SDA Hypocrisy?

[BobRyan]

Bob said --

#2. I SHOW how your OWN argument was that the unqualified term "MAN" means JEW ONLY in the gospels. "MAN was not MADE for the Sabbath" -- Does Gen 1 show the "MAKING OF MAN" or the "MAKING OF JEWS ONLY"???!! Your "MAN" means "JEWS ONLY" eisegesis HAS NEVER BEEN EXEGETED as a truth or a doctrine IN ALL of this discussion!! you simply "ASSUME" what you can not sustain in Exegetical argument!!

DHK

First of all, Bob, I am entitled to my opinion,

Granted. I have never argued that you can not have your opinion.

I have never argued that the opinion you claim to have is anything but "your opinion".

I show in the case of D.L Moody, Matthew Henry and others listed above - that your "opinion" is not the exegetically sound view of those men and can not be sustained from exegeting the text.

My position on that has been clear I think.

DHK --
without you getting all riled up and losing your temper. That is what the capital letters portray, especially when coupled with multiple question marks and explanation marks. So please calm down.

I don't mean to convey anything other than surprise and emphasis in my use of caps and exclamation marks.

I also do it with bold type.

I may be dissappointed with your tactics in ignoring the points - but I am not upset in the least. Quite the contrary - I believe your statements are a logical extension of the argument that you are making.

My only purpose in punctuation and bold type is to emphasize and highlight the most glaring points of failure in your argument.

DHK

Now look at the context. Context! Context! Context! Yes, the context is so important, one cannot ignore it;

Finally - some common ground!

DHK
I will give you some examples first:
If you hear or read someone say: “Man must submit himself to Allah.” Does “Man” mean all mankind?

If you hear “Man must obey the prophet Mohammed,” does “man” mean all mankind?

#1. Not exegesis.

#2. Not applicable to the Gospel writers or to the Hebrew text.

To "Exegete" with context you can not use the Koran - you have to use the Gospel writers themselves and or the Hebrew text.

See?

DHK --

If you hear “Man must take heed to the Talmud,” does “man” mean all mankind?

For context we need to "actually see you quote" something from the Gospel writers themselves or from the Hebrew text that uses the same language.

For example Christ said "MAN was not MADE for the Sabbath".

And in Gen 1 we see "Let us MAKE MAN".

The context of scripture shows the same language being used.

"IF" you could show that the gospel writers were known to use the term "MAN was MADE for" or "MAN was NOT made for" as in "JEWS were MADE FOR" or "JEWS were not made for" -- then you would at least have "another option" besides the one in Gen 1 to argue from --

As it is now - you do not.

It really is that simple!

You really do have nothing to go on here but pure eisegesis -- the fact that your bias "needs" to insert "JEWS ONLY were not made for the Sabbath" where you read "MAN was not MADE for the Sabbath".

And that result alone - shows your argument to fail.

But as if that was not bad enough the RESULT of that failed approach is that you are forced to argue that "JEWS ONLY" were being urged pre-cross YEARS before the cross - to STOP honoring Christ the Creator's Holy Day!!

Your OWN arguments on this thread show that this TOO is a conclusion that you have contradicted THOUGH you are forced to make it due to the failed position you have taken on Mark 2!

How much more obvious could this be DHK?

Not only have you had to ignore context and exegesis to make your point - you have also had to ignore D.L.Moody, Matthew Henry and the other non-SDA sources listed here!

Truly - out on a limb sir.

"As already pointed out" and as not-responded to at all in your remarks -- I have SHOWN examples where MAN is CONSISTENTLY used to reference mankind in the Gospels NOT just this reference to Gen 1 and "the making of MAN".

"MAN shall not live by bread alone" - this is again "mankind".

"For this cause a MAN shall leave his home" AGAIN a reference to Gen 2!

MANKIND received the blessing of Marriage in Gen 2 and the blessing of the Sabbath in the same chapter.

The Sabbath "made for man" just as D.L.Moody and Matthew Henry and the others have affirmed!

Marriage "made for mankind" just as all affirm!

Context - what a wonderful thing!

Exegesis - oh how it is far superior to eisegesis if you are inclined to simply accept the text!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

DHK
I will give you some examples first:
If you hear or read someone say: “Man must submit himself to Allah.” Does “Man” mean all mankind?

