Sabbath

there was no command to keep the Sabbath until God gave it Moses for Israel at Sinai....

all you judeaizers have one thing in common- your theology is based on assumptions.

you ASSUME that because God in Genesis Sanctified the seventh day, He commanded people to keep it.
and how many things did God say " it shall be a statue forever" that Jesus did not repeat and at times did not even confirm??

There are many who try to blend two different systems, (the sacrificial system, committed to Adam, which the Lord also gave them at Sinai and the moral law written on our hearts in the beginning, and was written on stone at Sinai).
To blend the two different systems many use the texts that speak of the ceremonial law to prove that the moral law has been abolished; but this is a perversion of the Scriptures. The distinction between the two systems is broad and clear. The ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ, to His sacrifice and His priesthood. This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ “took ... out of the way, nailing it to His cross.” Col 2:14. But concerning the law of Ten Commandments the psalmist declares, “Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven.” Psalm 119:89. And Christ Himself says, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law.... Verily I say unto you”—making the assertion as emphatic as possible—“Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matthew 5:17, 18. Here He teaches, not merely what the claims of God's law had been, and were then, but that these claims should hold as long as the heavens and the earth remain. The law of God is as immutable as His throne. It will maintain its claims upon mankind in all ages. PP 365.1
Concerning the law proclaimed from Sinai, Nehemiah says, “Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments.” Nehemiah 9:13. And Paul, “the apostle to the Gentiles,” declares, “The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:12. This can be no other than the Decalogue; for it is the law that says, “Thou shalt not covet.” Verse 7.

Be honest, the bible does not contradict itself.

I have addressed Romans 14 three or four times on this thread. It is not about the dietary laws or the sabbath. Everything is within the context of fasting.


Deuteronomy 19:15

15 “The testimony of one person alone is not to suffice to convict anyone of any iniquity, sin, or guilt. But the matter will stand on the testimony of two or three witnesses.


Matthew 18:16


16 But if he doesn’t listen, take one or two others with you so that ‘every word may be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’


So if to me it seems like Moses' writings say circumcision is forever, and Peter seems to back that up.... Why wouldn't I wan't a second witness that is on board with what Paul seems to be saying on the topic?

no contradictions , but 2 completely different covenants.

that is the key.

no renewed covenant. a NEW covenant...

A covenant is like a contract.... think of it like a lease. A new lease does not mean the rules to stay in the property need to be changed.

Are you ASSUMING that the accusations were valid of Jesus not keeping these laws? Was the Messiah sinless? If he was, but still broke laws what is YOUR definition of sin?

You said "that Jesus did not repeat and at times did not even confirm"

How is Mathew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17 not him confirming what his Father said?

" you have heard it said, but I say to you...."

Jesus

And your interpretation of that phrase is stronger than "until heaven and earth disappear"???

so, do you not by clothes that are made of blended fabrics?

that would be a jot and tittle .

do you turn on the heat in your home on Shabbat?

because God said not to.
that would be a jot and tittle....

need me to go on?

Good way to avoid the question....

and irrelevant.

Even if that was the intended interpretation of those laws AND those specific laws were directed to all people forever; That does not effect whether or not the law as a whole is "until heaven and earth disappear." How difficult a law is, or whether or not we understand it, is irrelevent to whether or not we are instructed to keep it.

1) The claim that Romans 14 is necessarily only about fasting is incorrect.
2) The point you were responding to was about relativism in commandments. It doesn't matter what Romans 14 is specifically about. Even if you want to interpret Romans 14 to be only about food, the concept of what is "unclean" to each of us is relative.

That position seems nonsensical. Did Deuteronomy also have an testimony of more than one person? Either you accept the Bible as the inerrant word or you don't. You can't cherry-pick and ignore Paul just because it is inconvenient for your exegesis.

What you are suggesting is a logical fallacy. A contingency for something does not necessitate that it is possible. But even if we concede that change is possible, there are two categories of change:

1) Changes that are temporarily introduced and later corrected (e.g. a preacher misquotes scripture, China changes passages in the gospels, a scribe mistakes a transcription error between the short-form of Zechariah and Isaiah, etc.).

2) Changes that are permanent, replicated and successfully replace the original text without challenge (A passage that exists, is undetected as a fake, and is not part of the original material)

There may be reasons to believe in the existence of temporary transcription errors and the like (it is evidenced in some cases such as the unfortunate publication of the Bible that had a typo that stated "thou shall commit adultery" instead of the proper negative "thou shall not commit adultery"). But it is not necessarily the case that there are existing mutations and changes to scripture which are undetected.

If you wish to venture down the path of purporting that scripture is fallible, you must also look at the Old Testament and hold the same position. Why would you assume Paul is mistaken and not then question everything? Thomas Aquinas, a Christian theologian, acknowledges that this kind of doubt is a position consistent in itself, but he presented the concept that to honestly explore a topic, we must look at other logically self-consistent ideas and then weigh them against each other to find what we find to be the most compelling interpretation. Aquinas posited that with truly honest study, belief in the Christian God will always be the most compelling interpretation.

This is also not a necessary conclusion. An incorrect rendering of scripture does not necessarily make scripture itself fallible.

