Jesus Came To Fulfill Not To Destroy

[BroTan]

I understand it perfectly.

As concerning condemnation, we are not under the law (Romans 6:14) are dead to the law (Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19) and are delivered from the law (Romans 7:6), so, as concerning condemnation, it is as thought there is no law for those who are born again.

While for the born again, the love of the Lord is shed abroad in our hearts; which love is not impractical (1 John 3:17-18) and which is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:8-10, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6).

So, as concerning obedience, the born again believer is under the law to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21)

Born again is a change in the body not the mind, I showed you that already very clearly. You just cherry pick the Bible.
Paul says in (Colo. 1:22-23) (v.22) In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: (v.23) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settle, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister. You must continue in the faith and not be moved by the cares of the world. It’s more than confessing the name of Jesus, salvation is a work in progress you must take it one day at a time.

It is a sad thing to believe that once you say that you believe on Christ your journey is done. You have only taken the first steps toward learning about the true and living God.

Paul says in (Heb. 3:14) For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; You must believe in what you are doing that’s what faith is, you most be confident unto the end. You must keep God’s law until death or until the coming of the Lord, if you expect salvation.

 

[justbyfaith]

Jesus said in (Matt. 19:16-17) (v.16) And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? That’s what we are all trying to obtain correct, eternal life? (v.17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Now if you want to enter into eternal life you most keep the commandments. Sounds like a little work to me.

You must work until the end! Jesus said in (Rev. 2:26) And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

Eph 2:8, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9, Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 4:5, But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6, Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Tit 3:4, But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Tit 3:5, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit 3:6, Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tit 3:7, That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Rom 11:5, Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6, And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Got to go to church now but will give more of an answer to this later.

 

[BroTan]

Eph 2:8, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9, Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 4:5, But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6, Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Tit 3:4, But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Tit 3:5, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit 3:6, Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tit 3:7, That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Rom 11:5, Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6, And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Got to go to church now but will give more of an answer to this later.

I don't disagree with Paul writing one bit, but you still have works to do, such as baptism, because anyone that is not baptized is a person with their sins yet upon them, because it is the baptism that washes away our past sins. "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16): It’s starts off with repentance, that’s one of the first thing Jesus says when he got started in his ministry, Jesus says in Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Then Peter said unto them, "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2: 38)

The works of the law was nail to the cross, and that works were animal sacrificial laws. Let’s first take a look at this law that was nail to the cross that Paul explains in Hebrews 10: (v.1) For the law (what law, the law of animal sacrifice?) having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (v.9) Then said he, (Jesus) Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second. (v.10) By which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

When Jesus died on the cross that was the end of the first covenant, which consisted of the blood of animals and the keeping of God’s commandments. And his death also brought in the second covenant, which consist of the blood of Jesus and the keeping of God’s commandments. (v.18) Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. In other words, no more animals are going to die for your sins.

 

[Yahshua]

Jesus didn't tell us not to judge in Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42?

Strawman. You're asking your question to whoever said such.

So, what exactly are you saying?

That Christians ought to judge other Christians who are not obeying the sabbath how?

That they are wrong for not obeying the sabbath day law?

Should believers rebuke other believers for committing any sin or is that wrong to do? I mean, because that's what you're really asking, isn't it? Is it our responsibility to rebuke and reprove each other or not?

Taking it away from the specific Sabbath commandment for a moment; do you take issue with believers being told they're wrong or that they sin? If so, it should be clear how prevalent the "secret lawlessness" (2 Thess 2) has spread since beginning in Paul's day.

What might be the result if someone doesn't obey the sabbath day law after having been warned that they are wrong for not doing so?

The same result as breaking any other commandment. Sin is the transgression of the law, isn't it? A sin is a sin. Our mission is to stop sinning, isn't it? or no?

You can call this a non-sequitur ad-hominem if you wish but I hope that you will answer my objections. For they have a place within my reasoning and if you simply discount them I think that we will have reached an impasse in this conversation.

Indeed this is an impasse because the rest of your reply is considered "fallacious" when you apply certain things to my argument that I haven't claimed to hold. Your argument is with them and not with me or with what I've been saying.

 

[Phoneman-777]

The argument you are presenting is that Biblical scholars for centuries have been getting Colossians 2:16 wrong and that miraculously you have determined that "Sabbath" in that passage absolutely cannot connote the Sabbath. And you have made this determination because... it is an inconvenience for your interpretation? You cite books of the Bible, but I don't see passages that state this distinction. Realistically, if you were trying to make a case for your position, you would be referencing NT passages instead of OT ones.

Before your so called "scholars" began championing Sunday, the entire Christian world was keeping the Sabbath. Study the writings of Socrates Scholasticus, St. Patrick, and even the Roman Catholic church, and you'll discover what current Bible and prophecy teachers aren't telling you.