If you hear “Man must obey the prophet Mohammed,” does “man” mean all mankind?

[qb]

#1. Not exegesis.

#2. Not applicable to the Gospel writers or to the Hebrew text.

To "Exegete" with context you can not use the Koran - you have to use the Gospel writers themselves and or the Hebrew text.
See?

You are the one that doesn't see. I wasn't using eisegesis or exegesis, or expounding the Scriptures at all. I was giving you examples of how to understand the English language in order that you might understand the English Bible. But as usual you ignored the examples and by doing so ignored the context for which they were meant to explain The word "man" is used in different contexts (as are many different words), and only the context can determine the true meaning of the word. The context in Mark 2 is Jesus (a Jew) speaking to Pharisees (Jews). That context cannot be ignored as much as you would wish it to be. It cannot be ignored just as a Muslim Maulvi teaching Islamic students can be ignored. Context is important. It is the key to understanding.

DHK --
If you hear “Man must take heed to the Talmud,” does “man” mean all mankind?

For context we need to "actually see you quote" something from the Gospel writers themselves or from the Hebrew text that uses the same language.

I have many times as you have.
But now I will go through these quotes for you one at a time and show how "man" relates specifically to context.

Mark 2:21-22 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.
--"Man" does not relate to all men does it. It relates only to those men living in that culture at that time. If it relates to all men, tell me--do you or don't you sew pieces of new cloth on old garments. No man does. And yet quite often that is how patching is done today--by taking a used pair of jeans or other clothing, cutting out a piece of the used clothing to patch up that which is already used. We don't live in the same society. For others, patching is a lost art. Just go out and buy something new.

And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.
--What does man mean here? Is it applicable to all men, or just the men of that society? Let us see. First if you compare the KJV with other translations you see that it is a bad translation. Wine bottles were not even invented then. It is speaking of wine skins.

Mark 2:22 And no man putteth new wine into old wineskins; else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins. (ASV)
--

New wine is unfermented wine. The bottles were not of glass, but of skin, the kind that is still used in Palestine, where nothing changes. Old skin bottles would become tender with age and burst during the fermentation of the wine.(People's New Testament Commentary)

But you don't do that. "Man" doesn't do that today, at least not in our culture. We don't use wineskins we use bottles. It is not applicable to our society. "Man" does not refer to "all mankind."

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
--And the same is true here also. "Man refers to the Jews, to whom Jesus is speaking to. He is not speaking to Muslims; he is speaking to Jews. This should be obvious enough from the context. It really is too bad that you ignore context.

And in Gen 1 we see "Let us MAKE MAN"

.
As this is at the beginning of Genesis, of course it is speaking of all men. There was only one kind of man. Let's not be ridiculous.

The context of scripture shows the same language being used.

The context of Scripture shows that some men don't use common sense.

"IF" you could show that the gospel writers were known to use the term "MAN was MADE for" or "MAN was NOT made for" as in "JEWS were MADE FOR" or "JEWS were not made for" -- then you would at least have "another option" besides the one in Gen 1 to argue from --

Read above. I have already demonstrated that.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:

DHK
I will give you some examples first:
If you hear or read someone say: “Man must submit himself to Allah.” Does “Man” mean all mankind?

If you hear “Man must obey the prophet Mohammed,” does “man” mean all mankind?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[qb]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1. Not exegesis.

#2. Not applicable to the Gospel writers or to the Hebrew text.

To "Exegete" with context you can not use the Koran - you have to use the Gospel writers themselves and or the Hebrew text.
See?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK said
You are the one that doesn't see. I wasn't using eisegesis or exegesis, or expounding the Scriptures at all.

I think we both agree on that much!

My point is that in the context of the term "exegesis" the word "context" MUST refer to the time in which the text was written, AND the obvious meaning to the primary audience AND the full scope of "context" in the exegetical sense MUST ALSO consider the same use of the same term or phrase by the same author and then the same use by other Bible authors that would have been read by the author in question.

NONE of those "exegetical CONTEXT" areas are being explored in your "I am not doing any exegesis here" effort above.

