reasoning” is just one of them. A circular fallacy IS NOT defined by “shallow and non-conclusive” deductive arguments but by a lack of such arguments! A circular fallacy IS supported by a single premise or assertion and is lacking any deductive arguments whatsoever. Consequently, by acknowledging my deductive arguments, shallow or otherwise, you’re conceding that my argument IS NOT a circular fallacy. In other words, every assertion (and even you make assertions Eric) proceeds as if it were correct but what separates a true logical argument from a circular fallacy is the lack of deductive arguments in the latter. Again, it is apparent that you don’t understand exactly what a circular fallacy is, which I’ve attempted to share with you before.

Apparently, it is you who don't understand your own argumentation, because once again, taking a single premise is exactly what you do, and where you are running afoul is that "shallow and nonclonclusive evidence" ultimately equals NO real evidence. You haven't proven your initial premise on why the Ten is a perennial unit. You ust assert, and then read your own assumptions into it. That is not real evidence. So you want to go with some technical defnition of "circular fallacy" now (which you're propbably not even correct on), but "shallow nonconclusive evidence" is not accepted as true evidence, so your premise is unfounded. You want to call it somethign else other than "circular argumentation", fine. It still does not support your case, escept in your own mind.

Again, STANDING, in reference to the covenant law, is the rank or order of importance in which the law was to be perceived from Yah’s perspective. Contrary to your shallow and non-conclusive arguments, Yahshua gave us this rank or order concerning the Decalogue at his declaration the two greatest commandments. At the top of this rank or order where the laws that IMMEDIATELY hung to the FIRST and greatest commandment: thou shalt not have any other gods; nor make any graven images; nor take His name in vain, and remember the Sabbath. These are the laws that IMMEDIATELY hung upon the FIRST and greatest commandment according to Yahshua and it is totally deceptive to suggest that the fourth commandment was NOT to be taken with the UNIT because the New Covenant had not even been ratified by the cross when Yahshua declared the aforementioned! Further, Yahshua upheld that it would continue to have the same standing even after his departure in the Olivet Discourse when he warned the disciples to pray that their flight from the destruction of Jerusalem would not be on the Sabbath (Matthew 24:20). You have to prove by the scriptures that Yahshua excluded the fourth commandment from the UNIT in Matthew chapter twenty-two, verses thirty-six through forty in order to elevate your “shallow and non-conclusive” arguments. Like I stated previously, it is clear that you really don’t understand STANDING.

The object is that Yah DID give the forth commandment the same UNIT standing as the other commandments that immediately hung to the greatest commandment through the greatest witness of all: His one and only begotten Son!

And your concession concerning severity within the ten (which is a concession of standing) is a concession that the laws that hung IMMEDIATELY upon the FIRST and greatest included the fourth, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Let me give you a clue, my challenge above is rhetorical because there simply is no reputable exegesis that can prove that the fourth was excluded from the UNIT when Yahshua made the aforementioned declaration in Matthew upon the greatest commandment. It is clear that your arguments are an exercise of desperation and futility.

And my point is that the scriptures reveal that the perennial law of the Decalogue was never canceled because it did not fall under the criterion of weak shadows that were imperfect and unprofitable. And you’ve yet to prove through the scriptures that the fourth commandment was a weak shadow that was unprofitable and imperfect or that it was not part of the UNIT that hung IMMEDIATELY to the greatest command.

Your whole response does not prove that the Memorial to the Creation pointed to anything in the future, which the sabbaths in Colossians must to remain in context. You’re ignoring context. There is nothing in your response that proves the forth commandment was “a shadow of anything good to come”. And your continued allusion to the “rest” in Yahshua fails because this rest was concurrent with Yah’s rest, which proves that it did not prefigure anything.

