jasd Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 >>Hmmm....you've been busy the last couple of days, jasd. That's good - keep the pot stirred.<< The pot won’t stir when congealed It was that I tried to catch-up, as to wrap. I thought it proper and fair to respond to the outstanding posts as they might require. Besides, more energy than I have is required to organize those fragile glimmers of Biblical thises and thatses which hover beyond the edges of my recollectin'. Nevertheless, I’m thankful for the thought exercises or my memory would be pretty well shot by now. Quote: Quote: Ted_Oplinger said: But there is no Law that can MAKE a heart love God...because love cannot be commanded. jasd said: That would seem so. However, one asks about NT love, especially that of agapao: Is its definition to be subscribed from Writ… its prescription that love is obedience to the commandments of Gd, or... as the Modern Critic does, that is, extracts its definition from extant writings of Greek poets, philosophers, historians, etc? >>Agape? Phileo? Eros? Actually, none of these can be commanded.<< Agreed. But going beyond that… >>True agape can only come forward from the presence of God within.<< I go back to agapao/agape and the matter of its definition, that is – is it gauged by the emotive heart or by the apprehension of the intellect? As for the “presence of God within”, how about rather, “as the Father draws”? >>John 5:19, 20: "19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 "For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel."<< [ed. bolded] Yes, but there is nothing indicated in the above that permits the inference that a “doing” is the manifestation of an emotive impulse rather than an obedience to law – as it might arise from the intellect, that is, right-doing by calculated judgement. >>John 14: 9,10 … 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." [ed.] Agape is truly God within selflessly responding to the God above. It is not being commanded to act upon a codex.<< Is the Father’s “drawing” of one to Christ better represented as an internal or an external influence? Moreover, does a HS or Christ ‘within’ speak to an indwelling of the heart or of the mind/intellect/seat of judgement? …an outpouring impulse of the heart or a whirring clickity-snap in the cogitating mind? if it is of the mind it must have its codes/laws/precepts for the pins to drop properly into its affixes. I go back to… “…its prescription that love/agapao is obedience to the commandments of Gd (code/law), or… as the Modern Critic does, that is, extracts its definition from extant writings of Greek poets, philosophers, historians, etc?” [ed.] --jasd Seems to me that Gd, being a just Gd, speaks to the intellect moreso than to the heart; after all, the cogitative faculties inhere all; whereas, not all have an emotive ‘heart’. >>It is this love that Christ is using in Matthew 22, when responding to the question, "What is the greatest Law?" Matt 22:36-40: 37 And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'<< [ed.] Again, I go back to… is this love/agapao that of the heart or of the intellect/mind? or, even, should it be the primitive concept of “whatsoever a man thinketh in his heart”? >>…using a verb which in no way can be legalistic - it is either there, or it isn't.<< An existent/non-existent numinosity seemingly possessing boundaries that cannot allow its use as legal precept though utilized in Law? does it even inflect? hmmm, checkin’ it out >>As in His conversation with Nicodemus, Christ is not bringing out a new teaching, but rather re-iterating something that should have been known as foundational to being a servant of God.<< Which part of Christ’s conversation are you referencing particularly? Jn 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? >>>You see, there are many who cannot love in the emotive sense. That state is beyond their experience or comprehension. They live by codes of behaviour. They can only enter by the narrower gate of obedience.<<< >>…God can create agape love where none has existed before - and it can manifest itself in ways that aren't emotive at all.<< I think we understand agapao/agape differently. >>Entering through the narrow(er) gate of obedience? That is a foriegn concept to me.<< [ed. paraphrastic] A play upon the words of Matt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: I’m saying that there appears to be a gate narrower to some than that for others. >>Again, Jesus isn't announcing a new form of service to God - rather, He is simply repeating the concept as it was already given to Moses...in the Books of the Law.<< Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. >>Again, I will restate my conclusion that what the tribes of Israel were given at Siniai was anything BUT a codex of legal works - it was the pre-Cross justification by faith.<< Setting aside any perceived allusions to faith in the TCs and allowing, perhaps, that it may be found in other laws… well, I think one must admit that whatever was given at Sinai encompassed more than faith, as one need not delve deeply into OT epistemology to encounter the many dos and don’ts that could get a fellow killed in the shadow of a turning. Seems there’s a different expression defining faith in the NT covenant than might be found in Torah. >>Turning it into such was just as much an act of idolatry as was their perpetual chasing after the Baals before the Baylonian invasion.<< Are you saying that all those sacrificial and/or cleansing rituals that give every appearance of nothing more than rote, instant judgement, and death for this and for that – were not a codex of legal works? as opposed to doctrines… say, of dispensationalism? >>…error that serves only to prop up various apostasized theologies…<< Like circling the little wagons of developed theories around the fires of traditions rather than Writ? >>>Well, I suppose that would turn upon whether there was salvation other than by faith attainable to the OT COI and others…<<< >>And what was Christ's response to the first temptation? "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" Living by dependence upon what God speaks - is faith, no matter how you slice it.<< Unless it runs up against developed dogma? …at which point “every word” begins to take on new meaning? And, why should one infer that Christ’s quote speaks to faith rather than it being simply prescription for a fast, or some other such thing? >>9 "For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it." What was it that the centurion was depending upon to do the work of healing his servant?<< His experiential knowledge and understanding of authority – that translates to NT faith. >>A new teaching? I, for one, don't think so... Habbakkuk 2:4: "4 "Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith." That's an excerpt taken from the Lord's own words to the prophet. I note that the righteous lives by his faith,…<< It may be that Habbakkuk was not writing to an immediate but to a future generation… a NT peoples? Hab 2:2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make [it] plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. Hab 2:3 For the vision [is] yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. […] Hab 2:16 Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: It seems to me that unless the OT peoples of the Book had forsaken circumcision… the vision above is directed to other than the circumcised. So, where would that leave the circumcised? >> not by his obedience to a codex - even God's own.<< Are you suggesting that though Gd writes His laws upon the heart that ‘works’ plays no part in a man’s salvation? >>It is in depending upon the Word of God that man is to live.<< Exactly my own purport in proffering the prophet Hosea – and Jeremiah’s Lamentations. >>To my understanding, there has only been one "faith" that saves,…<< And what of those having no “faith” by ‘hearing’? Are they eternally lost because they had/have no idea what the hey! “faith” is? not having heard… Perhaps, you might expand upon the one “faith” that saves? >>…and the works and obedience that occurs within the life of the righteous, appear as the direct consequence of faith in the word of God<< There are none righteous other those having been directly exposed to the word of Gd and consequently – have Biblical faith? >>>So what then of Abraham’s keeping of Gd’s charges, commandments, statutes, etc…? or Moses’ narrow brush with death at the hand of Gd? or the many whatfors and wherefors that could get a fellow killed under the OT economy? I think OT ‘faith’ has to be carefully scrutinized.<<< >>As for Abraham...Genesis is quite clear: it says the Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.<< You see, one wonders about the faith of Abram/Abraham. He was told to leave his kindred and instead, he took Lot and the souls they had gathered in Haran (who were they, those souls?). Having covenanted with Gd in a singular experience… he fled to Egypt rather than relying upon Gd in time of famine. He, in Egypt, practiced to deceive and coerced his wife to lie. Subsequently, for fear, he also lied to Pharaoh. Later, apparently still growing in the faith, he lied to Abimelech. That said, wherein he excelled at faithing was in the instance of the ‘sacrifice’ of Isaac. His belief that Gd would raise up heirs to him and Sarah seems beyond reproach – even endeavouring to help Gd by ‘knowing’ Hagar in the Biblical sense; however, considering the intimate relationship he had with Gd, well… his faith seemed kinda slippy-slidey at times, eh? The faith of Abraham exhibited vis-à-vis righteousness received – ought prove comforting to the rest of us… >>>…or Moses’ narrow brush with death at the hand of Gd? or the many whatfors and wherefors that could get a fellow killed under the OT economy?<<< >>...that again is getting wrapped up in misconceptions of intent.<< My misconceptions of intent or that of the fellow gettin’ himself killed under the OT economy? >>I do, however, view them from a completely different perspective than most Christians do.