Sabbath

[Yahshua]

Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees for accusing Him and his disciples of doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.

And who was Christ addressing? The Pharisees under the law or the Church under the new covenant?

...wait what?...? But you just referenced some gospel passages where Christ was speaking to Pharisees about commandments in your previous post as PROOF that they apply in the new covenant...but his words to them regarding the Sabbath don't apply? Now it matters who he was talking to? Were they not all Jews under the law he was speaking to during his ministry?

So they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment under the old covenant. And what does that prove? Just because they rested (as they were used do doing for how many years?) whether shortly before or after Christ died does not prove keeping the Sabbath day is binding on the Church under the new covenant.

...resting after Christ's death?? Either its adherence is against the new covenant (i.e. trampling the work of Christ) or it isn't. So do you believe Christ's closes friends trampled over Christ's work the very moment "it [was] finished"? What about Paul heading to the synagogue every Sabbath (Acts 18:4)?

I noticed the NASB reads - but taking leave of them and saying, “I will return to you again if God wills,” he set sail from Ephesus. *No mention of keeping a feast.

Regardless, there would have been a reason for keeping it other than must or else under the new covenant. *Now show me UNDER THE NEW COVENANT where Paul specifically commands the Church to keep the Sabbath day.

Firstly, that IS strange... Why would newer/later publications of the bible no longer detail that Paul was heading to a High Sabbath feast like the original KJV and 1550 Textus Receptus once delivered to the saints?

Notwithstanding, notice what is said of Paul earlier in the chapter:


Acts 18:12-13
12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat,

13 Saying, This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.


Their charge against Paul - New Covenant; Post-Cross - was that he was teaching people to worship Yah contrary to his law. Now notice what Paul does next (which is indeed found in all publications of the bible)...


Acts 18:18 [brackets mine]
18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shaved his head in Cenchrea: for he had a [Nazarite] vow.

And again later...

Acts 21:20-24 [brackets mine]
20 When [The Elders heard Paul's testimony about his mission to Gentiles], they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.

24 Take these men, join in their [nazarite] purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.


A Nazarite vow is specific to Yah's law through Moses (Sinai Convenant). So Paul entered into a Nazarite vow (found in Yah's law) at least TWICE during his ministry in Acts. So even if we set aside Paul's trip to Jerusalem, he was publicly proving to everyone that he obeyed Yah's Law after Christ. And the fact that the Elders suggested it means they were too...again, this is AFTER Christ and the cross. We know that one of those laws is the Sabbath (as we also know you can't be partial with Yah's law).

----

Secondly, show you "where Paul commands"?? But Paul isn't our lord. I definitely don't remove Paul's words from our instructions, but do we discount Christ's words for Paul's? Christ's instructions are the foundation for understanding Paul's instructions. And the scriptures are the foundation for understanding Paul's letters.

It doesn't matter if Paul never commands it. This was the point of the Elders instructing the Gentiles not to worry about circumcision but to focus on avoid food with blood, strangled food, and sexual immorality, saying "because the law of Moses is preached by people every Sabbath day since ancient time". In other words, don't burden gentiles so heavily because they will learn more and more about Yah's law from those that preach it every Sabbath (acts 15:21).

^Unfortunately, THIS doesn't happen anymore. Hasn't since the Elders were killed and/or replaced, the Holy Day of rest was changed, and Yah's law was "done away with".

NO. It's still 9 for 10. *Colossians 2:16 - Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

By Christ rebuking the Pharisees in regards to the Sabbath day and certain people resting on the Sabbath around the time of Christ's death (as they had been used to doing for years) and Paul keeping a feast (for whatever reason) still does not justify you turning keeping the Sabbath day into a legalistic prescription for the Church under the new covenant, but you have your agenda.

Apparently many have an agenda.

What exactly is the New Covenant?

 

[Yahshua]

lol. Hmm.