But what is PRIVY to both of us is that in order to uphold your doctrine we must reason from scripture that all 613 commandments were of equal rank and that Yah’s act of placing the fourth commandment together with the greatest of all commandments was a superfluous act of caprice and His purpose in providence is arbitrary. Yet, the folly of this is immediately exposed in the scriptures because Yahshua would have been guilty of a gross misapprehension for speaking in terms of the “greatest” if the 613 laws were of equal rank or the moral STANDING and the fourth commandment was to be excluded in terms of the greatest. For someone who states that he understands the issue of STANDING and the criterion of how the law changed the aforementioned is contradictory and based upon unsound doctrine and exegesis.

Once again, you read something into it that is not there, with this argument of the Two. The Ten hang on the Two, but here is another point that demolishes your whole argument. You think only the Ten are perennial, and the 613 are "lesser". But as I have said, the 613 hang on the Ten, just as the Ten hang on the two. It is ALL the same "unit".
Here is the perfect illustration that just occurred to me.
What about the "incest" forbidden in Lev.20? That is not in the Ten Commandments. If you went by the Ten alone (the seventh commandment), you would not see that instruction. So it is apart of the 613. Now, lest you begin saying (as others do regarding the dietary laws) "Oh, that partilular set of laws has greater standing than the others and is still profitable", these laws are still profitable, because they hang on the seventh commandment. So your clear cut distinction between "the Ten" and "the Rest" with the Ten having the greatest standing does not exist. In fact, the violations of the laws against incest are worse than regular non-related grown-up adultery, I would think. That turns your whole "Standing" system upside down. Likewise, the annual sabbaths hang on the weekly sabbath. When God declared an annual day, how did they know what that meant regarding activities on the day? It pointed back to the fourth commandment.
Talk about "desperation" (a charge you simply throw back at me, after I have rightly SHOWN that it applies to you); you continue to pitch the "concession" of "increased severity" of one violation of the third commandment with another violation of the SAME commandment, to prove your point, ultimately, that the Ten are the greatest unit. You're not trying to argue that PART of the third has greater standing than another PART of it, but that all Ten have greater standing than the 613. But you use standing WITHIN the third, which says nothing of the sort. And you can't see that you are the one who is desperate? The "futility" is in trying to get you to see the truth when you are bent on twisting everything to try to prove your point. If anything, your point ojn the third proves what I say below that the Ten break down under the spirit.

So the way to discern what laws are "perennial", and which are "weak shadows" is not a simple "Ten versus the rest", but rather the nature of what is being commanded, whether it was written in the consciences of all man, and in the hearts of believers today. It was not6 "capricious", and your repeated old accusations are getting really tiring now. The Ten were grouped together like that with the sabbath in a central position, because it was the physical SIGN of that nation under that coveant ONLY. This is not capricious, and neither does claiming this ended make it so.
The Two commandments are very broad categories: Love for God and Love for fellow mankind. The letter of the Ten did hang on them, but when Jesus stated "But NOW; I say unto you...", the Ten points of the letter were broken down, and now, we live by whatever behavior and actions manifest loves God and Man, and it is written in our hearts, and with the Spirit convicting us when we fail on top of it. That is "the new life according to the Spirit". You are still trying to use the Letter to prove you are a better person than others, just like the legalists in Galatians and elsewhere.

 

[Eric B]

Your arguments about “Noahide” law and the “original universal seven laws”, are frivolous because what was written in the heart of the heathen is not the object of what was changed concerning the Old Covenant law! How could it have been when the heathen had no shadow ordinances from Yah written in their hearts to cancel?

They didn't have to have all of that. The whole point is that the laws on their consciences are the ones that don't change, inside or outside of the covenant. It is only those shadow ordinances given to Israel that were exclusive to the Covenant. The universal laws are what we simply reverted to when that covenant ended; only now they are spiritually magnified and written on our hearts.

You keep claiming "covenant law" is the object; and not "the law of the ethnos", but what you forget is that we are discussing perennial law, and the law of the ethnos does figure into this, as any law that is perennial would be imposed on them as well!