So while it is true that IF WE SWITCH CONTEXT to the KORAN - we can find some way to use an english idiom and "redefine the phrase" - it is NOT true that exegesis supports that rabbit trail.

"By Contrast" I DID show other uses of the SAME term "MAN shall not live by bread alone" for example IN the Gospels AND ALSO in scripture that would have been read by Gospel writers and Christ the SAME phrase "Let us MAKE MAN".

So that when the Gospel writer reports Christ saying "MAN was not MADE FOR ..." it is in direct context with that SAME phrase in scripture "LET us MAKE MAN...".

IF in that same sound exegetical CONTEXT you CAN show the Bible saying "LET US MAKE JEW..." and or "MAN was MADE" meaning "JEWS ONLY were MADE" then you would have sustained your point.

The fact that you have to "reach" out to the Koran example is in fact "telling".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK --
If you hear “Man must take heed to the Talmud,” does “man” mean all mankind?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For context we need to "actually see you quote" something from the Gospel writers themselves or from the Hebrew text that uses the same language.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK said
I have many times as you have.
But now I will go through these quotes for you one at a time and show how "man" relates specifically to context.

Mark 2:21-22 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

NOTHING in that reference shows "ONLY JEWS would not place new and old cloth in into the same old garment because ONLY FOR JEWS would the cloth separate"!!

The fact that you would need to "Also eisegete" the idea in this text "only Jewish men do not sew old and new cloth together" here merely illustrates "again" your failed position.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.
--What does man mean here? Is it applicable to all men, or just the men of that society? Let us see. First if you compare the KJV with other translations you see that it is a bad translation. Wine bottles were not even invented then. It is speaking of wine skins.

Mark 2:22 And no man putteth new wine into old wineskins; else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins. (ASV)

Here "again" one might want to eisegete the idea that "Old wineskins would only break when Jewish MEN were the ones placing new wine into old wine skins" - that certainly CAN NOT be exegeted into the text but you could have a bias that "insists on it anywy". I do see that much.

However as it turns out the chemistry being referenced there would happen no MATTER WHAT member of MANKIND had done the pouring of the new wine into old wine skins.

There is no implied LIMIT as to the PERSON that does the pouring!!


And I say this simply because it is so "obvious".

(Exclamation marks for emphasis only).

Your argument had to "reach" for the Koran rabbit trail and now it "reaches" for this "Chemistry that only happens with Jewish men" idea as the definition for "man" when in fact this is a perfect exmaple of "IF anyone of mankind" with the CONTEXT being that it is the members of MANKIND that are known to place wine in wineskins!

Obviously.

The clear and obvious -- maintained result is - that these NON-SDA Bible scholars are correct in their exegetically sound rendering of "mankind" as the scope in Mark 2 --

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/19.html#000279

And when we observe your attempts to eisegete a few "much needed alterations" by contrast to the work these men have done in the link above - the contrast could not be more stark and the hopeless corner of your position more obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

I think Ive already made up my mind, Ive said a zillion times that the ceremonial laws were nailed to the cross and were shadows of Christ. Once He died they were not needed anymore. When Jesus said one jot or tittle its pretty obvious He meant the 10 commandments

No one has still shown anywhere that the "ceremonial laws" were separated from the Ten Commandments, or the dietary laws) for one to be nailed to the Cross and not the others. And remember, no one is saying there is no law now. The ceremonial laws hung on the Ten Commandments given to Israel, which hung on the two universal commandments. But the seven universal commandments recognized in the Genesis period of history for the most part hung on the Two as well, and since it is the Two that are emphasized now, we can say that the Ten were abolished, yet there is still [the spiritual] law of love towards God and man, which naturally includes most though not all of the earlier commands.

 

[Claudia_T]

well then Eric.
I have already posted things that show the ceremonial laws were separate from the 10 commandments.

WHAT do you think that the Bible is talking about when it says many many many times in the New Testament to keep the commandments?

Paul already told us

Romans 13
9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


JESUS already told YOU Eric...

Mk:10:19: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

 

[Eliyahu]

Didn't I say that I don't like the title of this thread?
I think we should not respond to the threads with wrong title names.
There is a matter of misunderstanding or legalism, Galatianism in this regard, or we may be committing Apostasy without keeping the commandments.