It is an explicit commandment in the New Testament to not steal. It is part of the law of Christ. "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." - Romans 13:9 KJV The mistake you are making here is assuming that the process of Christ's law fulfilling the OT law is a form of lawlessness. To be in Christ is to follow the law of Christ. This isn't some conversation about "grace gone wild" which as a concept isn't very Christian in nature. Instead of discussing the topic at hand you have decided to make the "grace gone wild" straw man and attacked it instead.

No, the mistake you make is failing to understand that Christ wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger in stone before He came to Earth as a man and kept the very same commandments in order to be a suitable sacrifice for our sin. He did not die in order to grant us a license to keep doing that which made necessary His ignominious death on the Cross in the first place.

"Grace gone wild" definitely deserves criticism, but that's not what I'm talking about here. You have this backwards. If you believe that in order to show obedience to God that you must fulfil the OT law including the provisions around the Sabbath such as "do no work" you must also follow the provisions which state "you shall kill those that break the Sabbath". You clearly don't kill people that work on the Sabbath and therefore you wilfully disobey the OT law.

This is totally subjective. Where in the Ten Commandments does it say to kill anyone for Sabbath breaking?

If you want to draw a line in the sand about how OT laws must be divided, you have to determine how that bundle of "do no work" and "kill Sabbath breakers" apply. Both exist as the same type of commandment. If you are looking to justify your position only using OT law, you can't pick one and not the other.

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." - Exodus 31:12-17 KJV If you are counting the provision "kill Sabbath breakers" to be obsolete, so too is the provision "rest on the Sabbath".

I'm about to drop a truth bomb on you and the collateral damage is going to be extensive. Ready?
THE LAW OF MOSES WHICH CONTAINS THE DIRECTIVE TO KILL SABBATH BREAKERS HAS BEEN NAILED TO THE CROSS. OK?

Would you save an ass from a well on the Sabbath? If so, you agree that it isn't a clear cut line drawn that states: "working on the Sabbath = bad"

The Bible clearly teaches that we may tend to emergencies on Sabbath, but we are to abstain from routine work. Why do you fail to see what is so obvious?

By allowing Christ to work through us on the Sabbath, we fulfil the requirement to keep the Sabbath holy. We can draw asses from wells on the Sabbath and still fulfil OT law through Christ. Jesus' analogy of drawing an ass from a well on the Sabbath is an example of situational ethics.

No, Situation Ethics is used to undermine a truth - what Jesus did was clarify the truth. You are employing Situation Ethics to do away with the Sabbath which you know full well will be kept for all eternity. Jesus upheld the Sabbath commandment but cleared it of all the mess the Jews attached to it.

And you were right to follow your conscience. If you feel it is the right thing to observe the Sabbath by resting, there is nothing inconsistent with this and the fulfilment interpretation. Sometimes we can come to the correct conclusion using the wrong logic. Incorrect logic can sometimes reinforce the correct ideas. My attempt here wasn't to gainsay your conclusion that resting on the Sabbath is right for you, but I disagree with the approach that it would necessarily be a universal rule in order to honour the Sabbath.

It's not about what you or I "feel" about the Sabbath - it's about a clear cut commandment written by Jesus in stone for all eternity which identifies who we worship to the world. It's a "sign" between God and His people. Sunday is the Mark of the Beast, which is the Roman Catholic Papacy.

Taking another look at this. If you were referring to the idea that different things can be true for different people, a great example of this is in Paul's discussions of unclean things. The self-evident truth is that nothing is unclean in itself, but to those that esteem something unclean, it is unclean to them.

Paul didn't say he was convinced nothing was "unclean" of itself - the Greek is "common". Paul said he was convinced nothing was "common" although the idea of "common" was a permanent fixture in Judaism. The NT acknowledges the differentiation between "clean and unclean" but you seem to wish to wipe all away with a wrong rendering of a Greek word? We must never allow one verse here to override another verse there, but we must seek to HARMONIZE any apparent contradictions.

If someone esteems pork to be unclean, it is unclean to them. It is morally correct for them to avoid this thing but may not be morally necessary for others to avoid that thing. If booze is something that someone has a sinful relationship with, it is something that they should avoid, but it isn't necessarily the case that everyone should avoid booze. What is sinful for one person may not be sinful for another.

"So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." - Romans 14:22-23 NIV

/part 1

Pork is still unclean, because it was not "sanctified by the Word of God" in Leviticus 11 as acceptable for our consumption as was the clean foods therein. Why don't you believe Isaiah 66 where it says Jesus is coming back with fire to judge "all" creation and consume those who eat "swine's flesh" together with idolaters and those who partake of abominations? Did you miss that Old Testament prophecy of the Second Coming?

 

[Phoneman-777]

"thou shalt do no work unless ..."
Ah hah!... Unless it's changing a tire!

Do you understand the difference between an emergency and a non-emergency?