<< That should prove interesting to hear… Quote: Quote: Ted_Oplinger said: …so why would Christians want to single out one commandment to make such a hullabaloo about? jasd said: I read a present tense in the structure of the sentence. Do I err? >>The Papal See was making a much ado about this long before Seventh-day Adventists came into being. In fact, several major Councils were held long before the Reformation came along...and the Sabbath/Sunday issue WAS a big deal.<< There had occurred by that time in the oceans of homo sapience a sea change. It WAS, as you say, a big deal. However, I addressed a query proffered in present tense. >>It came from a studied attempt to root out the Word of God as the basis of serving our Lord - to return religion to being just another collection of formal doctrines and codex, absent any real faith as defined by Jesus.<< …sounds like quite an indictment! I’m finding it curious that you seem more inclined in availing to the OT believer more than you’re willing to allow the NT believer, eg… >>…absent any real faith as defined by Jesus.<< Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen […] Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. […] Heb 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him] : for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. I read Hebrews 11 as saying that faith is parcel hope; that those who believe the creation epic corroborate faith, and that s/he who diligently seeks Gd substantiates his/her faith… these are all things common to the belief system of RCs and Sunday worshippers, as well as to those of the often referred-to on these boards as – the .Org. Heb 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Moreover, Gd relates that He provides some better thing for the New Covenant believer. >>absent any real faith as defined by Jesus.<< …sounds pretty unequivocal. >>What is termed "Christian faith" today bears little resemblance at all to what Christ Jesus taught as faith,…<< Perhaps, but please explain… >>Today, anything that remotely sounds "Jewish" is automatically discarded as a motive based only on efforts of the flesh to achieve salvation,<< Bit of an exaggeration, I’d venture. I reiterate, Christ and His disciples sound kinda “Jewish” to me, and I’d say that it is likewise with the rest of Xtiandom. >>My point is that everything Jesus taught and lived is available in the OT.<< Again, …bit of an exaggeration, I’d venture. I recall that Christ taught a New Testament, for one thing. >>Christ's life was the example of how the Jew was supposed to have lived from Siniai until the Cross:<< That certainly ought to have proved efficacious to mankind; however, “the Jew”? …seems to speak to an expositional belief that Abraham was also a Jew. >>…humanity believing the Word of God…<< “Humanity” in the above seems to presuppose the intent of Gd to work through the COI to the corporate benefit of mankind, hardly likely… in that Gd had already judged the COI to be stiff-necked to deserving eradication. History demonstrates little in the way of improvement… >>…to be true for them, believing God in His Word would work every form of good work and obedience commanded by the Word of God...and the righteous would rest in that faith, that dependence.<< Yet, the OT COI failed miserably… leaving incumbent upon the NT believer that s/he should not only “rest in that faith” – but to work in that faith; that s/he might deposit the tender of works of condign merit to his or her heavenly account (where moth and rust doth not corrupt, and where thieves do not break through and steal). >>That is what is referred to in Ezekiel 20:12, where God states explicitly the Sabbath was given to designate this very thing: God sanctifying them, not by works of the flesh, but by His Creative Power working within.<< “Ezekiel 20:12, where God states explicitly the Sabbath…” KJV Eze 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I [am] the LORD that sanctify them. I notice that Young’s Literal Translation and the Hebrew-English Interlinear both concur with the KJV in translating the above as sabbaths (pl). Perhaps, Ezekiel 20:12 speaks to more than the seventh-day Sabbath. That said, I would concede though... that the rest of Ezekiel 20, in its several reprises of the phrase ‘polluting the sabbaths’ indicate that it may be THE Sabbath that is refernced. >>Incidently, that concept is but a repeat of a concept stated 8 times in Exodus/Leviticus: it is God who sanctifies His people, and not the people themselves through works.<< “…not the people themselves through works.” I confess that “through works” strikes me as a caveat, as Writ records that people do sanctify themselves. >>>There seems to be here a seeming reference to an exchange between archierieus and me that is resolved with the observation that one, Judaizing, would be thought to do so upon points of creedal beliefs held most dear to the Judaizer, three of them being… the Sabbath, the Law, and circumcision.<<< >>I think you need to change that to "creedal beliefs held most dear to the Judaizer, three of them being...a twisted usage of the Sabbath, the Law, and circumcision" That would be much more correct and precise defining of the term.<< I’ll defer. >>I understand Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees and scribes weren't over the point of abolishing the Sabbath with His Messianic work - it was over spirit of true Sabbath-keeping, and the true intent of the Sabbath.<< Speaking of dichotomies… I read that OT – Law held that one was not to leave his/her tent upon the Sabbath: Yet, Christ with His disciples gleaned upon the Sabbath. Seems that, should there remain the Sabbath, its ‘keeping’ was destined to evolve. >>I find it extremely difficult to believe that Christ would pour that much energy into a subject,…<< I recall that Christ expended quite a bit of energy discoursing with Scribes and Pharisees – generally, upon points of their contention, and the Sabbath was certainly one of those. >>…then render it null and void as "Judaizing" after the cross.<< If we speak of the Sabbath per se… it had been rendered null and void, to all intent and purpose, before the cross – as Hosea and Jeremiah contend. >>That is but another reason I render such "Judaizing" to the trash heap that is dispensationalism, as a "teaching of man" rather than a commandment of God.<< I agree upon the pejorative point: “Judaizing”. Nevertheless, I find I may be a bit more ambivalent regards the “teaching of man” versus that “commanded by Gd” in that the NT uses edifying, stewardship, and fellowship (or ‘economy’ in the administrative sense) as synonyms for dispensation… and Christ did say Matt 23:2 ...The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: Matt 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; … Notice that Christ included the Pharisees who specialized in oral (tradition) law – the formative Talmud. Well then, it seems that Christ taught dispensationalism. That said, who is it that now sits in the equivalent of Moses’ seat in this present Xtian dispensation? Quote
David Koot Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 Let's continue down the list of Ben's texts in regard to the Ten Commandments and, specifically, the Sabbath. Here is the next one in order, which he cited: "Romans 3:20---(no one is made righteous by observing the law no matter how well done it" Let's start by looking at the verse itself, in the NKJV: "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Very well . . . this verse was originally cited in support of the assertion, made by Ben, that the Sabbath is not commanded by God upon New Testament Christians. So, then, are there any thoughts about this verse? In what way does it show that the Sabbath is not commanded by God upon New Testament Christians? David Koot Quote
benherndon Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 David Rom 3:20 does not of itself clearly say that the Sabbath is not commanded of God. However, if one reads the rest of all the New Testament, one can clearly see that the Law of Moses is not applicable to the Christian..The Sabbath is part of the Law of Moses! What about concentrating on 2Cor 3 where it says the Ten commandments are 'done away'?. And, it speaks adversely against 'reading Moses' which refers to the matter of failing to realize that what Christ did and what His chosen writers-of-new-scripture say (the NT!)...takes precedence over the Law of Moses in regards to living the Christian life. An what about Gal 3:25----where we are no longer under supervision of the Law? What "Law" in particular does it refer to? And what about Gal 4, where Hagar who represented the Old Covenant is to be 'cast out'? What does 'cast out' mean? And what about Eph 2:15 where it says He ABOLISHED the law of 'commandments contained in ordinances'?--is the Sabbath not an 'ordinance' AND part of the commandments? Lots of comments about the world 'abolish' come up now and then. Particularly Matt 5:17 where it says He did not come to 'abolish' the Law and Prophets. He came to 'fulfill'----doing so does not say the Law and Prophets were never to be abolished!---it says that to abolish was not the direct purpose of His being born the Son of God!! And what about Col 2:14 where the 'handwriting of ordinances', cheirographon/bond, that was against us, contrary to us, was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross'? What about Rom 14's statements about special holy days? (This chapter of the NT was written specially to the classic SDA type believer, IMO.) And what about the 'weight of evidence' of all these put together as a message to Christian SAbbatarians who preach a mandatory/obligatory Sabbath keeping for Christians? There is a reason why the classic SDA still has that 'vail' mentioned in 2Cor 3. Ask me, if you don't understand. (Don't confuse firmness of speech with angry speech. I am NOT angry.) Ben....its late and I've not proofed this post. Quote
