Sabbath

Yep...

1. This is not about me... its about the scriptures.

2. Bouncing around all over the place gets nowhere... one topic at a time.

You seem to have a hard time focusing....so this is taking a lot longer than it needs to. You brought up "the curse of the law"... so it only makes sense to define what it is in scripture.

So if Christ redeemed us from the "curse of the law" we need to know what the curse of the law is so we know what we were redeemed from...

Again, what is the "the curse of the law" since you brought it up?

Come back when you figure out what YOUR Sabbath means. But you shouldn't be preaching Sabbath when you don't even know what it means.

When I said that you said the curse of the law was deu 28... you said "stop lying"

Which one is it?

Which post?

The curse of the law is this.....>"The power of sin is the law".

This "power of sin" being the dominion of the Law, is what kept Paul doing this.......>"that which i would not do, i DO, and that which i would do, i can't".

That is the power of the law that drives sin......So, when you try to be holy and live right based on trying to keep the law and commandments, the law will empower your flesh to want to sin in a way that is impossible for you to resist.

= THAT is the curse.......of the Law.

This is why "Jesus has redeemed us from the curse of the law", but putting us under Grace, through "the Gift of Righteousness"" which removes the law's power to cause you to sin, that is the curse of the law.

#3035

The law was good. Why was their need of a new anything?

The curse of the law applies to everyone. Because all have sinned and fall short

Including you

the curse of the law

Paul explained this perfectly in Gal 3

Of course, Paul quoted Moses himself when Moses declaired the following in deut 27…

Deuteronomy 27:26
‘Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them.’ “And all the people shall say, ‘Amen

obedience is required As james said, whoever keeps the whole law yet stumble in one point is guilty of all

The penalty for being guilty?

Thats the curse.

Are there scriptures that support this interpretation of the "curse of the law?"...

...and to try and sum this up, are you saying that the curse of the law is "the temptation to sin"?


To me the "curse of the law" simply means the earthly penalties associated with breaking the law. There have always been blessings that came with keeping the Fathers instructions (law), and curses that came with breaking it.

To "redeem" means to pay off one's debt. It doesn't make sense that we were "redeemed" from the "temptation to sin" because we didn't owe that temptation. What was the debt for sinning under the first covenant? That is what we were redeemed from. The Messiah's body paid the past due rent so that a new lease could be signed.

There wasn't. We didn't deserve a 2nd chance. Thankfully we hav a merciful father.

I have never excluded myself. Yes, we all sin, all fall short and therefore all require grace for salvation. That still does not mean that the law no longer applies.

Yes... I think you've gotten closer than anyone that I've seen answer that question on here. The curse is simply the penalty for sin. Christ redeemed us from these penalties (e.g. animal sacrifice) by his body paying that debt for us. He redeemed us from "the curse of the law".... a.k.a. the earthly penalties that were part of the old covenant.... He did not void the law, he voided the earthly penalties.

You still missed the point

the law required perfection,

if you are not perfect you have failed to keep the law

your trying to keep what only Christ kept, and insisting everyone else do it

The curse of the Law is Deut 28. That's what YOUR Sabbath doctrine leads to.

Deuteronomy 28:15-68 (NKJV)
15 "But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
16 Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.
18 Cursed shall be the fruit of your body and the produce of your land, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.
19 Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
26 Your carcasses shall be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and no one shall frighten them away.
27 The LORD will strike you with the boils of Egypt, with tumors, with the scab, and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed.
28 The LORD will strike you with madness and blindness and confusion of heart.
29 And you shall grope at noonday, as a blind man gropes in darkness; you shall not prosper in your ways; you shall be only oppressed and plundered continually, and no one shall save you.
30 You shall betroth a wife, but another man shall lie with her; you shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but shall not gather its grapes.
32 Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, and your eyes shall look and fail with longing for them all day long; and there shall be no strength in your hand.
45 Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.
53 You shall eat the fruit of your own body, the flesh of your sons and your daughters whom the LORD your God has given you, in the siege and desperate straits in which your enemy shall distress you.
60 Moreover He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt, of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to you.
61 Also every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law, will the LORD bring upon you until you are destroyed.
63 And it shall be, that just as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess.