 

[Eric B]

And I have already told you, that those were apart of the Seven universal commandments. (with the exception of "honor your father and mother). Of course, Jesus was in that instance speaking to another Jew, who was under the Law of Moses with the Ten Commandments. But the Ten and the Seven pretty much agree in those points, and since wer are int he spirit and not the letter, we would of course honor our mother and father. This is illustrated by what Paul said there: "IF there be any other commandment, it is SUMMED UP in "You shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". This is showing that it is not about the letter of the Ten (or Seven) anymore, though most of the points of them of course carry over. The sabbath was a ceremonial type commandment that got included in the Ten. (just like the law against eating the limb of a living animal was included in the Seven, while buried somewhere in the 613 for the Jews). So you are right about the distinction of the "vceremonial" commands, but it is ceremonial versus universal; not ceremonial versus "the Ten".

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Here "again" one might want to eisegete the idea that "Old wineskins would only break when Jewish MEN were the ones placing new wine into old wine skins" - that certainly CAN NOT be exegeted into the text but you could have a bias that "insists on it anywy". I do see that much.

Why do you insist on saying things that I didn't say. What do we call that? Libel? Slander? I am not sure which one. Either way it is not ethical.

--What does "man" mean here? Is it applicable to all men, or just the men of that society?

Society does't mean Jews. It means the society, the culture, the time of that age. I wasn't referring to just the Jews. I was referring to the way people did things at that time as opposed to the way people do things in our time. They are completely different. We don't put wine into wineskins today, as they did in that age.
Thus "man" does not refer to "all mankind" does it? It refers to "man" of that time and age.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Back to the topic please (vs the "way people did things" rabbit trail).

A thousand points to which you respond to?? "None"??

"The Sabbath was MADE for .."

"Not Man MADE for..."

Refers to the "making of both" - "Obviously".

You needed to insert into the text "JEWS MADE for ..."

No such "insert" can be done in that text - though you seem to need it.

your own argument using the term "Men do not pour new wine into ..." as your "defense" for "MAN" in Mark 2 means "Jewish MEN were not MADE for the Sabbath"... But that is a blind alley DHK!

There is NO "MAN was MADE" or "LET us MAKE MAN" in all of scripture that can actually be eisegeted into "Let us MAKE JEWS.." or "JEWS shall not live by bread alone" or "The Sabbath was MADE for JEWS not JEWS MADE for the Sabbath" as you had hoped.

And that means these guys found at this link "were right" in their very biblically sound exegesis

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/19.html#000279

By contrast your edit of the bible text "MAN was not MADE for the SABBATH" into "JEWS were not MADE for the Sabbath" fails every test of reason, of exegesis and even of comparison to the well accepted scholars in that link such as Matthew Henry.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Michaeneu]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Good points, but what you (Mich and Claudia) forget is that Israel in the OT (including the non-Israelites grafted in) was still under a separate COVENANT. Under the covenant, Israel would be a light to the world, and spread, basically, Judaism to the world, including all the sabbaths, sacrifices, and everythign else' and we see ALL of this in the much touted Isaiah 66 passage. But that Covenant was broken by Israel. The lesson God was giving through that was that man's problem was not simply that he did not have the Law, because while the Law defined sin, man himself had an innate problem, and that was a sin NATURE. In fact, Law alone would only make this nature rebel all the more (Romans 7) So a NEW covenant was formed. All of the rules and agreements of that covenant do not just transfer over, as circumcision became apart of it, and in fact was a major "sign" of God's people beginning with Abraham, and that is no longer mandatory, and neither are the sacrifices, but all of these have SPIRITUAL applications now that FULFILL the intent of the old command (Christ's sacrifice is applied to us; hearing God is "circumcision of the ears", Jesus gives us rest, and LOVE for one another is the "SIGN" of God to the world.
Once again, you all are picking and choosing out of the whole law. Make up your mind, "not one jot nor tittle" (including every sacrifice, circumcision, etc), or it must be "fulfilled" now.

