The Sabbath was "Made for Mankind" Mark 2:27??

What God said "Let us make MAN in our own image" do you "Re-edit" that as "Let us make Jews in our own image"??

When God said in Gen 6

Do you "edit that" so that it says "I will blot Jews whom I have created from the face of the earth"??

In fact - are you even serious at all about NOT understanding the term in Mark 2:27 to be a reference to mankind?

You seem happy to point out at the end of your post that you "needed" Christ to have said "The Sabbath was made for Israel only" instead of what He actually said. I applaud you for your honesty there.

But your stated need to bend the text and rewrite it to say "the Sabbath was MADE for Israel only" stands in contrast to actual exegesis and to the ACTUAL text saying "The Sabbath was MADE for Mankind".

(BTW - if you have SOME OTHER word in the NT that is used for MANKIND instead -- please show it! If you have ANY Greek text that says the word in Mark 2 IS NOT mankind - then show it)

You appear to answer the question about Mark 2:27 by saying that "AT NO TIME was the Sabbath MADE FOR MAN". In other words your tradition NEVER allows for the statement of Christ in Mark 2:27 to ever have been true!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here we see non-Sabbath keeping Bible commentators admitting to the glaring obvious fact that "man" in Mark 2:27 IS mankind!!

This next reference is interesting in that it admits to the “making of both” the Sabbath and Mankind at Creation week and shows the true binding nature of the Sabbath – AND it admits to its own need to switch the Sabbath from what Christ the Creator gave in Gen 2:3 – to man’s traditions regarding “weekday-one”

They appear to have no interest in "redefining" the term "man" to "Israel ONLY" instead of the obvious and explicit "MANKIND".

 

This IS the term for mankind as used in Greek. It is the generic reference to man at the level of our "species" and in contrast to other species.

I guess you can "ignore it" but informed Bible and language scholars do not EVEN though they do not keep Sabbath.

The art of denying obvious fact simply to support a tradition should not carry into all aspects of Bible study.

I have just show Bible Scholars (in my post above) -- Sunday Keeping Bible scholars with EVERY incentive from "man's tradition" to twist the word AWAY from its normal meaning in Greek. AND YET they remain true to the Word anyway!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I think there are any number of people that might agree with your rework of this subject in the area of "other texts".

But in Mark 2:27 it is so blatant, so clear so obvious that EVEN the Sunday Keeping Bible commentators I list above can not deny the generic reference to mankind.

So far you have shown NO USE AT ALL in scripture of the term "Anthropos" as meaning "Israel only" though you admit that you "need it" to be reworked to that definition for your views to survive in Mark 2.

But then you would also need a "rework" in Isaiah 66 where "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship" in the New Heaven and New Earth.

Your "need" to edit and rework scripture does not end with Mark 2.

I have shown you Sunday Keeping Bible scholars with every incentive in the world to join you in reworking the definition -- and yet they remain true to the language and true to the text.

You have to be amazed at that!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Having said that - I have to give you credit for going out on that limb. We do not see the other Sunday keeping posters in this area willing to admit to what they "need" to have read in MArk 2:27 as you have done.

They have been very silent - and for good reason.

You have been very cooperative and willing to share even though this text exposes a serious flaw in the traditions you have held.

I applaud you for being willing to read these words of Christ when others have turned a blind eye to Him on this specific point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree - I thought you agreed that the Millenium is after the cross.

I was speaking specifically of Mark 2:27. I pointed out that "exegesis" does not allow you to take "anthropos" and water it down to "Israel only" just because your tradition "needs it".

In fact it can not be done at all! Hence the example of the Sunday keeping Bible scholars that had to admit to the "bare bones facts" of Mark 2:27 and "Made for MANKIND".

The rest of your post avoids Mark 2:27 like the plague.

Lets take one thing at a time.

Since you offer nothing by way of actual exegesis to get to what your tradition needs - you are going to other texts where you might find more support for your views.

Ok - we can do that on a thread that says something like "How can we get the Sabbath not to apply to mankind if we ignore enough text to the contrary".


Which is my way of saying that I do want to address the "other text" direction that you so anxious to go here - but that is not even "remotely" an exegetical review of Mark 2:27!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have repeatedly accused you of not responding to the Mark 2:27 text itself. Recently you did that - so I say we have some progress at least.

Then I stated that you have no examples of "Anthropos" (in Mark 2:27 Mankind) as ever being defined as "Israel onlly". Though you admit you "need" that eisegetical rework in Mark 2:27.

I then point out how even Sunday Keeping Bible commentators admit that this is "Mankind" in Mark 2:27.

You seem to have no answer for this.

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

Now you claim that I AM THE ONE that thinks you are not keeping Christ the Creator's Sabbath - while in fact YOU have been arguing that the Sabbath of Christ the creator is not even FOR you!!

Which way do you want to have it? You are currently trying to have it "both ways" as well as ducking the response to Mark 2 on "Athropos" being redefined by you and you alone to mean "Israel only" (Something that is never done in all of scripture!).

In Christ,

Bob

 

So in your view the Sabbath is just in the Old Covenant and NOT FOR MAN -- as in NOT made for Mankind -- NOT for Antrhopos -- but rather it was "MADE for FOR ISRAEL ONLY and NEVER MADE for MAN".

you have answered the OP then. you have stated that your tradition does not EVER allow Christ's Words in Mark 2:27 to have been true.