jasd Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Quote: jasd said: I don’t know how you mean “generally” to be taken, but yes, I would say that He caused the Sabbath to cease and to be forgotten by both the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom. But “cease” in its most acute sense, no, --He instead, removed it from the economy of both the above kingdoms mentioned. >>Forgotten? Not in the intellectual sense, but in the sense of keeping the feasts.<< “…the intellectual sense”? We do speak of both the feasts and the sabbaths per "...ceased..." --Hosea "...forgotten..." --Jeremiah do we not? Nehemiah 8 relates that the Sabbath of Tabernacles was a thing ‘found…’ having already been forgotten. >>They were unable to do so, for the reason stated in the first part of the verse which you quoted from.<< Rather, I believe, the emphasis may lie with the fact that they were captive/slaves in a very distant land. >>As for 'removed it from the economy . . .', those words do not appear in the passage either.<< Perhaps not the idiom but certainly the sense. >>A more simple explanation is that the people were taken captive, and the Temple destroyed, hence the feasts could not be observed until the Temple was rebuilt.<< If they had an exact recollection of the feasts… why could they (except for the three) not? As I’ve already noted, they made allowances for blood sacrifices by substitution of coins. Besides, in that the Ark of the Covenant had also been ‘removed’ – the returning exiles could only keep a poor shadow of The Atonement. Gd could only by prerogative accept that sad replica of their most holy ritual. >>BTW during Holy Week, Jesus was crucified on the Passover, according to the calendar which God gave the Jews in Exodus 12. They got it right.<< Did they? So, allowing for other stipulated exigencies… why were there two occasions during the week of The Passion on which to celebrate the solemnity of the Paschal meal? That said, let’s not forget that even a broken clock is right twice a day… ‘the fullness of time’, as it were. Quote: jasd said: “The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten ... the law [is] no [more];” –Gd , via the written words of Jeremiah “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” –Gd , via the written words of Hosea It seems only predisposition would take issue with Gd’s words as so clearly set forth. >>Not in the slightest. Different Hebrew words were used for the word translated as 'sabbaths.' The weekly, seventh-day Sabbath was 'shabat.' The ceremonial sabbaths were 'shabbatati.'<< Not necessarily so…: Lev 23:28 …for it [is] a day of atonement, … […] Lev 23:32 It [shall be] unto you a sabbath {#7676 shabbath} of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth [day] of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath {#7676 shabbath}. However, since you mentioned it…: Lam 2:6 …hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths {#7676 shabbath} … >>>I desired not to show evidence that Gd intended to “do away”… but to simply evince a removal.<< >>Same difference, bottom-line.<< Absolutely not. To “do away” is to imply a certain finiteness; whereas, there is inherent (however slight) in “removal” – an implicit ‘reconstitution’. >>Yet, the passage does not say that God removed the sabbaths.<< Per your own argument regards shabbath – please review: Lam 2:6 …hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths {#7676 shabbath} … >>Rereading the passage, there is no reference to that.<< But there is. Note in the above Lamentations 2:6: The distinction Gd placed between “solemn feasts {#4150 – mowed; fixed times/seasons}” and “#7676 – shabbath; The Sabbaths} >>There IS a reference to not keeping the feasts, for the stated reason that the Temple weas destroyed, and that was where the ceremonies were performed.<< Let’s not forget that the Ark of the Covenant had been ‘removed’ and that the functions or rituals of The Atonement could no longer be properly observed. I mean, to substitute coins for blood sacrifices was one matter – but how could the OT COI replace the Ark of the Covenant or the Shekinah at Yom Kippur? there remained only the inutility of sprinkling blood either in a vessel of utensil and/or upon the ground… Quote: Quote: David_Koot said: Thirdly, you have not shown that the Sabbath was not kept during the Exile. jasd said: “The LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten ... the law [is] no [more];” –Gd, via the written words of Jeremiah >>Your response here, does not address the fact that the feasts were reinstituted, once the Temple was rebuilt.<< Certainly, there were celebrations of feasts. That is so in every culture. The question addresses only – should Gd, having said that the feasts and Sabbaths were to be forgotten and the law (all… calendrically based) [is] no [more], than one, standing on the word of Gd, accepts that as Eternally Gospel Truth. Unless, one is able to present chapter and verse showing a rescission of these particular declarations by Gd, (that is, Hosea 2:11 and Lamentations 2:6, 9) – it must be accepted as yet, still in effect; otherwise, we pick and we choose and we formulate and we construct and we dogmatize and we traditionalize and we ‘inspirationalize’ and we institutionalize and we .Orgize and we proselytize … and we daren’t reconceptualize lest we invalidate ourselves – whew, …lung capacity, totally blown… >>The verse you quote, does not address that, although Jeremiah the prophet does speak of a return and restoration.<< Please, it might do for you to present this passage of Jeremiah’s attesting to “a restoration” rather than for me to address all sorts of ‘what I think you meant’ passages. If we are on the same page, or rather, chapter and verse, regarding restoration… it seemingly reads that it is yet future to you and me. >>He nowhere says that this is the end for Judah, or for the feasts, or for the weekly Sabbath. You are quoting part of the story told by the prophet, but not all the story.<< Neither did I, anywhere, say this is the end for Judah. Matter-of-fact, elsewhere, I’ve stated that though Gd divorced Israel, He is still wed to Judah (don’t make too much of that). Neither have I stated that this is the end of the feasts, or for the weekly Sabbath. I have stated that per Gd’s word… they have been ’removed’. I say that… because elsewhere in Writ Gd indicates that there will be a True Restoration. I am simply quoting Gd’s own words and standing upon them. It is others with vested interests that attempt to adulterate Gd’s words. Quote: Quote: Dave_Koot said: Fourthly, you have not addressed the fact that the Jews continued to keep the Sabbath in the Restoration. jasd said: It was an incomplete Restoration, so why does one expect this or that other in exactitude? The completed restoration of the Temple and the city occurred under Nehemiah with grant from the king of Persia who had had to sign an ignominious treaty with the Greeks preventing him from having established ports in the developing Greek hegemony – and further limiting his influence to the distance Jerusalem stood from the Mediterranean. It would be incorrect to incorporate a times prophecy as beginning with Ezra… >>Please explain how this addresses the fact that the returned exiles reinstituted the feast with God's blessing, and that the seventh-day Sabbath was kept throughout.<< Would “reinstituted” translate to ‘reinstated’ as originally ‘constituted’? and “the seventh-day Sabbath…” “…was kept throughout.” and though that would do despite to Gd’s word, we know that – how? The italicized… was just a freeper, a feebie to link to it’s other half posted to archierieus. Its intent is only to show how far from the word of Gd one’s eschatology departs when accepting it only obliquely. >>>Why would that be a burden on my part?<<< >>Several reasons: firstly, the prophecy pertains to the destruction of the Temple and the inability to keep the annual feasts;<< And, together with those feasts… one must include, as expressly iterated, THE Sabbaths, the selfsame Sabbaths Gd recognizes in Leviticus 23 as both ‘holy convocations and feasts’. >>…secondly, by Divine direction, the Temple was rebuilt (Haggai 1)…<< Indeed, a replica over which those who had seen the first Temple wept – for its rudeness, a pervasive insufficiency to the new worship. Were it not that Christ would one day stand in it to lend it ‘greater glory’ – it was cause for grief. >>…thirdly, the weekly Sabbath was kept and honored by Jesus;<< As noted in Gospel, for the sake of custom {#1486 – etho; habit or conventionality} >>…fourthly, Jeremiah, the same prophet who foretold the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the feasts, also foretold the restoration of the Temple and those same feasts.<< To what era was this ‘foretoldness’ to belong – as it were, to find its fulfillment? >>IOW the prophet's prediction of doom and destruction was accompanied by a prophecy of restoration.<< What/which “restoration” is being referenced and what, exactly, do its promises entail? There is a post-Captivity restoration but it is one only of partial restoration – with another, a greater “Restoration” to occur at a time in the far and away removed, well... perhaps, not do far and away, anymore. Anyway, it is the one withstanding expressed Writ – to whom the burden of validating that position of ‘withstanding’ --lies. >>>…it was only a few Jews that emerged from the major population centers of Babylon and Persia – testifying that they had embraced whatever they found so compelling as to forgo returning to their homeland. They few who returned did so with the major aspects of the Babylonian calendar, the names of Pagan dieties attached to the now Jewish calendar, they also emerged with the concept synagogue (consensus bears it out), the beginnings of the Talmud…<<< >>That is neither here nor there,…<< Contrarily, it is. C-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n. It speaks to the corruption of cultural waymarks. The question obtaining is how extensively and/or how protracted? It being thus corrupted, where is the reference point that sustains an argument for a reconstitution to the ‘old paths’ – that of the fathers? Would a keeping of a Pasch? a Succoth? a Sabbath? If so, according to what calendar…? >>…as to the Scriptural record … the rebuiding of the Temple, the reinstitution of the feasts, and the continued keeping of the weekly Sabbath.<< And what or whereof a reaffirmation by word of Gd? y’know, the “…and it came to pass that beneath the willows that hung beside the waters of Jordan they ‘unforgot’ that which Gd had caused that they should forget.” I purport that Gd confounded their calendar and it remains so – ‘til this day. “…Brief history of the Jewish nation from the Babylonian captivity… (586 BC - AD 100). a. The Babylonian Rule (586 - 536 BC). b. The Persian [Medo-Persian] Rule (536 - 331 BC). c. The Greek Rule (331 - 321 BC). d. The Egyptian Rule (321 - 198 BC). e. The Syrian Rule (198 - 166 BC). f. The Maccabean Independence (166 - 63 BC). g. The Roman Rule (63 BC - AD 100).” Lu 23:31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry? jasd 12:12 …and if it should not be retained in a firm hand, how much more certainly shall it slip from one that is faint? Quote