No one has a right to change one Jot or tittle of His Law but Yah (Matthew 5:18). If the NT Elders didn't change things then no one has a right to. But those who would use their intellect to suggest that obedience somehow equals a "hardening of the heart" when the very words they have quoted from scripture (Ezekiel 36:26-27) clearly show that a non-stony heart of flesh actually DESIRES to obey Yah's law, are truly "stiff-necked", possibly dishonest. Definitely unlearned.

Then to make up their own definitions for what scripture clearly says a stony heart is, further proves that fact.

Some don't even realize that the New Covenant says NOTHING about making ANYONE a nation of priests, that ONLY the Sinai Covenant is for that (Exodus 19:6; Yah). They don't understand that Christ came to redeem ONLY THOSE who broke the Sinai Covenant ("I am but sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:24; Daniel 9:24 "...decreed for YOUR PEOPLE and YOUR HOLY CITY..."); to mend the Sinai Covenant with the ONLY PARTIES WITH WHOM it was made.

Some don't study to show themselves approved to understand that the NEW COVENANT is simply but profoundly PLACING THE VERY SAME SPIRITUAL LAW, given at Sinai on tablets of stone, ON THE INSIDE (Jeremiah 31:33; Yah) to make a person WANT to obey SO THAT the Sinai Covenant's purpose finally can be realized and NEVER be broken again, THUS the New covenant makes the Sinai covenant "everlasting". They don't realize that the New Covenant was ONLY PROMISED to the House of ISRAEL and house of JUDAH (Jeremiah 31:31; Yah).


Ezekiel 16:59-63 [brackets mine]
For this is what the Lord GOD says: ‘I will deal with you according to your deeds, since you have despised the oath by breaking the covenant.
60 But I will remember the covenant I made with you [Israel] in the days of your youth, AND I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.

61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your older and younger sisters. I will give them to you as daughters, but not because of My covenant with you.

62 So I will establish My covenant with you, and you will know that I am the LORD, so that when I make atonement [CHRIST's Blood] for all you have done [broken Yah's law], you will remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth again because of your disgrace, declares the Lord GOD.’”


Leviticus 26:44-45 [brackets mine]
Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject or despise them so as to destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God.

45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors, whom I brought out of the LAND OF EGYPT [Sinai Covenant] in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am the LORD.”


...so if any gentile wants to be saved during the time of Israel's "blindness in part" (Romans 11:25; Paul), salvation is made freely available THROUGH CHRIST (Acts 28:28; Romans 11:11; Paul) but they have to be GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL because SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS (John 4:22; Christ), not the other way around, in order to make ISRAEL - Yah's unfaithful wife - JEALOUS enough to repent, return to her husband and be saved (Romans 11:11; Paul). This means a temporary door is open until the fullness of gentiles comes in. But some are prideful enough to believe that THEY actually bear the root instead of humbly understanding that the root bears them. Not realizing that they can be BROKEN OFF just like the natural branches were (Romans 11:21; Paul)

Some don't realize there's a reason why they're called "wild" branches that are grafted in "contrary to their nature", and that it's EASIER for the natural branches to be grafted back in (Romans 11:24; Paul). Why is it easier? What's different between the wild branches and the natural branches?

Some are wholly ignorant and unstable in the law and so completely twist Paul's words to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16; Peter). Completely. They're so unlearned that they also believe Pharisees actually DEFENDED Yah's law instead of their own religion that twisted Yah's law. But they don't see these things because they don't study the law.

It's amazing that some would waste time labeling people instead of actually hearing what the Spirit says to the churches.

----


1 John 3:6-7
6 No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has seen Him or known Him.

7 Dear children, don't let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous.


1) Obey the commandments, including the Sabbath.
2) Have faith in Christ.