I didn’t forget anything Eric. The point is that the New Covenant promise is that the Spirit shall place “the law” in the mind and write it in the heart to overcome the weaknesses of the first covenant. “The law” changed but was not abolished. The issue then becomes how the law changed and the best claim is made for the continuance of the Decalogue which was audibly given to the entire congregation, not just Moses, kept inside the ark and etcetera.

In addition the intra-advent era marks the subjugation of the “people of Yahweh” to the nations which virtually precludes any of the civil or ceremonial laws done under the first covenant, as the church is not a theocracy but a simply an ecclesiastical body. The civil and ceremonial laws required a theocracy within boundaries and a physical temple, but that was overturned and is not to be reinstituted again. The Sabbath never required a theocracy to be observed, while the civil and ceremonial laws did and as we’ve already established: it was made for man, generic, not genetic.

By placing the fourth commandment in the center of the Decalogue it is clear that the Father gave the commandment the same standing as the other nine. I did not do that, nor did the SDA’s—Yahweh gave the seventh-day Sabbath the same standing with the same laws that were to be placed in the mind and written in the heart. That simply cannot be overcome. Moreover, he stressed the fourth by emphasizing that we “remember” it.

Originally posted by Eric B:
Also, nobody here that I know of is an "antinomian". That means "against the name" (of "Christian") and is a person who breaks every command and lives no differently from the world. You must differentiate between us believing we are no longer under the "Law" of the Old Covenant, and not being under ANY law period.
Those who do keep the annual feasts say the same things about you, and they too find a way to dismiss your reading of Colossians and Rom14, just as you do ours. And then there are disputes amongst different sacred namers as to whether it is "Yahshua" or "Yeshua", and some whole thing about the new moon of green ears of barley, and some are strictly unitarian, and call you pagan for believing on the Trinity, or even just the Father and Son Godhead. (This is probably why DHK earlier assumed you were unitarian).
So where does it stop? Desireing to be teachers of the Law, you do not know what you are teaching, and the sabbath apparently can't be THE sign, as we see you all do not even recognize it as such amongst each other!

Love does not abolish the Decalogue—it fulfills it (Romans 13:10). “Fulfill” in this context means to honor and confirm. That is to say we honor and confirm: Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet.

One can state that love is a law, but it can’t be avoided that it still must me conveyed in it’s particulars—such as—one cannot murder and say one loves. There is simply no way to avoid it: the intended “law” of the New Covenant to be written in the heart is the Decalogue.

antinomian 1: one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation. (Webster’s, 1985)

There are some that take this extreme, but if it doesn’t apply here then don’t be offended.

Nevertheless, the moral law is embodied by the Decalogue and Yahweh is still using it to write upon the minds and hearts of those under his New Covenant. As I stated above, Yahweh gave the seventh-day Sabbath the same standing as the moral law and that simply can’t be avoided.

Michael

 

[Claudia_T]

I wonder, do Eric and DHK and some of the others here believe we are under the New Covenant? Or do they not even think that applies to us?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I think Ive already made up my mind, Ive said a zillion times that the ceremonial laws were nailed to the cross and were shadows of Christ. Once He died they were not needed anymore. When Jesus said one jot or tittle its pretty obvious He meant the 10 commandments

No one has still shown anywhere that the "ceremonial laws" were separated from the Ten Commandments, or the dietary laws) for one to be nailed to the Cross and not the others. And remember, no one is saying there is no law now. The ceremonial laws hung on the Ten Commandments given to Israel, which hung on the two universal commandments. But the seven universal commandments recognized in the Genesis period of history for the most part hung on the Two as well, and since it is the Two that are emphasized now, we can say that the Ten were abolished, yet there is still [the spiritual] law of love towards God and man, which naturally includes most though not all of the earlier commands. </font>[/QUOTE]EricB,

Differentiation between ceremonial and moral law is arbitrary and artificial and unwarranted. All 'law' hung on the cross in the Son of Man Jesus Christ Crucified and Raised The glorious Triumphator. No word of God shall pass or return to Him empty. To today and in Jesus Christ believe, is to believe in every and all the laws and commandments God has ever given - they were and are for all time - through Jesus Christ. He is our morning and evening Sacrifice; He is our Passover Lamb; and so on. To practically believe in Him is to practically partake of all ceremonies and institutions of the Bible-Church of all ages. Without blood - the Blood of the New Covenant - there is no forgiveness of sin, and no power to enter into the New Creation and Life that God has prepared for his chosen without the power of His resurrection. "Oh that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection" - it is the prayer of the Church as well. The Church exists by this power ... and from it derives the Congregation and the Day of Congregation : God's Power has become God's Law.