Some might interpret the willingness to change a tire on the Sabbath as breaking God's "Moral" law. But is it? Or is it a situation ethic? Maybe only change it if it's an emergency?

Look at it this way: Say a dude is waiting to pick up his girlfriend at the airport, whom he hasn't seen in a year. She rushes into his arms but he says, "Babe, I just got this new issue of Popular Mechanics and there's an article I've been dying to read, so please don't bother me at the moment..." Will she be upset? OK, now try this: say they come together and are very much in love and are holding hands as they drive away from the airport and all of a sudden the tire blows out and he has to take a few minutes to change it. Will she be upset? The Sabbath is about spending time with the one you love, and laying aside all that which can be tended to afterward. Does the thought of spending quality time with God every Sabbath day free from the distractions of life like work, chores, paying bills, home and auto repairs, etc., disturb you?

This is where I don't see the value in trying to impose OT commandments based only on the authority of the OT. We can come to the same conclusion that changing a tire on the Sabbath is an acceptable form of work easily within the fulfilment interpretation. Within the fulfilment interpretation we can even come to the conclusion that one should limit nonessential work on the Sabbath. But there is room for differences in what one is compelled to do.

If you're not willing to acknowledge the difference between emergency work which Jesus says is acceptable and routine work from which the commandment says we are to rest, then we're just going round and round for nothing.

There are certainly procedural commandments in place in the OT. But as much as "do no work on the Sabbath" could be seen as a procedural commandment with the aim at compliance with the required standard "Keep the Sabbath day holy", it then comes down to the question of which commandments are we interpreting as procedures and which are we interpreting as standards. I see "do no work on the Sabbath" as procedural ("ceremonial", etc.), but accept that you could look at "Keep the Sabbath day holy" as a standard. The fulfilment interpretation just covers the basis that any standard or "Moral" law from the OT is covered by or fulfilled through Christ and the law of Christ.

There's nothing "procedural" about the Sabbath. You simply take a break from the rat race and spend time with God and the brethren and be about the Father's business. What is that a problem for you?

For the sake of exploring the interpretation that Romans 14:5 is not inclusive of the Sabbath, I'm with you so far. Let's assume you're right here for the moment.

We don't have to assume anything: we can use the brains God gave us. Now, think: When it was proposed to the NT church that circumcision was no longer a requirement, a riot among the people almost broke out. Have you any idea what would have happened if Paul proposed that the Sabbath commandment - one that was written with the very finger of God as opposed to the relatively less important law of circumcision written by the hand of Moses -was now done away with and replaced with Sunday? It would have been WWIII!!! Why did nobody get nuked, then? Because nobody had proposed to change the Sabbath day at all - it is shown over and over in the NT to be just as important to the faithful as in the OT.

And his conclusion (in part) in Romans 14 was to allow your faith to guide you to the correct answer but to freely discuss disagreements. "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." - Romans 14:17-19 NIV Hebrews 4 seems to address this topic. And the conclusion that might be drawn from Heb 4 is that by being in Christ we rest from our own works (and allow Christ's works to happen though us).

Hebrews 4:9-10 KJV tells us that if we're resting in the finished work of Jesus, we'll demonstrate that inward rest by resting outwardly from our work "as God did from His". There's simply no other way to interpret these two verses.

The only violation would be in regards to the ordinances revolving around different Mosaic commandments. If "keep the Sabbath" is the standard, the procedure I'm using to fulfil that is the idea that changing a tire is OK on the Sabbath. Some people wouldn't see that as OK. Some people would see even the simplest labour as a disobedience to keeping the Sabbath. We should be lead to our conclusions by faith, not by legalistic man-made conventions of what counts as work.

Doesn't matter what people "see" - what matters is what we read...in Scripture. Do you steal? Lie? Cheat on the spouse? Worship the devil? IOW, do you keep 9 of the Ten Commandments? Then what is your problem with keeping the 4th which grants you permission to do nothing buy enjoy the presence of God without the daily distractions or responsibilities of the first six days upon which we're commanded to work?

Do you not live life with the philosophy that your only purpose in life is to do God's work? And despite not having a good quality of service that we strive to do what we can to opening ourselves up to having Him work through us? (For only God is good). I think in a very significant way, the NT iteration of the law does magnify the law. One of the examples is "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour" became "don't bear false witness at all". Many of the commandments transformed from "I'm in the good books because I conformed to a fleshly requirement" to being focused on a spiritual requirement.