David Koot Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Quote: benherndon said: David Rom 3:20 does not of itself clearly say that the Sabbath is not commanded of God. Let's take another look at the verse: "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Not only does it not clearly show such a thing, it does not show it at all. This verse makes no inference against jurisdiction of the moral law of God over New Testament Christians, nor against its perpetuity in general. The verse DOES state a purpose of God's Law: to define sin. That, in itself, points to the continued jurisdiction of the law over NT Christians, inasumch as NT Christians do indeed commit sin. And, "sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4, I think) So, THAT verse may appropriately be dismissed. Quote: However, if one reads the rest of all the New Testament, one can clearly see that the Law of Moses is not applicable to the Christian. Ahh, that argument. I have heard it often. When someone presents a Bible verse in support of a position, and, upon scrutiny, the verse does not support it, then we hear the comeback, "But the rest of the Bible . . ." That neither tells us anything nor proves anything. We need specific Scriptures. Later in your post, you again mention some Bible passages, which you had previously listed, as excerpted earlier on this thread. We shall address each Scripture, with the careful attention to detail which the Word of God calls for. Quote: And what about the 'weight of evidence' of all these put together as a message to Christian SAbbatarians who preach a mandatory/obligatory Sabbath keeping for Christians? And what if all of these put together do not say that? what then? Quote: There is a reason why the classic SDA still has that 'vail' mentioned in 2Cor 3. Who has the vail? Let's revisit that question after we complete the study. David Koot Quote
David Koot Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 JASD, As I read your latest post on this thread, it seemed clear to me that you are still relying on Lam. 2:6 in support of the idea that God ended the keeping of the weekly Sabbath. However, you still have not presented either textual or contextual evidence in support of that position. Secondly, you have not shown that the Exiles' continued keeping of the weekly Sabbath was not blessed by God. Thirdly, you have not shown that God's specific direction to rebuild the temple and keep the ceremonial feasts (which Lam. 2:1 - 6 originally addressed) was in some way improper. Fourthly, you have not presented Scriptural evidence to show that Jesus' and the apostles keeping of the weekly Sabbath was not according to God's will. A mere recitation of Lam. 2: 6 is inadequate, unless you can show by external evidence--outside of that verse--that the application of that verse was intended by God to extend either to the weekly Sabbath, or to the Restoration. That one verse alone is not enough, because the text and context do not appear to support your interpretation. You need more than that, to go on. I would also point out the Strong's word numbers and definitions are not reliable for doing serious study. Strong's uses the root word, and does not show the morphology. In Hebrew, different forms of a root word can have different meanings. In the case of the root word, 'shabat,' for example, the form 'shabbatati' has a whole different meaning than 'shabat.' You would need to consult the Hebrew Bible, and a Hebrew concordance, to get an accurate picture. Well, I will be interested to see what evidence you can present, in support of your interpretation of Lam. 2:6. David Koot Quote
benherndon Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 I am listening and reading what you say. But, I wonder if I should not have commented...or, interrupted the conversation between you and 'jasd'? However, when you mentioned taking up 'Ben's' texts I did come in. Its OK with me if we wait until you and 'jasd' have finished. I am a caregiver of sorts and planning to sell out and move 600 miles away to N. Calif near our son in our aging years. I don't know how long I can continue an exchange. So, when you are able, move through those texts and I will comment and ask questions later. I like to see what others think and examine their responses. That way I learn and discern to the best of my ability. Would you prefer another thread? Please, don't waste too much time and energy 'retranslating' the NT for me. I've been through that with others and, so far, I haven't learned anything other than what the peer-reviewed translators have said already. But, if you must 'retranslate' I will listen...just do the minimum, if possible. I've observerd most 'retranslators' have problems with other 'retranslators'...and that doesn't foster confidence in either one, for me. Sorry! Thanks Ben Quote
David Koot Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Quote: benherndon said: I haven't learned anything other than what the peer-reviewed translators have said already. Peer-reviewed? Which translations are you speaking of? You have often recommended the Living Bible/NLB. What was the peer review of those translations? How accurate are they considered to be? Quote
benherndon Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, NEB, RSV, TEV, JERUSALEM, PHILLIPS NT, Eng V for the Deaf, WUEST, GOODSPEED, MOFFAT, and, Yes, TLB/NLT, Amplified...and some others that are 'peer reviewed' and widely accepted. I recognize, too, that no translation is perfect....but these would come closer than most unpublished translations, probably. I rarely use the TLB/NLT...and only then to uniquely help clarify what I'm trying to say...and not because I consider it superior, really. Read the introduction to it, however. It's pretty well peer-reviewed, though still considered primarily a 'looser' translation than like the NASB, for example. Ben Quote
David Koot Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Peer reviewed? I guess you could say that various Bible versions are peer reviewed or evaluated. It is not the same process as is followed for professional journals, though. But, yes, they are reviewed for accuracy and other factors. You have listed quite a spread of translations above. The fact that they have been peer reviewed does not mean that they are accurate. The NIV has received awful reviews. Don't try using it at Wake Forest. The KJV has hundreds of errors, depending on which manuscripts you consult. The Bible for the Deaf? Now, that is stretching things. Phillips? Creative translating. TLB/NLB? Widely known as paraphrases, rather than serious translations. As for the NEB, well, it depends who you talk to. Etc., etc., One of the versions you listed has a very good reputation: the NASB, known as the "rock of Biblical honesty." Even in the NASB, many judgment calls were necessarily made by the translation commmittee, because of the nature of the data and the process. For example, to translate the absence of the article as "a" or "the". In many cases, it could go either way. And, yes, the doctrinal construct of the translators does influence their work product. One needs to recognize that, and that is why it is important to go back to the original in order to compare. So, let's move on to the next of your references. As we go forward, I have no problem using the NASB, subject to checking the original to see where the judgment calls are, and where the doctrinal beliefs of the translators may have influenced their product. Very well, then, tally ho! David Koot Quote
David Koot Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 So, then, moving right along to Ben's next reference, quoting from his post--"Rom 6:14 (we are not under law but under Grace----no, we are not under some combination of the two, its either one OR the other!)" Let's take a look at the verse itself. Ahh, I forgot, I don't have the NASB online, but I do have the NKJV (good ol' TR). Here goes: "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace." Very well, then, this verse was presented by Ben in support of his assertion that "Sabbath observance is not commanded upon New Testament Christians." Does this verse support that assertion? Any thoughts? David Koot Quote
LifeHiscost Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 Quote: David Koot said: why >> it is important<< to go back to the original in order to compare.David Koot Re: >> << Important for what reason and for whom. According to your response in defining, the vast majority of those looking for the way of salvation and recently learning of Jesus as the Way, would be at a sad disadvantage if they did not have a deep schooling in theology, with professors warning of the pitfalls in each different translation. He does not require the same restrictions the wise of this world lay upon the less fortunate in literary effort. [:"red"] "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty..." [/] 1 Corinthians 1:27 KJV [:"red"] "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh" [/] Joel 2:28 KJV [:"red"] "Now the mind of the flesh [which is sense and reason without the Holy Spirit] is death [death that comprises all the miseries arising from sin, both here and hereafter]. But the mind of the [Holy] Spirit is life and [soul] peace [both now and forever]. " [/] Romans 8:6 AMP [:"red"] "For our knowledge is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect).... " [/] 1 Cor 13:9 AMP [:"red"] "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." [/] Hebrews 7:25 KJV Peace! Quote Lift Jesus up!!