 

[Shamah]

TheCovenant standsfast with the Messiah

Psalm 89:26-37, “He will call out to Me; ‘You are My Father, O YHWH! You are the Rock of My salvation!’ And I will make Him My firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy I will keep for Him forever and My covenant will stand fast with Him. And I will establish His Seed forever, and His throne will be as the days of heaven. Should His children forsake My Law, and refuse to walk in My judgments; Should they profane My statutes, and fail to keep My commandments; Then I will punish their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with lashes from the whip. Nevertheless, My lovingkindness I will not utterly withdraw from Him, nor will I ever betray My faithfulness. My covenant I will not break, nor will I change what has gone out of My lips. Once for all, I have vowed by My holiness, I cannot lie, and I say to David; His Seed will endure forever, and his throne will endure before Me like the sun. His throne will be established forever like the moon: the faithful witness in the sky.”

Psalm 111:9, “He sent redemption to His people, He has commanded His covenant forever. Set-apart and awesome is His Name."

 

[mailmandan]

...wait what?...? But you just referenced some gospel passages where Christ was speaking to Pharisees about commandments in your previous post as PROOF that they apply in the new covenant...but his words to them regarding the Sabbath don't apply? Now it matters who he was talking to? Were they not all Jews under the law he was speaking to during his ministry?

I shared with you that references for the moral aspect of 9 of the 10 commandments are reiterated under the new covenant, yet the command to keep the Sabbath day is not binding on Christians under the new covenant.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me. - Acts 14:15
2. You shall make no idols. - 1 John 5:21
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. - James 5:12
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy. - Not binding on the Church - Colossians 2:16-17
5. Honor your father and your mother. - Ephesians 6:1-2
6. You shall not murder. - Romans 13:9-10; 1 John 3:15
7. You shall not commit adultery. - Romans 13:9-10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
8. You shall not steal. - Romans 13:9-10; Ephesians 4:28
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. - Romans 13:9-10; Colossians 3:9-10
10. You shall not covet. - Romans 13:9-10; Ephesians 5:3

I then went on to give you a more exhaustive list of these moral commandments. I was not proving your argument. Jesus' words to the Pharisees in regards to the Sabbath was a rebuke to them for accusing Jesus and His disciples of doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath. There was no command made here by Jesus for the Church to keep the Sabbath day. Are you trying to imply that the new covenant was fully established prior to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus? The Holy Spirit was not yet given before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (John 7:38-39; Acts 2). Jesus did not begin His ministry and instantly flip a switch from the old covenant to the new covenant. There was a transition period. The Sabbath was the sign of a fulfilled covenant (Exodus 31:17; Hebrews 8:13).

...resting after Christ's death?? Either its adherence is against the new covenant (i.e. trampling the work of Christ) or it isn't. So do you believe Christ's closes friends trampled over Christ's work the very moment "it [was] finished"? What about Paul heading to the synagogue every Sabbath (Acts 18:4)?

You are rambling and still have not shown me where scripture commands the Church to keep the Sabbath day under the new covenant. In regards to Paul in Acts 18, what we have are examples of Paul preaching to non-Christian Jews in THEIR synagogue on THEIR Sabbath day, that they are lost without Jesus. Should this surprise us? NO. If Paul preaching to Jews on the Sabbath day in THEIR synagogue proves he kept the Sabbath, then it also proves Paul kept synagogue worship as well. What proves too much proves nothing at all.

Firstly, that IS strange... Why would newer/later publications of the bible no longer detail that Paul was heading to a High Sabbath feast like the original KJV and 1550 Textus Receptus once delivered to the saints?

That is a whole other topic and discussion. KJV "only" nonsense.

Notwithstanding, notice what is said of Paul earlier in the chapter:

Acts 18:12-13
12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat,

13 Saying, This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law. Their charge against Paul - New Covenant; Post-Cross - was that he was teaching people to worship Yah contrary to his law.

There are many Jews then (and even today) who did not receive Jesus as Messiah and still sought to keep the law under the old covenant and failed to make the transition into the new covenant. The Pharisees were a prime example and we have modern day Pharisees, even today.

Now notice what Paul does next (which is indeed found in all publications of the bible)...

Acts 18:18 [brackets mine]
18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shaved his head in Cenchrea: for he had a [Nazarite] vow.

And again later...

Acts 21:20-24 [brackets mine]
20 When [The Elders heard Paul's testimony about his mission to Gentiles], they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.