66 Your life shall hang in doubt before you; you shall fear day and night, and have no assurance of life.

And that ain't all folks!

i think Jesus said the whole law was founded on love and that love was perfection of the law.He said once go and sin no more.

At the proper time it shall be said of Jacob that their is no inchantment agaist him.

Basically you said: "Romans 14's uncleanness is necessarily and exclusively about fasting from literal food, but nobody said uncleanness does not extend passed dietary restrictions"

If you are claiming the context is “obviously” and necessarily about fasting and only fasting, what leads you to believe this is the case? A post number is fine.

I suggest you read Mark 7 again.

"“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”" - Mark 7:18-23 NIV

That isn't talking about ritual washing being obsolete, that is a description of no food being unclean in itself. It’s a clear message about dietary requirements.

Part of the reason that "legalese" sounds the way it does is to avoid ambiguity and the potential for loopholes outside of the intended purpose. Jesus criticises the Pharisees for abusing loopholes in the intended law for them. Within relationships between individuals there are unwritten social contracts in many cases.

"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." - Matthew 23:24 KJV

The entire old covenants vs. new covenant is a complex topic. Each covenant has its own set of laws (rules, scripture, prophesy) relative to them, and perceived unwritten conventions to reach compliance with these laws are often applied.

Do have an example of a ceremonial law that isn't a "law of men" in your worldview?

1. The context of Romans 14 is up to some debate. You could prefer the interpretation that it is only about fasting and that the words are being applied to the topic of fasting. Or, you could interpret that Romans 14 is about a different topic (e.g. weakness in faith) and that the example of food is being applied to the topic. I personally find the latter more compelling. I also wouldn’t assume that Jesus’ parables were speaking literally about wheat or specific virgins with candles, etc., but you could take that position and interpret it that way in many cases.

2. I'm not familiar with this. Perhaps you can expand on this part. The context of Romans 14 is that if someone esteems something to be unclean, it is unclean to them, which makes it part of "God's law."

A well-drawn circle is still a close approximation to a perfect circle, even if it isn't truly a perfect circle. The perfect circle can only be seen inwardly.

In Acts we see many disagreements, but the question is what is the applicable word of God here? What was the conclusion of the debate between Peter and Paul? See Acts 15.

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." - Acts 15:5-12 KJV

Those are very explicit verses from Peter agreeing that not all Christians are required to observe the law of Moses (does Peter count as your second witness?). You could argue that it isn't the nail in the coffin and that all Christians are still required to fulfill the law of Moses, but I'd like to see your justification for assuming that position, preferably from a NT source and in the correct context.

Plato's perfect circle is infallible, its manifestations are not. Scripture is infallible, its manifestations are not.

It becomes dishonest if there is contradicting evidence that leads to cognitive dissonance. Some types of contradictions are OK. E.g. whether Jesus wore a purple or red robe at the crucifixion is a descriptive contradiction that can be resolved (e.g. "it was magenta" or "it was both colours"). We can test those interpretations against other parts of scripture to see which is the best fit.

We may encounter several sets of interpretations that contradict each other but are consistent with the base information by themselves. Similar to plotting a curve on a set of data points, it is possible to have more than one curve that fits the data. We can have reasons for preferring one curve over another (including a preference for simplicity) but we cannot declare that our preferred shape is the only valid answer if other valid interpretations exist. At that point we would be discussing the merits of a given convention for selecting a preferred representation.