benherndon Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 To David Koot: Let us cease the wasting of our time.....Let's go to the Bibles we have and figure out whether what I said about a mandatory and obligatory 4th Commandment Sabbath keeping for the Christian is correct, or not. If you have it figured out differently than I do, then 'teach' us how to interpret it 'correctly' according to your way of reading what it says. Be bold according to your conviction...as I have been bold according to my (faulty?) conviction. Go through those texts, all of them, and I will try ( ) to hold my tongue until you've finished. Let's not take a whole week to do this! Ben Quote
David Koot Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Quote: LifeHiscost said: According to your response in defining, the vast majority of those looking for the way of salvation and recently learning of Jesus as the Way, would be at a sad disadvantage if they did not have a deep schooling in theology, with professors warning of the pitfalls in each different translation. He does not require the same restrictions the wise of this world lay upon the less fortunate in literary effort. The reality is that many people have been confused by the mistranslation of important Bible references. Some examples: Col. 2, mistranslated, "the Sabbath day," Heb. 10, mistranslated "the Most Holy Place," Dan. 9, slaughtered in a number of translations which render the last couple of verses as describing the man of sin during the alleged seven years of tribulation, etc., etc. It is true that the HOly Spirit is able to protect people even from errors in translation. HOwever, knowledge is a wonderful thing. Those whom God leads to develop a knowledge of these things, are under sacred obligation to share that knowledge, for the benefit of others. The alternative is for the would-be Bible student to stick his head in the sand. Quote
David Koot Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Okay, back to Romans 6:14. What does this verse mean? "Ye are not under law, but under grace." How about it? Are NT Christians not under the jurisdiction of the Ten Commandments? How about an exposition of this verse? Dave Quote
jasd Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 >>>What needs be said after the prophets Hosea and Jeremiah inked the Gd-breathed words? What text after, does one set forth to confirm the immateriality of those words?<<< >>And what of the God-breathed words of Ezekiel, Jeremiah's contemporary?<< What, specifically, are those “God-breathed words”? >>Perhaps the words of Hosea and Jeremiah you refer to need also be put in the light of the Scriptures of Matthew 21:33-45, where Christ rejects the singularity of Israel's "special" status with God:<< Perhaps, but we might take notice that Israel the Northern Kingdom had long been gone, having been divorced for… what I purport to be an extended period of 2520 years, and more. It was only Judah that remained – together with those of the forced conversions. >>43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.<< Gd in OT literature declared Himself wed to the two sisters Aholah and Aholibah who later formed two kingdoms, the Northern and the Southern Kingdoms of Israel/Ephraim/Samaria and Judah/Jerusalem. Bearing in mind the Aholah/Aholibah motif with Matthew 21 one notices two things… / Gd did not divorce Judah/Aholibah, His wife. / The householder did not rent his vineyard to his wife; rather, it was let to “husbandmen”, that is, ‘others’ – and it were these ‘others’ from whom the ‘kingdom’ would be taken, they being in possession of it at the time through let/rent (notice the dominance of the Idumaean/Edomites, that is, Esau). Matt 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: >>Note verse 43: Because Israel, as a national institution, failed to produce the fruit of the kingdom of God (as noted in Hebrews 4: not by works, but by faith), God would take away the purpose for their existence and give it to a people who would bear the fruits of repentance and the kingdom of God.<< If we are to dwell upon verse 43, we might do well to first review verse 33 and after establishing the identity of the parabolic ‘householder’ – we might then seek to establish who the ‘husbandmen’ were… Having identified them, we do well to take a look at Jn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: Who are they? the sheep? Do they bear fruits…? >>I do agree, jasd - God will do with what is His, as He sees fit.<< See! we have two points upon which we agree >>Also look into Romans 2:28, 29: "28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."<< Ummm, I don’t know that those texts serve as a denominator for other than those addressed. Rom 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, … St Paul then follows this introduction to the referenced verses 28, 29 with a rather harsh critique of the subject in question, that is, the above mentioned Jew. I don’t think we can extend this particularly parochial focus to serve as the broader platform to spiritualize ’Israel’ St Paul seems to have composed the passage to form a rebuke of/to certain/the Jews – not to serve as model of sort for a particularly unique doctrine. >>And again from Galatians 3:5-8: "6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."<< YLT Gal 3:6 according as Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him--to righteousness; Gal 3:7 know ye, then, that those of faith--these are sons of Abraham, Gal 3:8 and the Writing having foreseen that by faith God doth declare righteous the nations did proclaim before the good news to Abraham-- Gal 3:9 `Blessed in thee shall be all the nations;' so that those of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham, Not that it may be a thing established… but I think it might be justified that one give thought to the question of whether “those who are of faith” are individuals possessing their own faith per se, or are ‘those’ who are sons by means of Abraham’s faith. In other words… is the focus of faith in this passage that of Abraham’s? or no? Moreover, some subscribe to the thought that ‘Gentiles’ are mostly, by exegesis ‘Nations’, that is, the divorced tribes… sons/daughters of Abraham. The above should not diminish the individual’s own faith. >>Who are the descendants of Abraham that are numbered as "Jews"? Those genealogically derived from Abraham's loins?<< [ed.] Yes, those genealogically Jewish, as well those vernacularly Jews, that is, the tribe of Benjamin, of Levi, and some say… Reuben and Simeon (though perhaps, doubtful). There are the ‘adopted’ to consider, as well. >>…or those who exercise the same kind of faith in the word of God as did Abraham?<< Well, before becoming too explicitly finite… there are those who are genealogically from Abraham’s loins and sprung from Sarah’s womb – that were/are never Jewish. Otherwise, there are those who, being their own branches, are “numbered” Abraham’s – removed (as would be a twice or thrice-removed cousin) but ‘numbered’, for salvation extends to them also. >>>Law is meritorious, whereas, Grace is unmerited favor.<<< >>That does not mesh with either OT or NT teaching of the role of the Law. The Law was never given as a means to earn merit with God.<< The Law demanded obedience, the result of which was the manifold blessings of Gd’s promises -- ipso facto – a Law of merit. That is not to nullify other concomitant prescriptions. >>That is a misconception placed upon the Law by certain schools of thought within Christendom, used by them to promote their own ideas and agendas, rather than obey the Gospel.<< The crown on lay-away of St Paul’s expectations – would have been of condign merit. Salvation, of itself would be unmerited. Some will shine as the sun and others, perhaps as dimly as moon-cast shadows… that’s ‘earned’ condign merit. >>>The ‘tendency’ in the second law of thermodynamics – to disorder and dissipation? I would, however, lay that tendency among the religiously inclined to ‘those flat or uncertain notes’ from .Orgs – passed-off as truths. Anyway, it is not the preaching of the Gospel but its reception that matters. Once received, the nurture and instilling of correct precepts are Gd’s to increase.<<< >>Funny you should mention the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...Why is it called "Law"? … And would not the indwelling Word of God obey the Law of God as a matter natural function, rather man relegating this to being simply an intellectual assent and proscribed deeds?<< [ed.] At least three things seem to be inimically admixed, the Spirit, natural man, and the will… I think ‘the books’ in heaven are eventually predicated upon the will – of the individual, with the Spirit only impressing upon the ‘heart’. The Law of Gd was written on stones. St Paul said the following of that which was written… 2 Cor 3:6 …the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. And doesn’t there exist an argument that the Law was ‘nailed’ to the cross? >>I agree - we can only preach the Gospel...but we are accountable to preach the whole Gospel, not just the parts we like or agree with.<< Well, lookee here! three points upon which we find ourselves in agreement >>>Agenda and biases, as everyone who purports that their ‘day’ is the Biblically correct ‘day’.<<< >>There is but one day of the week that is the Biblically correct Sabbath...and that is to be defined by God, by His weeekly cycle He created in the very beginning.<< Well, a point of disagreement – but not entirely. Yes, optimally, there is/was only the one commanded and given Sabbath, that is, a cessation from labor; however, that has, by declaration of Gd, gone the way of the Ark of the Covenant… Subsequently, Gd-fearing man, led by the promised indwelling sought to praise, honor, remember, and worship Gd – and mindful of St Paul’s assertion, however interpreted, that that which separated the Jew from the Gentile, [even] the nomos and entole, that is the middle wall of partition, was broken down and abolished at the cross… well, you see how it might, on the face of it, legitimize the two terminal phrases in Matthew 28:1—“the end of the Sabbaths”, as it began to dawn toward “the first of the Sabbaths” (Greek text) …late Sabbath afternoon, as Christ arose from the tomb. Further, and upon that note some may have been impressed to exposit Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. as being just that… ‘another day – of rest’. >>It was made by God, for man, and not to be defined by man.<< Umm, the Paschal, Unleavened Bread, and Firstfruits were made by Gd for man; yet, those in Hezekiah’s reign found a time they desired to keep The Feast of Unleavened Bread 14 days – without remonstration from Gd… and they without any exposition allowing so. They had only the cause of joy compelling them. How might that square with a joy of Redemption apprehended in the heart? >>As the seventh day came out of Eden bearing God's hallowing and blessing, and was signified by God's own word to Him resting on that seventh day, it pertains to all peoples,<< That may be an unwarranted surmise. I’ve read the Genesis texts and there is no mention that Gd included man in what He had committed to Himself. Christ did reinforce the concept that in creating the Sabbath Gd did so for man; however, there is absolutely no indication that it was given to man – until a defined and recorded event. It can only be inferred… constructed as such. >>…not just a human conception of "Israel".