OK, so why agree that Jesus came to expand on the rest of the law, but somehow when it comes to the Sabbath, He did the opposite? If we're keeping the Spirit of the law, by default we will be keeping the letter, because you can't have sex with your neighbor's wife without lusting after her or murder someone without feeling anger towards them.
[/QUOTE] "Thou shalt do no work" became "do good works for the Sabbath". It's easy to do nothing on a day, it requires the presence of faith and the guidance of God to even approach having good works being performed through you. And beyond that, if "today" is the Sabbath as Hebrews 4 argues, how much harder that is to even dream of approaching that perfection (a thing we'll never reach). [/QUOTE] "thou shalt work" did not evolve. It has ALWAYS been lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Jesus didn't have a problem with the Ten Commandments, He had a problem with the Jews attaching stuff to them which God never intended. Please stop assuming Jesus came to change things up - He came to straighten out what man had made crooked.

 

[Jocund]

Before your so called "scholars"

You mean the vast majority of translators and publishers of Bibles? Their expertise far exceeds yours. You're not disagreeing with a theological interpretation at this point, you're disagreeing with scripture itself. Even when we observe the Greek word "sabaton" used in Col 2:16, it is clear this is inclusive of the weekly Sabbath. It is inconvenient for your interpretation and therefore you choose to reject scripture instead of rejecting your false interpretation.

began championing Sunday, the entire Christian world was keeping the Sabbath.

I would ask for sources, but your approach does not appear to be very scholarly to begin with.

Study the writings of Socrates Scholasticus, St. Patrick, and even the Roman Catholic church, and you'll discover what current Bible and prophecy teachers aren't telling you.

Instead of getting lost and confused in secondary writings, I suggest you focus on scripture first.

No, the mistake you make is failing to understand that Christ wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger in stone before He came to Earth as a man and kept the very same commandments

You mean the two tablets that were written by the finger of God and subsequently destroyed by Moses before being given to the people? And the two replacement tablets chiselled by Moses that were instructed to be "like the ones I gave you"? The ten commandments given to the people were secondhand and chiselled by Moses. Moses was known for not following the exact word of God. Reread Deuteronomy 9 and 10 when you have the chance. The tablets that God touched never made it to the people. If that was pivotal in your interpretation, I suggest you reevaluate your interpretation. All of the law in that part of the Bible came secondhand by Moses.

This is totally subjective. Where in the Ten Commandments does it say to kill anyone for Sabbath breaking?

Exodus 35:2.

I'm about to drop a truth bomb on you and the collateral damage is going to be extensive. Ready?
THE LAW OF MOSES WHICH CONTAINS THE DIRECTIVE TO KILL SABBATH BREAKERS HAS BEEN NAILED TO THE CROSS. OK?

Good, then you agree that the ordinance for rest has also been nailed to the cross. You can't cherry pick.

The Bible clearly teaches that we may tend to emergencies on Sabbath, but we are to abstain from routine work. Why do you fail to see what is so obvious?

You are blinded by a favourite interpretation and fail to see that scripture does not say that. If you were going to freeze to death on the Sabbath because you forgot to collect firewood, you would be put to death in accordance with Numbers 15:32-36 if you decided to address that emergency by collecting wood.

No, Situation Ethics is used to undermine a truth

The presence of situational ethics in scripture undermines your interpretation, not the truth. And just because one element is situational, such as that which is unclean, does not mean that all things are situational. Idolatry is bad, but idols are only situationally bad.

Sunday is the Mark of the Beast, which is the Roman Catholic Papacy.

Sunday worship isn't the mark of the beast. But your eagerness to call other things evil outside of what scripture declares to be so certainly says a lot about your outlook.

Paul didn't say he was convinced nothing was "unclean" of itself

Yes he did.

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." - Romans 14:14 KJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans 14:14

https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2839.htm

And while you're at it, you might as well address Romans 14:20

"For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence." - Romans 14:20 KJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans 14:20

https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2513.htm

- the Greek is "common". Paul said he was convinced nothing was "common" although the idea of "common" was a permanent fixture in Judaism.

You're not a Greek language expert. Stop butchering Greek. Stop denying what is explicitly the case in scripture. Read Romans 14 all the way through. You can call it common, unclean, whatever pretty word you like. The point in Romans is that something that one esteems to be bad is bad for them and shouldn't be partaken of.

The NT acknowledges the differentiation between "clean and unclean" but you seem to wish to wipe all away with a wrong rendering of a Greek word?

Read the chapter... stop presenting opinions without researching. It might be the case that you are more fond of the Talmud or some other text rather than Christian scripture. Sure, I guess. But at least have the courtesy of knowing the source material that you are contesting and make coherent arguments.

We must never allow one verse here to override another verse there

And yet this is exactly what you have done. Instead of facing the internal contradictions in your interpretation, you've decided to reimagine the words of scripture to fit your interpretation.

but we must seek to HARMONIZE any apparent contradictions.

And multiple interpretations may harmonize the same scripture in different ways despite contradicting each other. Something that does not harmonize scripture is the adamant foot-stomping to deny words like "unclean" or "sabbath" or "homosexual" in scripture simply because it conflicts with your flawed interpretation of scripture.