24 Take these men, join in their [nazarite] purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

A Nazarite vow is specific to Yah's law through Moses (Sinai Convenant). So Paul entered into a Nazarite vow (found in Yah's law) at least TWICE during his ministry in Acts.

You are getting off topic. What happened to the Sabbath? Many of the Jews were still living under the law. Paul may have simply taken a Jewish vow so that he might appease more of the Jewish population and thus be able to help them believe in Jesus Christ more readily. *In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul said - To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law. Makes perfect sense!

So even if we set aside Paul's trip to Jerusalem, he was publicly proving to everyone that he obeyed Yah's Law after Christ. And the fact that the Elders suggested it means they were too...again, this is AFTER Christ and the cross. We know that one of those laws is the Sabbath (as we also know you can't be partial with Yah's law).

You are simply grasping for straws.

Secondly, show you "where Paul commands"?? But Paul isn't our lord. I definitely don't remove Paul's words from our instructions, but do we discount Christ's words for Paul's? Christ's instructions are the foundation for understanding Paul's instructions. And the scriptures are the foundation for understanding Paul's letters.

People who have a hard time transitioning from the old to the new covenant usually favor the words of Jesus in the 4 gospels over Paul's words in most of the NT, yet ALL scripture is inspired by God. So where did Jesus command believers under the new covenant to keep the Sabbath? He didn't.

It doesn't matter if Paul never commands it.

WOW! It doesn't matter? Really? You are saying that because it hurts your case and proves you wrong.

This was the point of the Elders instructing the Gentiles not to worry about circumcision but to focus on avoid food with blood, strangled food, and sexual immorality, saying "because the law of Moses is preached by people every Sabbath day since ancient time". In other words, don't burden gentiles so heavily because they will learn more and more about Yah's law from those that preach it every Sabbath (acts 15:21).

^Unfortunately, THIS doesn't happen anymore. Hasn't since the Elders were killed and/or replaced, the Holy Day of rest was changed, and Yah's law was "done away with".

WHEN THE COUNSEL OF ACTS 15 CONVENED to determine what Gentile Christians must observe, SABBATH KEEPING IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT. Peter exhorts the leadership of the Church not to place the Gentiles under the Law: Acts 15:10,11 - Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." The final judgment of the Jerusalem Council contains no reference to Sabbath keeping. Circumcision was discussed and deemed unnecessary (verses 5-6; 19-20).

If Sabbath keeping were to be an essential part of the new covenant then it would have been mentioned in the discussion because it would have been an unfamiliar practice to the Gentiles. Sabbath keeping was not even discussed because it is not a requirement for new covenant believers: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials; that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:28-29).

NOTICE that the Holy Spirit told them NOT to lay upon the Gentiles any greater burden than THOSE ESSENTIALS. Obviously the Holy Spirit did not think Sabbath keeping was an essential thing anymore.

Apparently many have an agenda.

Many Sabbatarians do have an agenda.

What exactly is the New Covenant?

It's not the Old Covenant.

 

[mailmandan]

Some are wholly ignorant and unstable in the law and so completely twist Paul's words to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16; Peter). Completely. They're so unlearned that they also believe Pharisees actually DEFENDED Yah's law instead of their own religion that twisted Yah's law. But they don't see these things because they don't study the law.

It's amazing that some would waste time labeling people instead of actually hearing what the Spirit says to the churches.

1 John 3:6-7
6 No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has seen Him or known Him.

7 Dear children, don't let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous.

1) Obey the commandments, including the Sabbath.
2) Have faith in Christ.

Your true colors are really beginning to show. I knew you had an agenda!

Sabbatarians (especially SDA's and those in the Hebrews Roots movement) are very arrogant about keeping the Sabbath and turn keeping the Sabbath day into a legalistic prescription for Christians under the new covenant in direct violation of Colossians 2:16-17.

Now show me UNDER THE NEW COVENANT where obeying the commandments "includes" the Sabbath.