 

[Eric B]

And that is basically true. That's why this charge of "antinomianism" being passed around here is wrong.

I didn’t forget anything Eric. The point is that the New Covenant promise is that the Spirit shall place “the law” in the mind and write it in the heart to overcome the weaknesses of the first covenant. “The law” changed but was not abolished. The issue then becomes how the law changed

And this is all we are saying. Though it is true that some of us do carelessly say "the law was abolished", what that really refers to the issue of certain applications of the letter of the Law.

and the best claim is made for the continuance of the Decalogue which was audibly given to the entire congregation, not just Moses, kept inside the ark and etcetera.

It was audibly given and kept inside the ark ecause it was the summary of the ntire Law of Moses. That's what is meant by saying the 613 hung on the Ten. But nowhere do we see any criterion that being audibly given or kept in a certain place ment they were the universal laws for all mankind of all tiem. Still, the Ten were addressed to Israel. The rest of the world had seven basic laws, of which included several were shared with the Ten.

In addition the intra-advent era marks the subjugation of the “people of Yahweh” to the nations which virtually precludes any of the civil or ceremonial laws done under the first covenant, as the church is not a theocracy but a simply an ecclesiastical body. The civil and ceremonial laws required a theocracy within boundaries and a physical temple, but that was overturned and is not to be reinstituted again. The Sabbath never required a theocracy to be observed, while the civil and ceremonial laws did and as we’ve already established: it was made for man, generic, not genetic.

There is no such criterion given in the Bible as to this being why some laws continue and not others. Circumcision required no theocracy either. And some groups still believe the annual ceremonies are still binding as well.

By placing the fourth commandment in the center of the Decalogue it is clear that the Father gave the commandment the same standing as the other nine. I did not do that, nor did the SDA’s—Yahweh gave the seventh-day Sabbath the same standing with the same laws that were to be placed in the mind and written in the heart. That simply cannot be overcome. Moreover, he stressed the fourth by emphasizing that we “remember” it.

The "standing" was to Israel, whom the Ten were addressed to. After all, it was the "sign" that THEY were His people, so yes, it had a very central position. But God never expected anyone else to keep it. If they joined the nation of Israel, then they would, but their not keeping it when not in Israel was never judged as apart of the "sins" of "the nations" like idolatry, lasciviousness, etc. Remember, God was working in stages, and a "nation" being a "light to the world" was only necessary in the first place because of the Fall. But this nation was just as sinful as anyone else even with the whole Law, so then God moved to the next stage of His plan, and it was no longer about people joining the Old Covenant nation of Israel with its physical "signs". It was now a spiritual Israel with spiritual signs (Rev.14:1, notice the absence of "hands"); "written in the heart" as you mentioned.

Love does not abolish the Decalogue—it fulfills it (Romans 13:10). “Fulfill” in this context means to honor and confirm. That is to say we honor and confirm: Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet.

One can state that love is a law, but it can’t be avoided that it still must me conveyed in it’s particulars—such as—one cannot murder and say one loves. There is simply no way to avoid it: the intended “law” of the New Covenant to be written in the heart is the Decalogue.

There are some that take this extreme, but if it doesn’t apply here then don’t be offended.

Nevertheless, the moral law is embodied by the Decalogue and Yahweh is still using it to write upon the minds and hearts of those under his New Covenant. As I stated above, Yahweh gave the seventh-day Sabbath the same standing as the moral law and that simply can’t be avoided.

And we say that it is, and Hebrews 4 is one explanation of how it is. Once again, it is no longer about physical signs, for that is not in the heart. Nobody would be naturally convicted of the need to keep this without reading the letter of the Law. They are, however, convicted of the moral law. The sabbath is not a moral law. It is not "Love to your fellow neighbor". It would have fallen under "Love for God", but even there, it is not universal like the prohibitions against other gods, idols and blasphemy.