<< The human conception of “Israel” is drawn from either a casual read or an intensively diligent study of Writ. It is inescapably conceived. Deuteronomy 5:6 relates, as prologue, that the Sabbath was given in remembrance of the COI’s deliverance from Egypt, and Deuteronomy 5:15 provides its epilogue. Both prologue and epilogue regard the reason for the Sabbath is provided in Deuteronomy 5. >>God gave the seventh day rest to mankind in the very beginning - not to the Jew at Siniai.<< The “Jew” at Sinai? >>It is God's Word that matters for life.<< That’s what I point out by proffering the texts from Hosea and Lamentations. >>It is God's Word that defines when the Sabbath comes in the weekly cycle, and it is God's Word that tells to whom God gives His Sabbath to, and what it signifies.<< Exactly. Sacre Bleu! we agree on four points >>Anything else is the unfruitful wrangling of the Holy Writ.<< “Unfruitful wrangling…”? The Bereans might dissent from that avowal. >>>I cannot comment to the above, as I really don’t know how you are defining or using the Israel/Church dichotomy. I understand Israel to be the bride of Christ; whereas, the church, per se, largely constitutes the body of Christ.<<< >>Hmmmm...Israel is the bride of Christ?<< The Aholah – Aholibah motif. I am inclined to the suggestion that Christ-Gd, having died, is legally freed to marry the previously divorced Aholah. A woman recently married is a bride. And yes, there are overtures to the Revelation 21 representation: Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. >>Is that the picture seen in Revelation 22? The New Jerusalem?<< There are few aware of the implications of chapter 21. >>Tell, when was Israel's foundations ever been upon the teaching of the 12 apostles?<< Inasmuch as you’ve forwarded an OT gospel (and the NT bears it out…) perhaps, it is that the Gospel teachings of the 12 Apostles and that of Israel are commensurately one and the same, except that – you, again, point out that Israel failed – whereas, the Apostles did not. Besides, not to overextend types/antitypes… when are types/antitypes ever exact? especially, they being meant to have a certain exactness. I mean, the Spring feasts were fulfilled exactly in every manner – sequentially and chronologically. The antitypes of the Spring feasts having been fulfilled… aren’t the Autumnal antitypical feasts long overdue in their fulfilling? Besides, you seem to concur after fashion with the reiterated, “God will do with what is His, as He sees fit.” It’s His prerogative to do as He wishes… even to fashioning foundations >>And tell, when was the church ever to enter into the heavenly gates bearing the names of the tribes of Israel?<< That being the criterion… one might ask, “And who amongst the tribes were named Eastern that they might enter in through the Eastern Gate? The COI were the church in the wilderness. –Acts 7:38 Notwithstanding, that Christ stated He came to save the lost House of Israel; and that His sheep heareth His voice and obeys; that Hosea writes that in a place where “you are known as not my people, you shall be called ‘sons (and daughters)’ of the Living Gd” (a for instance: In America, every sky angel or evangelizing radio station tells the Xtian that He is not Gd’s people… those same avenues of misinformation chorus together that the Xtians are the sons/daughters of the Living Gd); etc… Why must the church bear the names of the tribes of Israel? You’ve not advocating the psycho-profiling/typing of ‘the astrological four Temperaments’ (or humors) a la a certain peculiar doctrine of the 144,000, are you? Besides, didn’t you, somewhere in the above state that he that is circumcised in the heart, that is, ‘the church’, -- is a Jew? Well, there you have it – the NT church is Jewish, eh what? Or, more neatly put… Rom 2:29 …he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, So, then (turning the question), which gate would be named Jew? >>Jasd, you have in your theology an artificial separation of Israel and church.<< Not really. If you’ll recall, I previously stated that the church in the wilderness was Israel, or I paraphrased it as such… >>A separation of Law and Grace.<< On the cusps, …Mea Culpa. >>You apply Law to Israel, and Grace to the church.<< That is… ‘Grace to the NT ekklesia’ of which Israel, though a part, is distinct. When Christ said that He gave a New Covenant… does that not presuppose an Old Covenant? and speaking of Law as it superintended Israel… the man picking up sticks upon the Sabbath… wha’happened to him? LAW happened to him. You pick up sticks today on the Sabbath… and your fellow parishioners will have a reasonable expectation of seeing you in church next Sabbath? GRACE overflows you. >>The two entities have differing standards by which they come to justification as being righteous before God. This double standard is called "the Israel/church dichotomy", and it could never stand up to any kind of legal scrutiny for justice.<< Rom 6:14 …for ye are not under the law, but under grace. According to Romans 6:14 there is nothing subtle about the contrast between law and grace or to whom they applied – as advanced by its author. One must remember that Satan stood and still stands in the court of heaven, ever diligent to press Gd’s UNIVERSAL LAW. Satan, pre-cross, certainly would have argued that Christ’s redemptive sacrifice… though characterized by Gd as having occurred before the foundation of earth, was not yet a done deal; therefore, NT Grace could not proleptically apply to one living temporally pre-cross. (there would seem however, to have been a concordat – allowing either party to draw upon fiat – for the special dispensations regards such as Enoch, Job, and others). Satan, as god of this world… would also have had legal rights. OT Law may have been a best-of device attempting to constrain and/or ensure the continuance of a bloodline providing for the uncorrupted incarnation of Christ-Gd. >>This double standard is called "the Israel/church dichotomy…”<< Thanks, I wondered what you meant by the Israel/church dichotomy. >>To extend Matthew 21, the church was given what was originally given to the 12 tribes of Israel<< A ‘Great Commission to deliver the Gospel’ by the OT COI…? umm, by committing wanton massacre!? exterminating, in some instances, everything that had life in it!? That almost legitimizes the Dominican Inquisitions. No, I think that carries an OT Great Commission a bit far. The dialogic position that a bloodline had to be ensured for the uncorrupted, incarnate Christ-Gd better obtains, imho. >>That the Pharisees recognized this parable as Christ referrring to THEM should give cause for serious thought as to what God has given to the church.<< One must not forget the forced conversions of the indigenous peoples by the Maccabees, example, the Idumaeans, Ituraeans, Galileeans, etc. For approximately a century the ‘converted’ of Idumaea and Ituraea intermingled and became enculturated with the Jews of Judaea – becoming ‘Jews’. They were those who said they were Jews but were not Jews. The Pharisees who were the object of Christ’s parable must have been, evidently, ‘converted’ Jews. Why do I say this? because the ‘Kosher’ Jews were yet the bride (Aholibah) of Gd and not husbandmen who rented from the ‘householder’. >>That Paul said that the Jews - natural tree branches - respond to being grafted in far more than wild "Gentile" branches - should give pause to consider who and what God defines as Israel (both OT and NT), particularly when Paul refers to the Jews as being "broken off branches" of the same tree the church "branches" were grafted into...<< I believe, upon review, that St Paul was referring to Israel – and not the Jews. Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Three things worth noting in the above text… / Aholah/Israel, though divorced, was not cast away / Elias/Elijah was a prophet to the Northern Kingdom / The text explicitly names Israel Except for the mention of Benjamin in verse one, in the entirety of Romans 11 there is no mention of Jews. And that tree from which the natural branches were broken and to which the wild olive tree was grafted – was/is the olive tree, that is, Israel/Joseph/Ephraim. >>The bride of Christ is but one thing: the redeemed of mankind, from all ages.<< Because that may be so and because I’m unaware of Writ putting it so precisely, I ask, “And that is found – where?” >>Again, let God define who is His Israel, whom He betrothed to Himself when He stepped in as Adam's Redeemer in the very beginning...that's where the Gospel promise was first recorded (Genesis 3:15), and every generation of mankind since Adam has been the object of that first promise made. It was the root promise by which God was able to declare to a man named Abraham that the Redeemer would be numbered among his descendants, thereby blessing all nations. As it was written in the NT - there is but one Lord and one faith. God has not changed - and neither has God's defining of saving faith.<< Oy vay! if fractions matter, we might soon be in agreement, “There is but one Lord and one faith…” >>It's man that monkeys around with the Holy Word, creating artificial distinctions and definitions to suit their own tastes and thoughts.<< Did you happen to see the two parts of the whole I addressed to archierieus and Dave_Koot? pointing to the impossibility of numbering the seventy weeks from Ezra? yabba-dabba? >>Law and Grace.<< Rom 6:14 …for ye are not under the law, but under grace. >>Israel…<< COI – Aholah and Aholibah, two sisters (Ezekiel 23), one whom Gd divorced (and will remarry) and one to whom Gd is still married. >>…and Church.<< Col 1:24 …Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: 1 Cor 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And, if we speak of similes and metaphors…: Eph 5:23 Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Figuratively…: Does the head marry the body? or does the head and body together, one entity, --marry another? >>Man creates walls between these to suit his own agendas. Where allowed, God will break these distinctions away.<< You’re not suggesting that I…!? nah, you wouldn’t, would you? >>Regardless, there are points in the crop cycle when many people were required to be in the field tending to the crops. What the Lord is pointing to in His Word there is that those professing to serve Him are not to use these critical points in the crop cycle as an excuse to justify rebellion against His Word.