(It’s sad that I have to repeat because you merely rehash the same poor arguments.) Consequently, some of the best and truly productive arguments stem from the criterion of the law that was cancelled and STANDING in the law, which you show you know little of and so the quote in Timothy really pertains to your attempt to teach on the law. Your arguments are emotional and based on the typical antinomian point of view and must rely on legalism in order to gain a psychological edge.
My arguments don’t resort to emotionalism or personal experiences but center on which law was cancelled and the standing of the law, which is the rank or order of importance in the law as it is perceived from Yah’s perspective.
Your position is clearly exposed for its legal egoism when you interpret my upholding the Sabbath on the Sabbath as “a silly internet DEBATE like… a hobby and recreation, even if it is "ABOUT" God.” Clearly, you are the one attempting to uphold that ONLY YOU can determine what is lawful and what is not concerning the fourth commandment! If you can’t see that this is sheer legal egoism and impudence then the quote from Timothy surely applies to you and not me. And let’s not overlook that it is you that is imposing restrictions on the fourth commandment (exemplified by twiddling my thumbs), while I’m upholding the liberty that was a result of Yahshua magnifying the fourth commandment to show that it was lawful to do well. What greater good can there be than to testify of the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, which you twist into “work” with your antinomian legalist argument.
In reference to gathering sticks for fire and restrictions on travel, you continue to show your legalist perceptions of the Old Covenant. The restrictions on travel were a misconstruence of the prohibition to collect manna on the seventh-day (Ex.16:29) in the wilderness—which the Jews used to broaden their authority over the people. This is clearly an example of legalism and you construe it as a lawful ordinance under the Old Covenant. And you’ve missed the object of the lawful right to glean a small portion of corn to eat on the Sabbath for the benefit of man and not the Sabbath. In like manner the restrictions on fire should not restrict man in his attempt to stave off cold for health reasons in less temperate climates than the Middle East, for the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around. As I stated the instructions are there but you look through the eyes of the antinomian and the heart of the Pharisee in your arguments. Yahshua upheld the lawful standing of the fourth commandment even after his departure to sit at the right hand of the Father. As I stated the instructions are there but you look through the eyes of the antinomian and the heart of the Pharisee in your arguments. Yahshua upheld the lawful standing of the fourth commandment even after his departure to sit at the right hand of the Father.
Oh, no you don’t! All you do is throw back recycled statements I have earlier said, and you’re the one rehashing the same things you have said.
I am NOT the one Timothy is talking about, and you try to hurl it back so fast, you don’t even think about the CONTEXT. Paul is warning about people coming arguing in
favor of the Law, and trying to
impose it on Christians. That is what YOU are doing; not me. I am the one on the defensive here, like Paul was. Yet to do that, they do not even understand what they are preaching. They too failed to realize that they broke their old covenant, and the laws that were signs of it like the Sabbath and circumcision were not perennial, to be imposed on the New Covenant. Even the Jews, as I linked earlier, then had to come up with some new cockamamie way to abolish (or even discredit) the ceremonies, (without Christ), since the Temple was destroyed. And now, you do not know what you are teaching either, because you have stocked yourself with all of these slick arguments, conjured up out of nowhere, and not even taught by anyone else, instead of coming to the scriptures and letting them speak for themselves.
It’s an astonishing logical somersault how you have flipped everything around so that you have the gall to be coming here with such a judgmental spirit, calling us “antinomian” and yet then have the utter NERVE to call us “legalist” “Pharisee“, at the same time! Wow, do YOU have it made! That is just the same thing and the flipside of adulterers and murderers lashing back at Christians who preach to them, by trying to dig up some flaw they (or other Christians) havem and calling them “sinners” or “”I‘ll get to heaven before you do“. They do it all the time; especially when they see us being judgmental like you are, and ask “where’s the love at, Christian?” See; I’m a better person than you are”. So it’s typical human nature.
I have used the example of your inteet debate, because remember, you and others have tried to argue for the perennial nature of the Sabbath based on “rest”, and I have tried to show you that you are not getting rest by engaging in this stuff. That right there proves that the original command in the LETTER is weak. There is good we need to do, including feeding ourselves, and that takes PRECEDENCE over the SIGN given to the physical NATION of Israel in the letter of the Law given to them. And as I have said you are certainly not doing good, by coming here and calling names (which are not even true, as you have yet to even address the fact that we are not living “against the name“ Christian, and you are the one judging over the Law like a true legalist Pharisee), and using slick arguments and misconstruction of the other side (straw men),-- all dishonest, to try to prove your point.
The letter of the Law always begged the question of where “the line” is. So when they were told not to gather manna, and then not to do “any work”, they had to take “the safe side” and say gathering of sticks was forbidden.
That is precisely the same “err on the side of Law” as you have been claiming, and you’re too blinded to even see it! (2 Cor.3:14,15) Why you think it is different, and then have the temerity to try to project that on me, is byond me. So this is why I point out the double standard of you using the internet to argue in a debate on the Sabbath. Remember; I am not the one who thinks it is wrong to do anything like that on the Sabbath. But then, the issue becomes when I ask why you are judging some of us for working to support our families, and not quitting (which makes one unemployed and not able to support their family) until they find a job with the day off, then you come with the letter of the Law, (“
REST”) but with “commerce” added, which it did not specify. (Once again, just like circumcision and “the crown”, that was a physical nation, where every employer was required to honor the Sabbath and not make their employees work. We do not have that now. You just attrinute thet to “the sin of the nations” for making us work, but where have they ever been commanded to honor the Sabbath?)
You just try to extend the Law of Israel to all. When you’re questioned as to whether you are really keeping this, then, you claim you have “liberty“. So you are basically
playing both sides of the fence; using “the letter“ and “liberty” at your own convenience, switching back and forth from one to the other when it suits you. So, it’s ONLY
YOU who
can determine what is lawful and what is not concerning the fourth commandment. Your internet time is OK, but not working in a job that requires weekends. You keep telling me “the instruction is there”, but you are not showing it. I have to take your word for it. If I take the instruction from the original commandment in the Law, then it says “
no work”. It does not say how extensively this applies, so can I use the computer, can run to the store to pick up something, etc.? You call this a “legalist argument”, but
from using the “letter” ALONE, that is all I know, “to be on the safe side”. You then speak of liberty. But in order to understand that better; I have to come to the
New Testament, where Jesus and the apostles address it. But they show that the letter was weak, and the the Jews even knew themselves at fact, when they lifted oxen out of the ditch, and overlooked David eating the showbread. So they were being
selective about what they would restrict, and had drawn up their own list. That is what you are doing, but
the only difference is that you have added less restrictions they they have, so now you have the audacity to try to call someone else “legalist. But
all of your arguments are like theirs, even down to the shiftiness, and the loopholes you construct, to be able to judge others, while you do what is convenient for you.-- Just enough to judge, but not enough to be too “restrictive” to your tastes. Sorry, but do no come here and judge me based on that. You are not God. And now you claim Jesus “upheld” it from the right hand of God, but where do we see that at? He is mentioned as departing to the right hand of God at the end of Mark, and in Acts, but the Sabbath is not mentioned in either raccount. Are you adding more stuff?
You deny circular argumentation, so then prove that “standing” means what you are saying here it means. Who else even makes thse “best and most productive arguments“? The SDA’s don’t. The Armstrongs don’t. It sounds like you just made these concepts up off the top of your head, hoping they would get by because they’re slicker than the more common arguments.