Pork is still unclean, because it was not "sanctified by the Word of God" in Leviticus 11 as acceptable for our consumption as was the clean foods therein.

Well... No, what you say is not true. But you wouldn't understand that unless you thoroughly read the New Testament. And here we go back again, you've backtracked on the laws being nailed to the cross (oops?).

"For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." - 1 Timothy 4:4-5 KJV

We sanctify our food by blessing it. I'm not sure if you are aware of the Christian custom of saying grace before a meal, but that is part of the reason we do.

 

[justbyfaith]

Jesus said in (Matt. 19:16-17) (v.16) And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? That’s what we are all trying to obtain correct, eternal life? (v.17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Now if you want to enter into eternal life you most keep the commandments. Sounds like a little work to me.

You must work until the end! Jesus said in (Rev. 2:26) And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

Eph 2:8, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9, Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 4:5, But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6, Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Tit 3:4, But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Tit 3:5, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit 3:6, Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tit 3:7, That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Rom 11:5, Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6, And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Got to go to church now but will give more of an answer to this later.

Jesus preached the law to the rich young ruler in order to bring him to the end of himself...for the purpose of the law is to show a man that he cannot keep it apart from being filled with the Holy Ghost.

If a person is filled with the Holy Ghost, he has already been saved through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ; and therefore it is not his keeping of the law that is going to save him.

We obey the law as Christians because we love Jesus (John 14:15, John 14:21, John 14:23, John 15:10); not in order to obtain salvation.

There is also a blessing in life for those who, understanding that they have been justified through faith in the blood of Chirst, look into the perfect law of liberty and continue in it (James 1:25).

While there is a definite curse on the life of those who seek to be justified through their keeping of the law.

When Jesus was done with the rich young ruler, the man had nothing left with which he considered that he might earn his acceptance before God. The man went away sorrowful; but even in walking away physically, he had become ripe for the harvest of being saved through the real gospel that would be preached by the apostles later:

1Co 15:1, Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2, By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3, For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4, And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

[justbyfaith]

And by doing so you come up under his precious blood and then you are saved from your sins that are past, not present or future sins but for sins that are past.

Present and future sins are also accounted for (Romans 4:8, Romans 8:38-39, Hebrews 9:12).

 

[justbyfaith]

Born again is a change in the body not the mind,

I believe that there are verses in Romans 7 and 8 that might tell you otherwise (read the two chapters for confirmation).

 

[justbyfaith]

It is a sad thing to believe that once you say that you believe on Christ your journey is done. You have only taken the first steps toward learning about the true and living God.

Hearing Jesus' words and believing on Him who sent Him means that I have passed from death into everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation (John 5:24). Of course there is much more that we can learn about Him from that point; but there is nothing that will ever be able to stop us from reaching the finish line of the journey; it is as good as already done that we will cross the finish line if we have a genuine faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29-30). In the passage referenced, we have already been glorified even though that has not yet been accomplished in us.

 

[Jocund]

Do you understand the difference between an emergency and a non-emergency?

You tried to make the case that there were no exceptions to resting on the Sabbath, leaving it as a rhetorical question. You then later in the same post answered your own question by offering an exception. Your thinking was contradictory.

Was Katrina in 2005 an emergency? You wanted to rest on Saturdays during that. Was that not an event that would justify working on the Sabbath? Why then did you refuse if you believe that emergencies are a justifiable reason to work on the Sabbath? Either you've changed your mind since Katrina or the way you are presenting your position is contradicting itself.

Does the thought of spending quality time with God every Sabbath day free from the distractions of life like work, chores, paying bills, home and auto repairs, etc., disturb you?

Saturdays are great for unwinding. The concept of resting on a Saturday isn't objectionable. But the concept that you are suggesting that a Saturday rest must be followed in order to honour commandments or ordinances that are allegedly currently in play is irksome. It shows me the impression that you fit into the same category of believers that insisted that OT practices were still mandatory, and Paul took the time to rebuke and correct their position.

If you're not willing to acknowledge the difference between emergency work which Jesus says is acceptable

Jesus' point was that good works are permissible on the Sabbath. If we endeavour to be in Christ and always allow God's goodness to work through us, this fulfils the requirement for the Sabbath's rest, as we have rested from our own works and stay in God's rest. Hebrews 4. Read it carefully.

and routine work from which the commandment says we are to rest, then we're just going round and round for nothing.
There's nothing "procedural" about the Sabbath. You simply take a break from the rat race and spend time with God and the brethren and be about the Father's business. What is that a problem for you?

If you were helping a team of people build a church on Saturdays, would you find that offensive to the Sabbath? Would this be disobedient in your perspective?

OK, so why agree that Jesus came to expand on the rest of the law, but somehow when it comes to the Sabbath, He did the opposite?

By doing good works, this is a rest from our works. Christ fulfils the law.