 

[Eric B]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:
I wonder, do Eric and DHK and some of the others here believe we are under the New Covenant? Or do they not even think that applies to us?

We're the ones arguing that we're in the New Covenant; you're the ones trying to maintain some of the Old.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Ive already made up my mind, Ive said a zillion times that the ceremonial laws were nailed to the cross and were shadows of Christ. Once He died they were not needed anymore. When Jesus said one jot or tittle its pretty obvious He meant the 10 commandments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
No one has still shown anywhere that the "ceremonial laws" were separated from the Ten Commandments, or the dietary laws) for one to be nailed to the Cross and not the others

Totally false.

God makes the distinction repeatedly.

"The TEN Commandments" are never called "The ZILLION commandments".

The TEN Comamdments identified AS A UNIT are given the the name IN the Bible - "The TEN Commandments" AND GOD SAID of those TEN WORDS "AND HE ADDED NO MORE" Deut 5.

Making up the idea that this unit does not exist as such or is blended indistinguishably into the text - is total "fantasy".

Impressively - God places THE UNIT OF TEN - in the ark with the rest of scripture - OUTSIDE the ark.

HE decides on that distinction - no "man".

Finally - it can be shown that PRIOR to the Exodus - there WAS NO "Feast of Trumpets" NO "Day of Atonement" NO "Pentecost" -- AND CERTAINLY there would be NONE of that before the fall of mankind.

BUT The TEN commandments stand WITHOUT needing animal sacrifices and the 4th commandment LANGUAGE points to "Creation week" as the SOURCE.

Gen 2:3 declares that on that SEVENTH-day HE Sanctified it, Blessed it and thus "MADE IT HOLY".

To simply "assume what you can not prove" is not a form of exegesis -- as it turns out.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Mark 2 "The Sabbath was MADE for mankind and NOT mankind MADE for the Sabbath" -

DHK attempts to show why he needs to insert "JEWS ONLY" whenever reading the term "MAN" in the text of scripture of Mark 2:27.

But DHK unwittingly destroys his own argument by simply appealing to ANOTHER CASE where "MAN" is STILL used to denote "ALL of mankind" but in his own example it means "ANYONE within the group MANKIND"

Bob said
--What does "man" mean here (in DHK's example)? Is it applicable to all men, or just the men of that society?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously "A man does not put new wine into old wineskins" is a reference to "ANYONE in the group MANKIND" not "ONLY JEWS would not put new wine into old wineskins".

Bottom line - we find NO justification for DHK's eisegetical methods used to INSERT the phrase "JEWS ONLY" in the Mark 2:27 text that say "The Sabbath was MADE FOR MAN not MAN MADE for the SABBAT" -- which speaks to the MAKING of both.

DHK then "pretends" to miss the point entirely

DHK
Society does't mean Jews. It means the society, the culture, the time of that age. I wasn't referring to just the Jews. I was referring to the way people did things at that time as opposed to the way people do things in our time.

How "interesting".

Now back to the topic.

And that means these guys found at this link "were right" in their very biblically sound exegesis

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/19.html#000279

By contrast your edit of the bible text "MAN was not MADE for the SABBATH" into "JEWS were not MADE for the Sabbath" fails every test of reason, of exegesis and even of comparison to the well accepted scholars in that link such as Matthew Henry.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

One may be "willing" to toss out pure exegesis when reading Mark 2:27 so as to eisegete INTO the text "The Sabbath was MADE for the JEWS not JEWS MADE for the SAbbath".

One may also be willing to toss out Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry and others who CORRECTLY exegete Mark 2:27. Note in the link above they report that "THE Sabbath was MADE FOR MANKIND not MANKIND for the Sabbath"!!

Note that this speaks to the "making" of BOTH! And we "see" the making of both - in Gen 1-2:3!!

One may be willing to ALSO toss out D.L.Moody as HE TOO applies this to "MANKIND".

But at what point do all those "blinders-on" tactics cease to be "plausible" to the one that employs them?

That is a question I am starting to ask!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

What Bob is unwilling to do is to carefully consider the context of Mark 2:21-28--a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees (Jews).
To this day Bob believes Jesus was talking to Muslims, Hindus and others. He doesn't want to admit the context was between Jesus and the Jews.
DHK