Again, since you or I can’t look into the heart and mind of the believer this evidence is not PRIVY to either of us. Your personal experiences are countered by the experience of may devout believers who study His covenant and find the perennial nature and STANDING of the fourth commandment, or are you attempting to say they are all lost reprobates!
You arguments are non-conclusive and shallow because they continue to take heathen perspectives of the law and at the same time the legalist arguments of antinomianism.

The "devout believers who study the covenant" may be intellectually convinced as I was, but that is not "on the heart". Else, Much more of the Church and even the world would have acknowledged it, as they know killing, stealing and adultery are wrong, even though many don't obey them. This is no "heathen perspective of the Law". I'm not talking about what the heathens believe about the Law; but rather it is written on their consciences BY GOD (once again, whether they obey it or not). And I am in no way condeming those who keep the sabbath as reprobates. You're the one coming here claiming we are sinning. You should learn something about all this stuff, instead of acting like you know it all, but then misconstruing what is being said.

It is the Melchisedec order that prevailed, which remitted sin in ONE act, ending the Mosaic ceremonial ordinances. This precludes your attempt to transfer some part of the Mosaic ceremonial law into the New Covenant to uphold the untenable idea that the spirit of the law is kept while the letter was done away in the New Covenant.

You still don't get it. If the sin was remitted in that one act, and benefits us today, then the principle of remission of sins that was outlined in the Mosaic Law is fulfilled. Regardless of which "priesthood" it is, they are still directly correspondingly related.

Your response is quite often a mere rebuttal that I’m reading my own meaning, which is totally inadequate and is bordering on a circular fallacy itself. Again, we are not addressing the change of the covenant ordinances that were given to Abraham but those of the Mosaic covenant. Under the Mosaic covenant circumcision was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and the civil law. In the former, IT WAS covered in Hebrews seven through ten, in the latter it was suspended when the crown was taken. You have yet to properly or overwhelmingly refute the aforementioned.

I keep responding that way, because that is exactly what you are doing. You repeat verbatim the same things, including stuff that is not even being discussed such as the crown. Even just now, again, your "answer" always has to end with that same statement, but if circumcision ended with the Passover; then the crown is irrelevant. And it would mean it was already abrogated centuries before Christ and the end of the Covenant; if you're referring to the crown being taken in the captivity. So the end of the covenant would be irrelevant. But that is not stated anywhere. Paul says he was still "circumcised the eighth day", and even had someone circumcized to appease the Jews. So just what on earth are you talking about? Do you even know, yourself? It looks like you are just copying and pasting ready answers, but that is no way to have a discussion and think you are rebutting the other side.
Meanwhile, it simply obfuscates the initial fact, that the passages you gave do not fix circumcision specifically to the Passover, It accompanied the Passover under the Mosaic Law. But it still had its own meaning and significance OUTSIDE the passover and ritual ceremonies. But if you argue that it was civil laws, fine, but then so was the national weekly sabbath! The problem here is that you have made up your own intricate web of classification to try to include and exclud which laws you think are perennial or shadow.

Second Timothy chapter three and Matthew 7:21-23 do not merely concern the world but those “who have a form of godliness” which pertains to the church and not strictly the world. And these texts can be reconciled with the warning of a great falling away just before the return (2 Thessalonians 2:3). And the church of the Laodiceans when reconciled with the rest of scripture speaks predominately of our time. Consequently, speaking favorably upon the preponderance of contemporary doctrinal positions of Christendom is precarious at best and the issue of the law is not lost here either. There is a correlation with this lawlessness and this falling away from Yahshua in the time of the end.

I stated previously that the greatest ability to minister belongs to those who have the greatest understanding of the law and adhere to it with the proper spirit, which would be grace. Ignorance of the law and hostility to even the slightest point SHALL receive diminished standing in Yah’s kingdom, which is the essence of what Yahshua relates in Matthew 5:19. The greatest hostility to the law today is antinomianism and when someone uses many of its arguments against the fourth commandment then it’s my responsibility to point that out. That does not mean those of your belief persuasion are NOT living as a Christian entirely, but only that they stumble concerning how the law changed and their walk must ultimately be a reflection of that fall. The most outrageous examples that lead to antinomianism must ultimately lead completely away from Yahshua according to Matthew 7:21-23.