"thou shalt work" did not evolve. It has ALWAYS been lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Jesus didn't have a problem with the Ten Commandments, He had a problem with the Jews attaching stuff to them which God never intended. Please stop assuming Jesus came to change things up - He came to straighten out what man had made crooked.

You gone from "nothing is permissible" to "emergencies works are permissible" and now you've conceded to "good works are permissible". If we're on the same page about "good works are permissible", we basically don't disagree. Then people trying to do good works on the Sabbath are still upholding the spirit of that Mosaic commandment. It isn't a contradiction to work on the Sabbath. One will always do good works if one is in Christ. Therefore, one in Christ is always permitted to work on the Sabbath, as good works come from that state of being. Our focus at that point is to stay in faith and to stay in Christ. And sometimes being in Christ may lead us to rest and recharge on Saturdays.

If you agree with that position, I think we came to a common understanding. And if that is the case, I didn't expect to see that from our dialogue (at least so soon).

 

[justbyfaith]

Your argument is with them and not with me or with what I've been saying.

Then the question that I have for you is, do you believe as they do concerning this issue of the sabbath?

What do you believe as concerning the seventh-day adventists' take on sabbath-keeping?

Because it seems to me that you are arguing for their position.

So then, if your position is the same, is not my argument also with you if it is with them?

 

[justbyfaith]

Strawman. You're asking your question to whoever said such.

I don't think that it is a straw man.

Jesus clearly told us not to judge lest we be judged in those verses; if He was not telling us not to judge what was He telling us?

He was clearly telling us not to judge.

 

[Yahshua]

Then the question that I have for you is, do you believe as they do concerning this issue of the sabbath?

What do you believe as concerning the seventh-day adventists' take on sabbath-keeping?

Because it seems to me that you are arguing for their position.

So then, if your position is the same, is not my argument also with you if it is with them?

KKK members say they are believers in Christ. Because we also believe in Christ does that make us all KKK members? Of course not. But this is an extreme example of an ad hominem fallacy. It's "guilty by association" ad hominem in an attempt to discredit my position by grouping me with a group already deemed of a poor credited...instead of sticking with the scripture and countering the argument I've presented.

I've been telling you what I believe about the sabbath, as it concerns the scripture. I can't tell you what a specific group believes or whether I believe as they do if I'm not part of their group. If you want to argue with a seventh-day Adventist feel free to find one.

I don't think that it is a straw man.

Jesus clearly told us not to judge lest we be judged in those verses; if He was not telling us not to judge what was He telling us?

He was clearly telling us not to judge.

A strawman fallacy is when you've mischaracterized another's statement (whether directly changing the statement of omitting parts) and then assume the false statement was the original statement to argue against.

I said...

3) The Messiah never said not to judge, but to judge righteously (John 7:24).

There's a comma which means the entire statement is a complete thought...but you removed the portion you couldn't argue against, creating your own quote to question...

The Messiah never said not to judge,

Jesus didn't tell us not to judge in Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42?

Come on friend. My original reference of Messiah's words in John 7:24 must be addressed as that's what *I* replied to you.

So which of Messiah's words is correct?

a) John 7:24
b) Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42
c) All of the above

 

[justbyfaith]

KKK members say they are believers in Christ. Because we also believe in Christ does that make us all KKK members? Of course not. But this is an extreme example of an ad hominem fallacy. It's "guilty by association" ad hominem in an attempt to discredit my position by grouping me with a group already deemed of a poor credited...instead of sticking with the scripture and countering the argument I've presented.

I've been telling you what I believe about the sabbath, as it concerns the scripture. I can't tell you what a specific group believes or whether I believe as they do if I'm not part of their group. If you want to argue with a seventh-day Adventist feel free to find one.



A strawman fallacy is when you've mischaracterized another's statement (whether directly changing the statement of omitting parts) and then assume the false statement was the original statement to argue against.

I said...


There's a comma which means the entire statement is a complete thought...but you removed the portion you couldn't argue against, creating your own quote to question...



Come on friend. My original reference of Messiah's words in John 7:24 must be addressed as that's what *I* replied to you.

So which of Messiah's words is correct?

a) John 7:24
b) Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42
c) All of the above

C of course.

I believe that the Lord was indicating that it is not good to judge others because if you do, you will be judged in the same manner that you have judged. Everyone will be judged by God; and the standard by which they will be judged is very likely the same standard that they have used in judging others. So, it is important to judge righteously. You wouldn't want to be judged yourself under an unrighteous balance. If you are righteous therefore, you will refrain from judging for the most part (as Paul wrote "judge nothing before the time") and when you do judge, it will not be on an unrighteous basis or by an unrighteous standard. The Pharisees judged the Lord unrighteously. For He also said, "You judge according to the flesh; I judge no man. Yet if I do judge, yet my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father which sent me."

So, if we do judge, we don't want to judge according to the flesh.