1 John 3:21- Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. 24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. From this we can see that in John's writings the "commandments" of God are: To believe in Jesus Christ and to love one another. *NOTHING mentioned about the Sabbath.

 

[Shamah]

Mat 22:37-40, “Yahshua said to him: You must love YHWH your Father with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. (Deut 6:5) This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Lev 19:18) On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

How can one:

love YHWH your Father with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. (Deut 6:5)

without doing it the way Yah says?

You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

without doing it the way Yah says?

Short answer they can not, without loving according to YHWH's standard as performed and taught by Yahshua one is making their own "love"

It is either going to be Yah's way, or it is going to be Yah's way.... But one thing is certian it is going to be Yah's way.

 

[Grandpa]

lol. Hmm.

No one has a right to change one Jot or tittle of His Law but Yah (Matthew 5:18). If the NT Elders didn't change things then no one has a right to. But those who would use their intellect to suggest that obedience somehow equals a "hardening of the heart" when the very words they have quoted from scripture (Ezekiel 36:26-27) clearly show that a non-stony heart of flesh actually DESIRES to obey Yah's law, are truly "stiff-necked", possibly dishonest. Definitely unlearned.

Then to make up their own definitions for what scripture clearly says a stony heart is, further proves that fact.

Some don't even realize that the New Covenant says NOTHING about making ANYONE a nation of priests, that ONLY the Sinai Covenant is for that (Exodus 19:6; Yah). They don't understand that Christ came to redeem ONLY THOSE who broke the Sinai Covenant ("I am but sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:24; Daniel 9:24 "...decreed for YOUR PEOPLE and YOUR HOLY CITY..."); to mend the Sinai Covenant with the ONLY PARTIES WITH WHOM it was made.

Some don't study to show themselves approved to understand that the NEW COVENANT is simply but profoundly PLACING THE VERY SAME SPIRITUAL LAW, given at Sinai on tablets of stone, ON THE INSIDE (Jeremiah 31:33; Yah) to make a person WANT to obey SO THAT the Sinai Covenant's purpose finally can be realized and NEVER be broken again, THUS the New covenant makes the Sinai covenant "everlasting". They don't realize that the New Covenant was ONLY PROMISED to the House of ISRAEL and house of JUDAH (Jeremiah 31:31; Yah).


Ezekiel 16:59-63 [brackets mine]
For this is what the Lord GOD says: ‘I will deal with you according to your deeds, since you have despised the oath by breaking the covenant.
60 But I will remember the covenant I made with you [Israel] in the days of your youth, AND I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.

61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your older and younger sisters. I will give them to you as daughters, but not because of My covenant with you.

62 So I will establish My covenant with you, and you will know that I am the LORD, so that when I make atonement [CHRIST's Blood] for all you have done [broken Yah's law], you will remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth again because of your disgrace, declares the Lord GOD.’”


Leviticus 26:44-45 [brackets mine]
Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject or despise them so as to destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God.

45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors, whom I brought out of the LAND OF EGYPT [Sinai Covenant] in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am the LORD.”


...so if any gentile wants to be saved during the time of Israel's "blindness in part" (Romans 11:25; Paul), salvation is made freely available THROUGH CHRIST (Acts 28:28; Romans 11:11; Paul) but they have to be GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL because SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS (John 4:22; Christ), not the other way around, in order to make ISRAEL - Yah's unfaithful wife - JEALOUS enough to repent, return to her husband and be saved (Romans 11:11; Paul). This means a temporary door is open until the fullness of gentiles comes in. But some are prideful enough to believe that THEY actually bear the root instead of humbly understanding that the root bears them. Not realizing that they can be BROKEN OFF just like the natural branches were (Romans 11:21; Paul)

Some don't realize there's a reason why they're called "wild" branches that are grafted in "contrary to their nature", and that it's EASIER for the natural branches to be grafted back in (Romans 11:24; Paul). Why is it easier? What's different between the wild branches and the natural branches?