No. I completely disagree. True study of scripture has nothing to do with ego. Good study starts with the acceptance of the authority of scripture (ethos), explores with formal logic (logos) and then determine which interpretation we find to have the best value (pathos). If a collection of people share the same values, the interpretation is usually shared in that group.

With the authority of scripture in mind, we test interpretations against scripture, and scripture against scripture. When you have found that an interpretation is compatible with scripture, without contradiction, we accept that as a valid interpretation. We collect these valid interpretations and test them against each other and against our worldly experiences to see what makes the most sense (what is most compelling). Better utility, pragmatism, and explanatory power are some compelling reasons an interpretation might be preferred. Sometimes social or emotional reasons can cause an interpretation to be more compelling (e.g. an opinion held by someone you hold in high regard). What someone finds compelling with be different from person to person.

So far some views you have expressed are failing at their consistency with scripture (failure of logos). Instead of reassessing your position in order to be more in line with scripture, you have questioned scripture. And evidently not all of scripture, just large portions of the New Testament. This is characteristic of nonChristians of other Abrahamic faiths. Moslems question the entirety of Christian scripture. NonChristian Jews question only the New Testament. You have your spiritual status set to "unsure". It's not entirely clear why you have questioned the truth of Paul's writings.

No dog? No drug? maximum capacity stipulations? (in reference to an actual apartment lease agreement?) Why would you assume that commandments stated in one covenant necessarily permeate all covenants? How are you determining which commandments are "everlasting" between covenants and which ones are circumstantial? A covenant is an agreement. For a covenant to be everlasting, it must have parties that are in an everlasting exchange. Because Jesus was subject to an OT covenant and is also everlasting, that covenant is functionally everlasting without the need or necessity for new additions to that covenant (no more names needed on the "lease"). It would not be a contradiction to say that the OT covenant is not currently offered to living people that would wish to join. An everlasting covenant does not imply that an endless number of new people can join.

It also does not mean that the rules that apply necessarily won't change. Fundamentally the OT commandments and NT have many overlaps but with subtle differences including contextual changes (e.g. "who is my neighbour").

I'm all for looking at different interpretations of scripture, but it has to be consistent with scripture. Playing the card "Paul is wrong!" or "Paul actually means something other than what he explicitly said!" or "don't believe Paul!" just doesn't cut it for me. Try Aquinas' method, first assume that Paul is right and when you have assessed all that is logically valid, then assess what you find most compelling.

Perhaps the Mosaic ten commandments were also an attempt to get people to fulfil the true law described by Jesus in the NT: 1) Love God, and 2) Love your neighbour. What if the entirety of OT commandments were a means to an end? The letter of the law which points to the spirit of the law?

blessing and peace
The Sabbath is so easy to understand even as a child I thought it was funny that everyone went to church on Sunday?? I see more excuses about why people don't keep the Sabbath rather than what day is really the Sabbath. So if we all agree on what the right day is besides the few...Why is it so hard to accept going to church on that day if it does not matter to someone who goes on Sunday? God wants us to fellow ship all together regardless of denomination of church you go to. Just let God pick that day not man.

It is not an assumption when you believe the Lord rested on the seventh day and blessed the seventh day and also sanctified it.

Sanctified = to set it aside for holy use.
why did God Sanctify the sabbath from the start?

And Jesus said it was made (it was made before sin) for man. A blessing, a gift.

Are you saying God made it for man but didn't give it to them until Exodus? And then took it away at the cross? that is an ugly assumption

there is no N.T. command for gentiles to keep the Sabbath.

notice how many times the phrase " it shall be a statue forever for the nation of Israel" in the O. T.

not for the gentiles

we have to go by what the Bible says, not what we THINK it says

True... Let God Choose the day. Sunday is the first day of the week and Saturday is the seventh day. The day God told us to remember was the Sabbath day (seventh) and Jesus said was Saturday. He is Lord of the Sabbath.

"remember the Sabbath day" is not in the NT. But the ten commandments are there.

Do you take one of the 10 written on stone by God and remove it?

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 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.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Verse 18 and 19 make it clear that the commandments Jesus is talking about is the 10 commandments.

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

The 4th commandment is the Sabbath command and to keep 9 and knowingly ignore the Sabbath, is to be guilty of all.
James is saying to keep them all.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

you can Believe that the law has no part in life today or you can remember 9 of them but i choose to remember all 10

Keeping the law will not make me good enough or save me. Only Jesus can save me but for the same reason i don't like to take Gods name in vain i do like to remember the Sabbath.

1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

I know this is not addressed to me, but sheesh, hasn't this been done to death? Galatians, all of it, is a start. 1 Timothy 1:8. Romans 7. Etc.

I'll tell you why. It's because the early church met daily. It's because the sabbath is no longer a dead religious observation. It's because it's the go to commandment for people who want to boast about their self righteous religiosity. Do you remember what the sabbath is about? It's God's gift to man. It's not religious slavery to one day or another. God rested one day. The real sabbath rest is when we quit trying to please God, we accept that we are already complete in Christ, already righteous, already holy, sanctified, justified, glorified and completely new creations. The sabbath was law for the old creation.

When God completed His work of creation, He rested. When we realise that we are new creations, we will enter God's rest also. Those who keep striving to be what God has already made His people to be miss the mark. They rebel and so do not enter God's rest. The gospel is not grace plus law. It is grace alone.

Let me post it for you..


""""You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."""""