I believe that the Lord did in fact exhort us not to judge according to the flesh or with unrighteous judgment.

He told us that if we judge anyone, it is normally because of an inherent sin in our own lives that we are seeing magnified in others.

 

[Phoneman-777]

You mean the vast majority of translators and publishers of Bibles?

Since you trust the word of scholars so implicitly, why aren't you a Historicist, seeing that for over 300 years every Protestant the world over taught the Papacy is the Antichrist of Bible prophecy? Truth is not established by consensus - at best, it warrants investigation, and my investigations have led me to embrace their Historicism but reject their ideas concerning Sunday sacredness, which is found no where in Scripture.

I would ask for sources, but your approach does not appear to be very scholarly to begin with.

Is English your first language? I mentioned THREE sources. Here's the first, a FIFTH CENTURY A.D. church scholar:

"For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the mysteries on the Sabbath [7th day - Saturday] of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this." -- Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, b.5, ch.22, found in Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers.​

What was the "ancient tradition"? Sun Worship on the "venerable day of the sun". Why Rome and Alexandria? Because Alexandria was the capital of occultism and Rome is the seat of the Antichrist.

Instead of getting lost and confused in secondary writings, I suggest you focus on scripture first.

OK. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days thou shalt labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it, thou shalt do no work..."

And the two replacement tablets chiselled by Moses that were instructed to be "like the ones I gave you"? The ten commandments given to the people were secondhand and chiselled by Moses...

Wrong. Scripture clearly says it was God who wrote on the second set of tablets:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon [these] tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest...And He (God) wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. -- Exodus 34:1; 34:28 KJV​

You are blinded by a favourite interpretation and fail to see that scripture does not say that. If you were going to freeze to death on the Sabbath because you forgot to collect firewood, you would be put to death in accordance with Numbers 15:32-36 if you decided to address that emergency by collecting wood.The presence of situational ethics in scripture undermines your interpretation, not the truth. And just because one element is situational, such as that which is unclean, does not mean that all things are situational. Idolatry is bad, but idols are only situationally bad.

There is no Situation Ethics in Scripture. Did Daniel hide his prayers or open his windows so that everyone could see his refusal to break the First Commandment? Did the three Hebrew worthies pretend to tie their shoelaces or stand tall so that everyone would see their refusal to break the Second? Did Joseph give in to sexual advances in order to escape the sentence of death for the false charges he obviously knew would be forthcoming, or did he uphold the Seventh despite that? (The fact that he was only sent to prison is evidence in the mind of scholars that Potiphar didn't believe her). If only Joseph, Daniel, and the Three Worthies knew about Situation Ethics, think of the trouble they could have spared themselves!

Sunday worship isn't the mark of the beast. But your eagerness to call other things evil outside of what scripture declares to be so certainly says a lot about your outlook.

If the Beast says "Sunday is our Mark of authority", who are you to say otherwise?

Yes he did.

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." - Romans 14:14 KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans 14:14 https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2839.htm

I've shown you that the word "unclean" should have been translated "common". Paul knew full well that "clean/unclean" yet remained a thing in the NT by quoting "touch not the unclean thing".
BTW, have you not anything to say with regard to Isaiah's prophecy of the Second Coming, where it says Jesus is going to destroy those who eat swine, or will you continue cherrypicking and taking verses out of context?

You're not a Greek language expert. Stop butchering Greek. Stop denying what is explicitly the case in scripture. Read Romans 14 all the way through. You can call it common, unclean, whatever pretty word you like. The point in Romans is that something that one esteems to be bad is bad for them and shouldn't be partaken of.

Since when does one need to be an "expert" to understand what the experts have to say? The word is not "unclean", it is "common", and Paul plainly states this made up category is not a legit third addition to "clean and unclean".

Read the chapter... stop presenting opinions without researching. It might be the case that you are more fond of the Talmud or some other text rather than Christian scripture. Sure, I guess. But at least have the courtesy of knowing the source material that you are contesting and make coherent arguments.

I've stated plenty of facts, and your refusal to accept them makes them no less factual than they are. Please lay aside your bigotry and read the Scripture. Isaiah says Jesus is going to destroy those who eat pork when he comes with fire and there's NOTHING you can say to discount that nor will you be able to claim ignorance, having now been enlightened.

Instead of facing the internal contradictions in your interpretation..."

Exactly to what "internal contradictions" do you refer?

And multiple interpretations may harmonize the same scripture in different ways despite contradicting each other. Something that does not harmonize scripture is the adamant foot-stomping to deny words like "unclean" or "sabbath" or "homosexual" in scripture simply because it conflicts with your flawed interpretation of scripture.

You appeal to translated words instead of the original Greek, and you also ignore other texts which must be allowed to have their impact. Before you criticize another's degree of expertise in Greek, perhaps you should take a course in Hermeneutics?