<< So, not being able to avail themselves of pesticides and such… the importance of the COI attending their grain in the ‘earing’… perhaps, ought to be taken as metaphoric rather than literal? Just kidding. The venerable JStrong defines earing as ploughing… go figure. Mebbe, it’s time I invested in Lenski’s commentaries. >>…the major grain crops are...corn and wheat.<< I’m hearing that weather patterns are going to push wheat-growing northwards Canada way. It may be also, that severe winter storms and short summers will force the major Houses (perhaps all the peoples) and the monarchy of the British Isles, together with the stone of Scotland (Stone of Scone) to Canada, mebbe, …sooner than later. Anyway, I’m figurin’ it’ll happen. It’s twoo, it’s twoo, jasd is nuts Nuts enough to bet a two-pound Porterhouse steak on it. >>I am of the understanding that some of the ancient cultures of the Middle East and Mesopotamia did know about corn. So, perahps, I am not so much in error as at first thought.<< I agree. I think that corn was known though its cultivation was lost. (I’m one of those that believe the COI were aware of the New World and in contact with it) >>>As you’ll notice in the above… “Observe”, “Take heed”, etc… are works; more so, in that the Mosaic economy was under Law.<<< >>And, again, who said the Mosaic economy was "under Law"?<< I thought that was a given, stipulated as such. >>That the current church age is even more so under Law of its own construction, is also food for discussion.<< I agree (losing count… that’s all the fingers on that hand – and the other is for pointing). And to whom much is given much is required. Would that include works? Quote: Quote: Quote: jasd said: The works of the Law as promulgated by dogmas and doctrines rather than works of condign merit springing forth from the Christ-inspired heart. Ted_Oplinger said: My disagreement with your hypothesis is on the enboldened point above: that you believe obedience to the Sabbath commandment cannot spring forth from within the Christ-inspired heart. jasd said: I neither said nor implied such a thing; of course, it can and should “spring forth” …but only “from within the Christ-inspired heart” – not from formulated catechism. >>Yet you have implied that very point with every "judaizer" reference you have made, jasd. I haven't seen a reference in your posts where the Sabbath-keeping Christian is doing so as a matter of the Grace of God welling up within the believer. Your references to the Sabbath in the previous posts relegate Sabbath-keeping universally to be "under Law".<< [ed.] And rightfully so. I’ve met no one yet (and will not, it seems) who keep the Saturday Sabbath for reason other than s/he believes it to be a ‘Commandment’ in Law. Therefor, that observer of the Sabbath, believing it to be required as parcel the Ten Commandments, places him or herself under Law – and effectively removes him or herself from NT Grace. Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point] , he is guilty of all. >>Yet, keeping the commandments against adultery, perjury, and stealing because of a formulated catechism is just as much "under Law" as trying to keep a holy day.<< [ed.] Exactly, as ‘formulated’ by a hierarchical .Org; however, separate and distinct would be the personal convictions of a Christ-inspired heart (used figuratively) – as opposed to the required demands of THE Law or the aforementioned, ‘formularies’. Let me again reinforce that knowledge and conviction of adultery, false witness, theft, etc… being wrongful acts under Law – should now, under grace, arise from the same place that prompts the Xtian to likewise eschew lying, pimping, gluttony, sloth, etc. The law of the Christ-inspired heart that prompts the Xtian to desist much more meaningfully those simple proscriptives of the OT Law now also seek to attend virtues hitherto not delineated under the OT Law. >>Yet modern Christendom has no problem doing that and calling it "grace" working upon the heart of the believer. Therein lay the inconsistency I cannot accept from modern Christendom: deciding which of the TC's are "under grace" and which are "under Law". It inevitably boils down to nine being "under grace" and one "under Law".<< Remember? Rom 6:14 …for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Why are the ‘Commandments’ ten in number? Where are the “Thou shall not lie”? “Thou shall not pimp”? etc… Grace demands even more than Law. There is no shirking in acknowledging that “more is required” under Grace – more with liberty than Law. What constrains a person from keeping the seventh-day Sabbath? Absolutely nothing. As I’ve stated, I keep a seventh-day Sabbath. It is the reason one does so… that matters. Is it a sin either way? Absolutely not. >>Yet modern Christendom has no problem…<< “Modern Xtiandom believes Abraham was a Jew and that the words of Gd through Nathan His Prophet in II Samuel 7:10 were an anomaly to be rejected much as others believe Hosea 2:11 and Lamentations 2:6, 9 are anomalistic – and therefor, forsworn and circumvented by artful maneuver… modern Xtiandom is just that, modern. >>Your consistent line of posting follows that same pattern.<< Don’t know much about “same pattern” but it has been purposefully repetitive in this thread. Is that what you mean by consistent? >>>Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Those two commandments embraces much, much more than the tables of stone which Moses secreted in the Ark of the Covenant. The immediately foregoing sentence does not address the five books as Law, nor those statutes, ordinances, and judgements of OT COI.<<< [ed.] >>No, jasd, those words of Christ address the whole tenor of the OT accountability of the believer to God, whether outlined by God in the Law, or spoken by God through His prophets.<< “…the whole tenor of the OT…” I can agree with “tenor”; however, the OT economy is best defined by the term Mosaic, and its laws, if abiding… contravene “a new testament in my blood”, “better covenant”, “blood of the covenant”, “a new [covenant]”, “better promises”, and practically the entirety of the NT. >>But I do find your point about Jeremiah a bit curious...why would God speak through a prophet words that apply to the righteous, and are nearly univerally applied to the church, yet at the same time nullify one commandment for everyone in sections of prophecy where God is not addressing those who have entered His rest, but rather the wickedness of those professing to be God's by covenant, but have no revealing heart obedience implicit in that profession?<< Prerogative? Gd has them. You’ll note that my position throughout this thread is to stand upon Gd’s word in text. You’ll also note I’ve stated that, echoing Gd, it was for great wickedness that Gd removed (rather than nullified) the Sabbath commandment. Gd blessed and sanctified the day He rested upon at the end of creation. That Sabbath was given to the posterity of Abraham, his friend… as part of a conditional covenant with the COI – and in short order it was trodden upon and thereafter, incessantly profaned. It was a source of continuing grievance with Gd. One holding to the position that Gd would not/could not lose patience and make adjustments to a conditional covenant – ignores Writ. That said, can’t say I blame Gd for removing his Holy day for safekeeping until the time of a millennial revealing. If Gd declined to act regarding His Holy Sabbath – it would have reflected negatively upon that very 'Sabbath' that those amongst us assert to be the nectere, that pièce de résistance having bound Gd and man. That is yet, without mentioning His integrity. >>Not all Israel was Israel of God. … They would not accept His Word, as He gave it. They would not serve Him, as He asked. They would not treat their fellow brothers as He asked. Instead, they ran after the world's defining of religion, and treated people on a daily basis with oppression, guile, injustice, and cruelty. There was nothing about their day-to-day lives that reflected what Christ would later quote directly from the OT: they did not agapao God, neither did they agapao their fellow man. There was nothing of God within their hearts responding to God above in selfless, Godly love.<< I suppose that may have been reason enough to divorce Aholah and to rebuke Aholibah as doing more wickedly than her sister. >>>Your living, your life, is Gd’s holy Sabbath.<<< >>Hmmm....any Scriptures to back that up?<< Firstly, “Gd’s holy Sabbath” does not necessarily connote the Sabbath day. Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Several things in the above… / the tense, “do enter into” / the inference drawn that Gd still rests Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. That is, we might partake of this – Gd’s rest. Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his. The similes in this chapter argue that a ‘continuing’ rest is in evidence, whereas, the cyclic is, in this Hebrews passage, now an implied “another day”. >>Sounds suspiciously like the ol' "Every day is the Sabbath" cop-out…<< Don’t know from “cop-out…”; however, what I’ve outlined in the above is indeed 24/7 (and weekends too ). >>…some professed Christians use to avoid looking hard at whether what they are believing is grounded in the Word of God.<< Ah, a segue… ‘looking hard at”. Let’s look at that. The normal seventh-day Sabbath keeper overestimates him or herself in keeping the 9:30 AM – 12:00 PM regimen on THAT day. Okay, that’s good. However, the one ‘resting/living his or her Sabbath in Gd’ does so 24/7 and weekends too without a relegated adherence to a 'tithe' of a two and a half-hour weekly commitment. That’s nothing to look down one’s nose at. >>>And you make too little. You must decide if it is Writ, or not. Otherwise, you pick and choose. I’ve said it before on these threads and I repeat, “I am the most Biblically conservative of this list.” /paraphrased<<< >>No, jasd, I don't make too little of Hosea and Jeremiah. I do, however, make clear distinctions as to when God is addressing the true faithful of Israel, versus those of Israel who claimed the covenant status, but would have nothing of the covenant relationship or the Gospel that came with it. I would not deny the Scriptures when they declare to those who wanted to have status but not acountability that He would cause them to forget His Sabbaths, His Feasts, and New Moons - they didn't want them in the first place! God is simply giving to them what they have asked for - but it also meant losing their place in Israel as well.<< Though Gd deals with man on an individual basis, He also deals with man corporately. That is what Gd did on both occasions, that is – He dealt corporately, with few exceptions – those being ones that escaped capture and Jeremiah with his companions. One notes that not all Jeremiah’s companions were righteous. As per “clear distinctions”… how were they ascertained from the information available in text? Lamentations relates that Judah had already gone into captivity, a fait accompli – before the words of chapter 2 verses 6, 9 were penned. >>Furthermore, God predicts in Isaiah that both the Sabbath and the New Moon Feast will be kept in the New Earth.