Part 1/3

There are four routes to take with the premise "he who adds or takes away from these words gets punished"


For the sake of our conversation, we can very quickly rule out case 2 and 4 because the wording of the passage does imply that a punishment exists for a trespass. We could explore 2 and 4 as a hypothetical, but that gets into some levels of absurdism (which is what I think you were trying to bring up, and it's a fair criticism when we get into the "compelling interpretation" bit). It would be like inventing a word that doesn't reference anything. It can happen, but usually we can assume that words have at least some inherent utility if they don't follow a literal meaning. An example is "nothing", there really isn't such a thing as "nothing" it's just used to confer a lack of meaningful or identifiable characteristic (within a context). "If you hear nothing, then run!" There's always something that is heard, even in a soundproof room. In the same sense, a statement of punishment for "something that can't literally happen" is possible, but then that "something" is usually just a symbol or abstract euphemism for something else. There's a rabbit hole with that topic (especially in case 2). In case 4, it could be consistent to hold the interpretation that there were never errors in transcribed scripture, that one translation alone is the inspired word, and that history of transcription errors were some kind of fabricated history from a conspiracy to create doubt in that translation. Despite the consistency, it requires an observer to drop the value and utility of recorded history, human behaviour, etc. which can make it uncompelling.

The premise I believe you are coming from is case 1 because I assume your interpretation is that perfect scripture and manifestations are the same thing (there are varying levels of that kind of interpretation). The premise I am coming from is case 4. Case 4 implies that the manifestations can be altered, and that the punishments referenced are for "drawing a terrible circle, unworthy of the perfect circle". The passage isn't necessarily talking about mutations in scripture that cause permanent changes to scripture, and it is possible that the change-punishment relationship is for temporary manifestations. It would be like issuing a penalty for changing a road map to not accurately reflect the terrain. Someone might introduce a change to the map, but the terrain is objectively a certain way and those errors are observed and corrected over time. If 1000 people make maps of the terrain, each of them might have some small error or imperfection, but the average of those maps will approximate the perfect map. In the same way that 1000 people that draw circles will have imperfections, but the average of those drawings will approximate the perfect circle.

From my perspective, I agree that no one manuscript or translation contains the truest form of scripture. It might be the case that we never have the "truest" scripture without some kind of divine revelation that guides our understanding. But there is the concept that God guides us to the understanding we need from scripture at different times in our life. We can still have a good grasp of a close approximation to the truest form.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" - 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV

How do we gain perspective on God if not by oral traditions and the written word? Usually the love of God shines through our parents as we learn our mothertongue(s). We learn to trust and distrust different concepts, people, and things by our upbringing. If someone was raised Christian, there is a part of them that has an affinity for Christian sensibilities and will have an imprint of values from their parents. If they were raised Jewish Christian, in many cases the OT laws will have as much value to them as NT laws. If someone was raised from a culture that was originally one religion and then assimilated into Christianity, in many cases the traditions from that original religion will have as much value as NT laws.

How are we to ascertain what is the word of God without looking inward? And when we look inward, how do we know that what we find is the correct answer? The message of the New Testament resonates with those that are Christian. The law is written on the heart and mind of believers.

If you believe the OT was inspired but do not believe the NT was, that’s a start but the conversation becomes more about OT-NT parallels and building from there. If you believe that the Hadith and the Quran are inspired, even that is a starting point.

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.” - 2 Peter 3:16-17 KJV

The passage doesn’t say anything about “the majority” having the wrong idea. It mentions that the unlearned and unstable get things wrong. James 1:8 describes those of weak faith as unstable. There is a mention of “some things Paul says are hard to understand” which can be an indication of metaphor and symbolism. If we follow through with the concept of metaphors and symbolism, the Romans 14 references to meat and the like could be talking about spiritual meat such as in Hebrews 5.

"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” - Hebrews 5:12 KJV

But even if Romans 14 is about literal food, it doesn’t mean that the context of Romans 14 is only about literal food. The first line starts off talking about those weak in faith. Food (if it is literal) is an example, and the reference to other activities is not necessarily related to literal food (Sabbaths, unclean things, etc.) It would be an extraordinary perspective to say that Paul was only talking about food and only literal food without implications for other topics.

So your interpretation is that either Paul’s words agree with your interpretation or Paul is a false prophet?