"For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." - 1 Timothy 4:4-5 KJV
We sanctify our food by blessing it. I'm not sure if you are aware of the Christian custom of saying grace before a meal, but that is part of the reason we do.

You conveniently left out the part about food being "sanctified by the Word of God", didn't you? Leviticus is the place in the Word of God where acceptable food is sanctified, and our prayer request for God's blessing over it enables Him to bestow upon it further benefit.

We cannot make food holy.
We cannot make a day holy.
We cannot make ourselves holy.

We are to submit to that which God has declared holy, not fight against it and Him.[/QUOTE]

 

[justbyfaith]

You conveniently left out the part about food being "sanctified by the Word of God", didn't you? Leviticus is the place in the Word of God where acceptable food is sanctified,

All foods are actually sanctified in Mark 7:15, 18-21, Luke 11:41, Romans 14:14.

 

[Phoneman-777]

You tried to make the case that there were no exceptions to resting on the Sabbath, leaving it as a rhetorical question. You then later in the same post answered your own question by offering an exception. Your thinking was contradictory.

You want to expand the "Sabbath emergency" exception ordained by Jesus to cover any and all conditions. Sorry, not happening.

Was Katrina in 2005 an emergency? You wanted to rest on Saturdays during that. Was that not an event that would justify working on the Sabbath? Why then did you refuse if you believe that emergencies are a justifiable reason to work on the Sabbath? Either you've changed your mind since Katrina or the way you are presenting your position is contradicting itself.

Good question. At first, the work was emergency restoration of life line communications, etc., of which I was convicted by the Holy Spirit to be lawful "doing good" on Sabbath - but not wanting to profit from "doing good", I would add up my hourly rate times the number of hours worked and donate every cent, without regard for taxes or anything: sometimes it was $700-$800, depending on the hours. However, when the work changed from "emergency" to "routine", it is then I told my supervisors I could not longer report to work on Sabbath.

Saturdays are great for unwinding. The concept of resting on a Saturday isn't objectionable. But the concept that you are suggesting that a Saturday rest must be followed in order to honour commandments or ordinances that are allegedly currently in play is irksome.

You find the Sabbath commandment "grievous"? There's a cool $1,000 waiting for anyone willing to go in tomorrow, but my Lord left the unspeakable glory and honor of His throne to come and shed His blood for me and now asks that those who love Him would keep His commandments. To those of us who love Him, His commandments are not grievous.

Jesus' point was that good works are permissible on the Sabbath. If we endeavour to be in Christ and always allow God's goodness to work through us, this fulfils the requirement for the Sabbath's rest, as we have rested from our own works and stay in God's rest. Hebrews 4. Read it carefully.

Why do you continue twisting Scripture? The text plainly says if we're resting inwardly in Christ, we'll demonstrate that by resting outwardly as God did on the seventh day: from literal work.

If you were helping a team of people build a church on Saturdays, would you find that offensive to the Sabbath? Would this be disobedient in your perspective? By doing good works, this is a rest from our works. Christ fulfils the law.

A blind man can see the purpose of the Sabbath is to draw close to God, and a rule of thumb is that anything that gets in the way of that should be laid aside until after. It's amazing that people have no trouble figuring out what is or is not acceptable activity when spending time with a loving wife or husband, but when it comes to God, they get all confused. If your husband or wife only visited you once a week, would you spend those hours distracted with building a house, or would you stay as close to him/her as possible while the opportunity permits?

It isn't a contradiction to work on the Sabbath.

"In it, thou shalt do no work..." Jesus said it was acceptable to get an ox out of a ditch or water the animals, but you never found Him swinging a hammer or cutting a dove tail joint on Sabbath.

 

[Phoneman-777]

All foods are actually sanctified in Mark 7:15, 18-21, Luke 11:41, Romans 14:14.

Mark 7:15, 18-21 KJV
To what issue is Jesus responding? The Pharisaic claim that failure to ceremoniously wash defiles a man...He was NOT referring to menu items, because He Himself through Isaiah 66 says He's coming in fiery judgment of "all flesh" to consume those who eat abominable things like swine's flesh.

Luke 11:41 KJV
Again, Jesus is addressing the Pharisaic claim that failure to ceremoniously wash defiles a man...by "all things are clean unto you" Jesus means "whatever things the lying hypocrite Pharisees claim are unclean about you"...else, He wouldn't have told Isaiah He's coming back in fiery judgment to destroy those who eat unclean things.

Romans 14:14 KJV
Let's try to remember Judaizers insisted Christian converts observe the Mosaic Law which contained specified menu items on various days of observance, OK? Paul's referring to "days" and "eats" having to do with the Mosaic Law, not the Ten Commandments or "clean/unclean". I follow the law of health regarding clean/unclean because I can't ignore Isaiah 66 in order to establish my doctrine like the rest of those who profess Christianity.