Some are wholly ignorant and unstable in the law and so completely twist Paul's words to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16; Peter). Completely. They're so unlearned that they also believe Pharisees actually DEFENDED Yah's law instead of their own religion that twisted Yah's law. But they don't see these things because they don't study the law.

It's amazing that some would waste time labeling people instead of actually hearing what the Spirit says to the churches.

----


1 John 3:6-7
6 No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has seen Him or known Him.

7 Dear children, don't let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous.


1) Obey the commandments, including the Sabbath.
2) Have faith in Christ.

Galatians 2:19-21
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


We are dead to the 10 Commandments so that we would live unto God.

What point is there in commanding a person to not kill when they are given Love and Peace by God and sharing that Love and Peace with everyone they meet?

What point is there in commanding a person to rest on a certain day when a person is resting every day in Christ?


If Righteousness DOES NOT come by the law, which verse 21 states, then how does resting on a certain day because the law says so show that a person is doing right??

SO what is doing right if it IS NOT defined by the commandments contained on stone? (the law)

Easy answer; whatever is of faith (in Christ)

And the law IS NOT of faith

 

[posthuman]

What about Paul heading to the synagogue every Sabbath (Acts 18:4)?

was he going there because he considered himself under the Law or in order to preach to those who were? just 3 verses later he ceased attending the synagogue ((Acts 18:7))
in the next chapter he did the same thing again, when the Jews stubbornly rejected the good news, and stopped weekly meeting with them, instead meeting daily with the Gentiles ((Acts 19:9)). what about that?

when those who call themselves Jews and boast in the Law do the same thing today, rejecting the good news, should we also leave them and go to the the uncircumcised, who actually believe?

 

[Yahshua]

[Had a time managing the character limit]

I shared with you that references for the moral aspect of 9 of the 10 commandments are reiterated under the new covenant, yet the command to keep the Sabbath day is not binding on Christians under the new covenant.

[...]

But you inadvertently did prove my point. And yes I'm actually implying (and even say) the new covenant was established at Christ's death. You do know that covenant's are confirmed by blood; when blood is shed, right? The Holy Spirit was the gift/promise given after the new covenant was entered into by blood. The law teaches us this pattern. For example the gift/promise of the Sinai covenant was "Kingdom of Priests; peculiar treasure to Yah", which was entered into by the shedding of animal's blood at the base of the mountain. So likewise, believers enter into the new covenant went Christ died on the cross.

There's no transitional period. There's no "mid-covenantal" period. Please don't add to scripture.

Now with you providing "pre-cross" lessons...from Christ...regarding commandments he taught...as proof that those lessons he taught...apply to the "post-cross" church in the new covenant...it ALSO logically proves...that ANY OTHER commandment lessons Christ taught...applies to "post-cross" church in the new covenant. That's your logic. And I agree with it. But you can't then be partial with whom Christ was speaking. He taught what "ought to be" regarding the Sabbath in order to keep it "LAWFUL". He actually uses the word lawful, as pertaining to the law. The word "rebuking" = correcting = teaching. So let's stop being intellectually dishonest here.

You are rambling and still have not shown me where scripture commands the Church to keep the Sabbath day under the new covenant. In regards to Paul in Acts 18, what we have are examples of Paul preaching to non-Christian Jews in THEIR synagogue on THEIR Sabbath day,
[...]

I've shown you scripture of what The Master said regarding keeping the day holy. And (as reiterated above) I've used your own reasoning to show that what he taught during his ministry applies to the NT believers after his ministry. So I'm not sure whose other command you're looking for other than Paul's? Christ is our lord isn't he? Now it matters who Paul was preaching to? Is the church only made up of gentiles? Do you really believe the Sabbath is the Jews' possession and not Yah's? Do I really have to list the abundance of scriptures where Yah called The Sabbath "His"?

I've also shown you believers in the New covenant resting on the day, celebrating on the High day, making a point to obey Yah's law publicly. But you know what...I bet you can't show me where scripture commands the Sabbath day be changed, but that's neither here or there right? You're being partial here.

That is a whole other topic and discussion. KJV "only" nonsense.