The law applies circumstantially according to Paul. One has to rely on their heart and mind to ascertain how the law applies to them. There are interesting conditional phrasings in the OT for some of the rules that were laid out. God says “do not eat that because it is unclean to you.” That rule might have been true for Israelites of the day for particular reasons. In the same way that some people have lactose intolerance as an adult, but a different group of people might not have lactose intolerance. Perhaps there were circumstantial reasons for some of the OT rules. Why wouldn’t the phrasing simply be “don’t eat that”?

Part 2/3

One could interpret “forever/everlasting/perpetuity” as different than “until heaven and earth disappear”. Especially since there is a chronology of events that happen after heaven and earth fade away.

Speaking of jots and tittles in Matthew 5:

“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” - Colossians 2:13-15 KJV

The jots and tittles of the law may be unremoved but they are covered (blotted) by Christ and nailed to the cross. The ordinances of the law are fulfilled by Christ.

Hebrews 7:12 is an example, but you disagreed with that interpretation in a different post without going into much explanation. Even if this is your interpretation that the “changing of the law” in Hebrews 7:12 somehow isn’t actually about “changing of the law”, it would be extraordinary to declare that it couldn’t or shouldn’t be interpreted this way.

In either case, I’ll shoot the question back your way: where does it say that some or all of the terms of the old “lease” apply in the new one? I already covered the everlasting covenant bit and we already discussed that some OT laws reappear in some way in the NT. How can we come to the conclusion that OT practices must be observed if they are not mentioned in the NT?

Pre-crucifixion, Christ’s emphasis is mostly on how Israelites of the day had gotten the law wrong. It’s a criticism by some Moslems that Jesus never said to forgo the OT law, but that it was Paul and the like afterward that spoke explicitly about that matter. It isn’t a requirement to find a quote from Jesus if other books cover the topic. It’s a bit of a mixed bag because you wouldn’t find an explicit line that says “none of the old rules apply” because much of the NT speaks of straight rules and some individualized rules, with the spirit of the law being “have love”.

Specifically by passages, what disagreements between Paul and others do you perceive? You can even leave a post number if you’ve already described it. 3000+ posts is too much to sift through.

Yes, I agree with that. Many parts of the Bible are descriptive, and some prescriptive, and some prescriptive to a very specific audience. I don’t recall the exact passages, but a great example was where Paul was writing to Timothy and he told him to not do a particular thing. In a different book it mentions that it doesn’t matter whether someone does that thing or not. One is speaking to “Timmy” and the other to a more general audience. These elements can be a minefield requiring cautious study. Sometimes advice to specific people can have meaning and value for others, sometimes (what I perceive to be) expired covenants can have value in filling in the blanks for how to live fruitfully (e.g. don’t muzzle your oxen in the field). In an indirect sense, these things prescribed for others can have value. The question then focuses on what exactly is prescribed to people in general? Perhaps there is something in scripture where shown in the correct light, the context gets flipped on its head. I’m open to having that “ah-hah!” moment, but it needs to be presented in the right way, showing the prescriptive/descriptive nature if I have overlooked something.

Even fruitfully multiplying was referenced by Paul as something that wasn’t necessary. There were many passages in the NT that go into great detail to touch on the topic of OT rules, with general references and specific references. There are Christian sects that follow the OT rules, but the NT describes their observance as unnecessary (unless one esteems it to be necessary).

Strangely, stories of strangers turning off lightswitches for Orthodox Jews on Saturdays is a common story and seems to be in contradiction of Exo 20:8-11.

The flipped side of that is what if you dedicated your life to not working for selfish aims. To not live materialistically or for personal gain. The concept that what you gain isn’t really yours (or whatever it is that you accumulate is for the purpose of functioning in a capacity to serve). If someone chose to live with this philosophy instead of just one day per week, would they be observing the Sabbath? They aren’t setting aside a day for the Sabbath, but they are respecting every day in the same light.

I think Colossians 2:16’s reference to the Sabbath is just a straightforward reference to the Sabbath. I’m not sure how you could think it is saying anything else. You say its a misinterpretation, but you need evidence to substantiate that. More than just making claims on what you thought Paul meant. Especially since you’ve insinuated that Paul was a false prophet unless he agrees with your interpretation.

Part 3/3