Still, the sabbath is not bound by NT authority to the NAME "Christian", so you cannot say Christians who do not keep it are living "against the NAME"; hence your charges of "antinomianism" are groundless, as is the assumption that "it was our doing away with that command that led to the 'falling away' we see now".
All of this is just beating around the bush of the fact that you have not shown that it is a perennial command written on anyone's hearts, and a necessary parcel of the name "Christian". All the intellectualizing in the world will not help. Once again, learn something, instead of "desiring to be a teacher of the Law, and understanding neither what you say, not affirm" (1 Tim.1:7)

Your stumble upon the change in the law includes this coterminous “it is” and “it isn’t” equivocation that permeates almost every facet of your doctrine on the law: the law was cancelled but it wasn’t cancelled but “relaxed”; while "work" was "forbidden" on the day, it was still allowable. This coterminous “it is” and “it isn’t” conflict is evidence of unsound doctrine. The proper reconciliation of the examples and testimony of Yahshua did not condone buying merchandise, which causes others to sell their labor, or selling our labor on the Sabbath, which was already upheld in the Old Covenant as transgression of the law. What Yahshua did magnify was that it was lawful to do good upon the Sabbath and not just twiddle our thumbs as your legalistic stigma on the Sabbath suggests and which I deal with at greater length below.

You're the one who has everything mixed up now, because you are so busy trying to promulagate your own classification system on the Law, and not understanding what has been said. So you have balled all of my statements up, and then try to use that to prove they are unsound.
What I have said from the beginning, is that the letter of the Law has been canceled, but it is in the spirit, their intents or principles continue on. I dont even think I'm the one who brough the word "relaxed" into this discussion. That has always been the red herring of your side, to prove that under the "magnification", the sabbath cannot be done away with. I have always said "abolished in the letter; fulfilled in the spirit", and you basically feed that into your argumentation system as this "relaxed" concept, and then add "cancelled at the same time", because it is an easy straw man for you to address. You have addressed really little of what I have actually said. This is the ultimate proof of desperation. You are better off just keeping the sabbath unto the Lord on your own. If you use it to condemn others, you end up proven to be a false teacher.

 

[Eric B]

Don’t presume to speak for me by what others have stated! I’m sure that with the proper encouragement they might agree that their choice of wording, if I can trust your fidelity to their what they actually stated, did not accurately portray how the law was magnified being that the law was and is never to be construed as restrictive, severe or mortifying but liberating (James 2:12). Through grace the law is written in the heart to free us from our concupiscence and the ways of the heathen in the world (the Sabbath still being the moral sign that separates Israel from the heathen, albeit spiritual Israel today).

Funny, but you earlier tried to insisted perennial laws were "abstinence" only, no "efforts"; but then shortly afterward, you spoke of "no rest from the Law". Contradiction after contradiction! You know good and well you think you have some merit because you keep a "restriction" that we don't keep. If it wasn't a "binding" restriction that required effort, and it was only about a "blessing", there would be nothing to argue or gloat about.
Anyway, the sabbath was the sign of OLD COVENANT Israel, and you have not shown anywhere, but by your assumptions and generalization that it transfers over to spiritual israel. In contast, Jesus and the rest of the NT saus that LOVE is the sign now; including love for "one another"; which is certainly circumvented by looking for reasons to judge one another.

Your insistence that I am restricted to nothing more than twiddling my thumbs according to the fourth commandment is the same legalism of the Pharisees and an expedient, legalist argument for the sake of a psychological edge. (And I would state that it’s YOUR conscience that you’re attempting to sooth.)