<< Well, agreeing might become a habit. That said, the Sabbaths and the New Moons will be kept even before the New Earth; they will be kept during the millennium _on earth_. >>Forgotten by those who didn't want it? I can see that. But to extend that line of reasoning to the faithful remnant of Israel? That overextends the proof, particularly in the light that Jesus knew just which day to go to call the Sabbath.<< That’s good. I can appreciate good interpretive construction. That said, however, the language in both instances address the corporate. Gd knows how to employ selective language, as He does with Corah, Dathan, and Abiram; and conversely, with Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and Daniel. That sort of language is lacking in either the referenced texts or in their context. Besides, how have you ascertained what you did from the information available in the text? >>Jesus knew…<< Of course, He did… and it was attributed to Him – as custom, that is, convention. >>Hence, my statement about making too much of those prophetic messages.<< Well thought out, a good explanation. >>As for being the most Biblically conservative here...let's let God decide that one. Too often, that term ends up meaning, "My interpretation is the most Biblically sound....blah, blah, blah..."<< “blah, blah, blah” notwithstanding, it is self-evident After all, who is it that is standing foursquare upon Holy Writ here? without attempted circumvention? >>As I said before, we differ on certain perspectives of the OT. That won't make me any less conservative than anyone else here, nor does it make me Biblically "liberal". It just says I have a different perspective on the matter.<< Okay, I give you that… >>Petulance? Nope. Tired and winding up a long post during the hours of the night? Yep.<< I know about those hours. Spent many sodden hours sleeping on and off in my recliner listening to late night television preachers… I think some of it took. >>A bit frustrated from some of the dancing (and, on that point, I agree - don't quit your day job!)<< Ah, c’mon, good or bad – the dancing is the best part :proofed Quote
jasd Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 >>...of those looking for the way of salvation and recently learning of Jesus as the Way, ...<< --LifeHiscost A timely heads-up for such as I... Advising all newbies that I am not an SDA - nor am I Xtian in the sense of it being an affix to my person. I am woefully undeserving of such a valued distinction and dare not take it lest I take it in vain. The foregoing is to say that I represent no one except myself and advance absolutely no authority on my part. I am the least of the list; however, I persevere. Is that a good thing? You betchums! Take whatever I forward with Rock Salt, never mind those proverbial grains of salt. Not “Revelation”—’tis—that waits, But our unfurnished eyes— Emily Dickinson Quote
benherndon Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Right on, JASD! Your exegesis points out, perhaps inadvertently, that most of us posting here are seriously Biblically challenged in comparison! I also commend your gentleness with us and some of our attitudes. Such teaches us how to discuss with those who have different points of view....Thanks! God Bless you! Ben Quote
benherndon Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 David, why are you dragging this out? I've told you that Rom 3:20 and 6:14 implies along with other verses that we are not under law but we are under grace. Other verses speak similarly...Rom 7:6 "we have been released from the law", and, Rom 3:28 "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law", and, Rom 10:4 "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes", and, Rom 11:6, "if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works [of the Law], otherwise grace is no longer grace" Do these texts in any way say or imply that the Law of Moses must mandatorily be followed by the Christian. If so, then Sabbath observance is still mandatory upon the Christian. If not, then none of the Law, including even the Sabbath law or circumcision, is mandatory for the Christian. Which is it? If you consider observing the Law of Moses is still binding upon the Christian, how do you support such, in view of these texts? Ben Quote
David Koot Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Quote: benherndon said: David, why are you dragging this out? I've told you that Rom 3:20 and 6:14 implies along with other verses that we are not under law but we are under grace. You have told me? Do you suggest that I should accept your authority on this point? Dragging it out? Doing a methodical study of each passage. As for Romans 3:20, there simply is nothing in that verse which suggests or implies that the moral law of God is NOT binding upon Christians. The issue in that verse is not one of the jurisdiction of the Law, but the actions of the believer. The verse does not speak about the status of God's Law, but about the believer. Quote: Do these texts in any way say or imply that the Law of Moses must mandatorily be followed by the Christian. You seem to be turning this around now. You started out by citing this verse as showing that Sabbath observance is NOT commanded upon New Testament Christians. THAT is what I am responding to and studying. David Koot Quote
benherndon Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 Yes, proceed! I'll be waiting. I don't buy green bananas or postpone some enjoyable moment at my age---I may never have another chance before I leave here 'feet first'! Ben Quote
Moderators John317 Posted April 3, 2006 Moderators Posted April 3, 2006 Quote: archierieus said: Some Christians teach that the principles Jesus stated in Matthew 22:36 - 40 have replaced the Ten Commandments for Christians. They call this the "New Law," the "Law of Love." I have sat in a pew in a church on Sunday morning, and heard the preacher say this very thing. Matthew 22:36 -40 reads as follows (YLT): "36 `Teacher, which is the great command in the Law?' 37 And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding-- 38 this is a first and great command; 39 and the second is like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; 40 on these--the two commands--all the law and the prophets do hang.'" How about it? Is what they say true? Have these two principles replaced the Ten Commandments for New Testament Christians? Dave Yes, I have heard the same thing many times. But when you get into the details of their argument you usually find that they say this only in order to get around the Sabbath commandment, because they believe that everyone should obey all the other nine commandments. Besides, that argument also ignores Jesus' words in Matthew 5 where he says that He did not come to destroy or change the law but to show its spirituality and meaning. The Bible shows in many different places that if we really love God, we will obey the first four of the Ten Commandments, and if we love our neighbor as we do ourselves, we will obey the last six having to do with our relationship with other people. Therefore, far from the two principles replacing the Ten Commandments for the New Testament Christian, they show us how broad and deep the law of God is and cause us to want to obey them as Christ did, not in order to earn salvation but as a result of the Holy Spirit's writing the moral law on our hearts and in our mind's. Jim Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted April 3, 2006 Moderators Posted April 3, 2006 Quote: archierieus said: Quote: Nicodema said: So is this basically the crux of the matter here -- this whole debate exists primarily to highlight that the Sabbath specifically is what is getting "ditched" in the "switch" here? So then it's really NOT about whether the TEN commandments have been "replaced" but whether such is claimed as a ruse for chucking numero quatro? Is that the gist? Actually, no, the issue IS the Ten Commandments. The question is, whether or not the TC were abolished at Calvary. A subissue is the Sabbath. The several Bible passages excerpted from Ben's post on a different thread ("I m a Good man most of the time") in support of the belief that the TC--including the Sabbath--have been abolished, are being addressed as we go along. I would say that both the TC and the Sabbath are issues. There is some overlap, but not entirely. Dave As I've been studying the material on this subject put out by various denominations, I've found that every one of them list nine commandments that we are to keep but that the Sabbath commandment is either ignored or changed so that Sunday may be kept in place of the 7th day Sabbath. So it is obvious to me that the objection everyone has to the moral law is the one requiring the keeping of the Sabbath. No one has any problem or objection to any of the other nine. I think it's essential to face that fact squarely. Almost everyone can see the sense in keeping those other nine. The problem is that the Sabbath commandment-- its 7th dayness-- seems arbitrary. Why should God be so particular (picky?) about which day we keep? It seems arbitrary and unreasonable to a lot of people. Would God really make such a big deal out of such a seemingly foolish issue? Well, I suppose Adam and Eve could have said the same thing about God's command to refrain from eating fruit of a particular tree, couldn't they? No doubt it seemed arbitrary and unreasonable. Yet when they ate of that tree that God told them not to eat from, God took it very seriously and cut off all of humanity from access to the Tree of Life. There must be a very profound reason for God's choosing to ask us to keep the 7th day Sabbath. Jim Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
David Koot Posted April 4, 2006 Posted April 4, 2006 Been gone all day, and wish to make a brief post about Rom. 3:20. As I mentioned earlier, the focus of the verse is what the believer does or does not do, rather than the Law. However, the last phrase does explain a purpose of the Law: "By the law is the knowledge of sin." Is there sin for New Testament Christians? What would we say to that? Well, John says that if anyone says that he has not sinned, there is no light in him. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. The Law defines sin. If the Law defines sin, then it is self-evident that the Law has jurisdiction over the believer. Otherwise, it would be irrelevant to the issue of the definition of sin for the believer. As John says in 1 Jn. 3:4, "Whoever committeth sin transgreseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." Thus, we may safely put to bed Rom. 3:20, and move on to the next verse. David Koot Quote
benherndon Posted April 4, 2006 Posted April 4, 2006 I'm listening. You've said this before. Proceed please. Ben Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.