I never said KJV only but it's interesting you would react this way when it was you who brought up a discrepancy in the NASB. Projection? What about the 1550 Textus Receptus? You're being partial again. If it's in scripture it's in scripture right? I was just following your lead.

You are getting off topic. What happened to the Sabbath? Many of the Jews were still living under the law. Paul may have simply taken a Jewish vow so that he might appease more of the Jewish population and thus be able to help them believe in Jesus Christ more readily. *In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul said - To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law. Makes perfect sense!

The Sabbath is where it's always been, but there are those who would avoid it today.

I'm no longer sure we're on the same page regarding what "under the law" means. You calling the Nazarite vow a "Jewish" vow, the same way you called the Sabbath a "Jewish" Sabbath, really makes me question things. By that same logic I can say:

- The "Jewish" scriptures
- The "Jewish" messiah
- The "Jewish" blood atonement
- The "Jewish" salvation

...Because it's all of the Jews. But we know that Yah is bigger than any ethnic group. So no, it's Yah's vow, just like it's Yah's Sabbath. And "under the law" means "violation thereof", hence the need for Christ's atonement to clear the violation. We don't void the law through grace; we establish it. And we can't be partial with Yah's law.

You are simply grasping for straws.

But you just...

People who have a hard time transitioning from the old to the new covenant usually favor the words of Jesus in the 4 gospels over Paul's words in most of the NT, yet ALL scripture is inspired by God. So where did Jesus command believers under the new covenant to keep the Sabbath? He didn't.

WOW! It doesn't matter? Really? You are saying that because it hurts your case and proves you wrong.

These responses are very telling for a whole host of reasons. So just to be clear so I don't misunderstand you; favoring Christ's words over Paul's is seen as a negative to you...and you don't believe when Christ taught on keeping the Sabbath day holy, that it was him expecting such of NT believers ("bound" is the word you used), though other things he taught are binding...and you're surprised that I don't think it matters that Paul never himself "commanded" it, right?

Just exactly who is your foundation mailmandan?

WHEN THE COUNSEL OF ACTS 15 CONVENED to determine what Gentile Christians must observe, SABBATH KEEPING IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT. [...] The final judgment of the Jerusalem Council contains no reference to Sabbath keeping. Circumcision was discussed and deemed unnecessary (verses 5-6; 19-20).

If Sabbath keeping were to be an essential part of the new covenant then it would have been mentioned in the discussion because it would have been an unfamiliar practice to the Gentiles.
[...]

Obviously the Holy Spirit did not think Sabbath keeping was an essential thing anymore.

..........?

Sabbath keeping is absent? No reference? "Unfamiliar" practice to the gentiles? ...Really? Are you sure?


Acts 15:18
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.


Why are you skipping over verse 21? Who do you think they're talking about at this council?


Acts 18:1-4 [brackets mine]
After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;

2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them.

3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

4 And he [PAUL] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.


The gentile converts were there Dan...in the synagogues...EVERY SABBATH DAY...learning the law of Moses. Then Paul taught the salvation of Christ as the messiah...to the gentiles converts...in the synagogues...EVERY SABBATH DAY. The Sabbath day was not a burden to the gentiles of the first century like it is a burden to gentiles of modern day.

The gentiles were very familiar with the Sabbath day, and they "went to church" every week on that day. Why would the Elders have to tell the gentile to go to church on Sabbath day if they were already attending every Sabbath day to learn from the scriptures, Elders and apostles?

 

[Yahshua]

[I couldn't manage to keep all of this in one post since it was too long]

Your true colors are really beginning to show. I knew you had an agenda!

[...]

I've never made my hidden my agenda as I've stated it. But what's clear is your agenda for ad hominem. It's nothing new. If one can't attack the message then attack the messenger. And what's also interesting is the projection of arrogance, noted by the constant labeling. You see, when someone has to do that throughout their responses - instead of reasoning through the subject matter - it shows they've already concluded who they' think they're talking to. If I've never told you what I was, for you to constantly label me - more than once - is the epitome of arrogance.