Again, I’d rather error on the side of the law than pursue the antinomianism which is part of your belief system and which too often resorts to legalism to expedite its arguments against the fourth commandment. It is clear to me that you lean on the tenets of antinomianism and legalism to twist my upholding the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath as unlawful hypocrisy or pragmatism. But my aim is that if I error, let it be on the side of charity, which is contrary to legalism but which also strives to hit the mark concerning the law. And the blessings from Yahweh, which include standing, are inhibited by those who strive against even the slightest nuance of the greatest commandment.

And here again, you make up your own straw men and knock them down. I never said that you were restricted to "twiddling your thumbs". I acknowledged that good was to be done on the sabbath, such as spreading the Kingdom, testifying about God, etc. but a silly internet DEBATE like this is a hobby and recreation, even if it is "ABOUT" God. And this one seems to be about your own self-justification by judging others. That certainly isn't what God ever wanted on His sabbath. That is what you do not understand. You must be the one trying to soothe your conscience, because you have been shown inconsistencies in this practice by which you come trying to judge others. Like I said, I was once a sabbathkeeper, and if it was just a matter of soothing my conscience, then I would have just remained that way. But I discovered it was NOT written on the conscience, but only intellectually, by a slew of clever sounding, but ultimately flimsy arguments. So don't you try to tell me about my conscience. You need to deal with your own. And you need to stop admittedly strive for "error", just as long as it is "for the Law". That is self-justification, and is precisely what we see condemned in the NT!

As to instruction, as I stated previously, the instruction is there; you just refuse to see it and rather make legalistic arguments. You’ve stumbled upon how the law has changed and refuse to see that Yahshua included the fourth commandment with the UNIT that hung upon the greatest commandment and then confirmed its standing even after his departure to sit at the right hand of the Father.

There is no instruction on the sabbath in the New Testament. It is just NOT THERE. There is instruction in the Old Testament, that says to REST and DO NO WORK. "Commercial" or otherwise. They couldn't even gather sticks for a fire. They could only travel but a certain difference. But in the NT we are shown that all of this restriction was ADDED "because of sin, until the PROMISE should come". Then, we are shown that we ARE in fact to DO certain work; for GOOD. All of this means that the literal "restriction" against work was NOT "perennial", and was "weak". You go back and forth between arguing "rest", and arguing "doing good", but if you are busy doing good, you are not getting that "rest". Once again, it is your conflicting arguments that show more than anything else that the command was not perennial.
The fourth commandment fell under the Two (love God), but that was when God had commanded it to the nation of Israel as their particular "sign". Now we are to love Him by testifying of Him to the world, and love each other as well. This fulfills the whole law. Not arguing on the law.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

When I said I used to be a sabbathkeeper, I meant one who tries to keep it according to the Law, like the SDA's.
Just going to Church on a particular day is not keeping the day as a sabbath (a mistaken assumption advocates of both days make when reading of a meeting on either day in the NT).

I am not in defiance of the Word of God as far as the spiritual intent of the sabbath is concerned, and I do not hold any special reverence for Sunday. I never sait it was the rest spoken of in Heb.4 either. I end up going to Churches that meet on Sunday because nearly all churches that meet on the sabbath legalize it like the SDA's. And even still, the churches I have gone to will acknowledge that Sunday is not specifically a mandatory day, and esecially not a new sabbath, so all those statements about "the day of the Sun" and who it honors have no meaning to me. It is just a weekend day when most churches have come to hold their primary meetings on.

I wish you would cut out the judgmental language when I have not even launched any offensive against your particular beliefs. I notice you do that a lot, and it is not necessary, especially since I do not even believe what you think I do concerning Sunday.

The Churches just happened to do so and so - is a religion of their own works. The Churches will die for Sunday; they hate the Sabbath. Though they may say they don't have a particular reason for worshipping on Sundays, they claim the only valid Christian reason for a day of Christian worship for it - Jesus' resurrection - falsely, showing no respect for His Word or truth, willy nilly glorifying the lie and the Church of all lies and lying, the RCC.

I judge, yes. So do they the Churches. They judge everyone who still holds to what God still holds, as legalists. Steal they do - stealing from the Sabbath Day what belongs to it and to its Lord; Lie they do - fearlessly contradicting God's words and oaths; worshipping false gods they - whether professedly so or not they practice idolatry; Using God's Name in vain they do, attaching to His Name the credentials of false gods. And so I could go on - the list of the Churches' feignings is endless. They scorn God; they despise the Scriptures; they belittle anyone oppsing them, not going along with its laisez faire 'love'-affair with the world and 'peace'. All for the Sake of adhering to they beloved Day of the lord Sun. Christianity is it they say. I judge, yes I do. The Word also says make known to My People their sins. Sunday-worship is Sun-worship and obedience to its earthly ritual priests who every Sunday stand on duty on the podium of innumarable Churches across the globe called earth. As if God never spoke or ever existed.

 

[Eric B]

There are a lot of churches out there that say a lot of things. Some do make a special honor of Sunday and put down the sabbath. Mine doesn't. What is the point of lumping us all together with them?

It's so funny how on that new thread you started you ask Bob why must he "whip" as you called it, and why must the sabbath be something negative to argue over, but here you are doing the same thing, and with someone who does not recognize Sunday or hate the sabbath!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What we do, is what shows how we believe and what we believe. Practice what you preach goes the saying. You, EricB say you're not 'for' Sunday, yet on what day and which day do you worship your Lord? On the only day that from the Scriptures could be known as the Lord's Day - IT BELONGS TO HIM, remmeber - not to you or to the Church or any Church. So you may multiply words and arguments - on what and which day do you practice your teaching? Then that day must be the day of your teaching, your teaching notwithstanding or your teaching in fact.

 

[Eric B]

We're supposed to "worship" God everyday, and ever day belongs to Him. (one way the Law is "magnified"). The Church originally met every day, as we see in Acts 2. then, in the postapostolic period, some decided to go back to "once a week", but now moved to Sunday, and read into Acts 20 and others.
So nowm we fell back into "we only worship one day" and "only one day belongs to God"; but the day was now changed. That still was not the true NT principle.
The Church that I go to has a Tuesday night prayer meeting, and I go to that one and cannot even go to the Sunday service since I work, anyway. That setrvice is actually when more "worship" goes on, but the way it is set up, Sunday, is usually where you get "the whole deal" (worship, sermon, etc), and I often wonder why they have to hold on to Sunday as the "main" service.
I do not like a lot of what the modern organized church does. In fact, I am basically looking for a Church I feel more comfortable in, but the problem again with finding a sabbath Church is that almost all of them teach the Law, in the sense that even you reject. Plus other false doctrines. If you may have read, I was once a sabbathkeeper. To add, I did not even go to any of their churches then (beyond one time visits), because I knew both the SDA's, and Armstrongism had false doctrines in other areas. I tried a few Church of God 5th Day, and wasn't impressed either.
You are obviously not an SDA or the other groups, so you must have found a church that is not like that. I have not, yet. So why keep pressing?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It's of no consequence what you or I do as individuals - we are of the 'New Testament' dispensation, and that's the dispensation of the Christian CHURCH. The Church doesn't assemble for worship every day, and if it did, even that would have been NOT acoording to the Scriptures, and therefore would be wilful 'worship' and of a kind God would reject - just like the 'worship' of the Islam, which God has never asked for. The Church EXPELS anyone not going along with ITS day of worship, as easy as that - you're excommunicated automatically - easier than in the dark ages where at least the 'heretic' was given a trial.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The great commandment si "You shall love God above all else". Now interpret that as 'the love OF God' - won't everybody agree? What, or rather Who, is The Love of God? Jesus Christ - won't everybody agree? Then Jesus Christ is The Great Law of God! Now why won't everybody agree? You tell me!

So does even the Fourth commandment 'hang on' or 'root in' Jesus Christ - not in anything but in Him!

So is it eternal because so is it divinely 'moral'!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Asking EricB - just for interest sake: What is the COG 5th day? Never heard of it here in RSA. Thanks.