Let's see, so far depending on the thread I'm in, I've been associated with:

- legalist
- sabbatarian
- sda
- Hebrew movements
- Pharisee

lol what will be next? If you must know the true color I fly is blue. The same color as the original stone tablets on which Yah's holy law was written; the same color as the ribbon that was to always be died to the ends of the garment to remember the commandments.

 

[Yahshua]

was he going there because he considered himself under the Law or in order to preach to those who were? just 3 verses later he ceased attending the synagogue ((Acts 18:7))
in the next chapter he did the same thing again, when the Jews stubbornly rejected the good news, and stopped weekly meeting with them, instead meeting daily with the Gentiles ((Acts 19:9)). what about that?

when those who call themselves Jews and boast in the Law do the same thing today, rejecting the good news, should we also leave them and go to the the uncircumcised, who actually believe?

The Gentiles weren't under the law, yet they attended the synagogues every sabbath day.

Acts 18:4 [brackets mine]
And [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

 

[posthuman]

The Gentiles weren't under the law, yet they attended the synagogues every sabbath day.

Acts 18:4 [brackets mine]
And [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

so what?
proselytes existed, and the Greek culture was enormously interested in all kinds of religion and logical philosophy as a whole.

if you are trying to make the case that ceremonial Sabbath observation is required as a law for all believers because Paul evangelized in synagogues, where his people would be known to be found, it's a flimsy argument from first principles, and the fact is that Paul wound up abandoning this practice when the gospel was rejected there.

 

[Yahshua]

so what?
proselytes existed, and the Greek culture was enormously interested in all kinds of religion and logical philosophy as a whole.

if you are trying to make the case that ceremonial Sabbath observation is required as a law for all believers because Paul evangelized in synagogues, where his people would be known to be found, it's a flimsy argument from first principles, and the fact is that Paul wound up abandoning this practice when the gospel was rejected there.

Your argument was that Paul was going there to preach to those who were under the law. I was showing you that wasn't 100% true. He was also preaching to gentiles, my overarching point being that gentiles were very familiar with the Sabbath, as another member implied they weren't. But right of course, "so what".

 

[Yahshua]

Galatians 2:19-21
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


We are dead to the 10 Commandments so that we would live unto God.

What point is there in commanding a person to not kill when they are given Love and Peace by God and sharing that Love and Peace with everyone they meet?

What point is there in commanding a person to rest on a certain day when a person is resting every day in Christ?


If Righteousness DOES NOT come by the law, which verse 21 states, then how does resting on a certain day because the law says so show that a person is doing right??

SO what is doing right if it IS NOT defined by the commandments contained on stone? (the law)

Easy answer; whatever is of faith (in Christ)

And the law IS NOT of faith

...what can I say...

...Where are the right words...

Ok, I agree with some of what you said, but not with other points.

There's a context to Galatians. When Galatians explains righteousness, the premise is "attaining righteousness from a state of sin", not "living in righteousness from a state of righteousness". The topic of Galatians 2 is, "can a person become clean by doing anything but believing in Christ's blood to clean".

You and I both agree that the answer is "No". But we don't agree on exactly "why", which leads to our disagreement with what happens afterwards; after Christ's blood.


Let me start with a commandment we all agree with:


1) Law: Yah is one. No other Gods.


Is the righteous person expected to follow this command?

Answer: Yes.


Does the righteous person follow this command?

Answer: Yes.


If the righteous person breaks this command do they remain righteous?

Answer: No. They become a sinner by definition.


Can a criminal, who's already CAUGHT breaking a law, start following that law he broke to no longer be a criminal?

Answer: No. He first needs to be acquitted of the crime.


Can a sinner, follow the above command to make themselves righteous?

Answer: No. First they must be acquitted of the crime. Cleansed of the sin.


How?

Answer: Faith in Christ's blood.


Once a sinner is cleansed of their sin, are they righteous?

Answer: Yes.


Is the righteous expected to follow the above commandment?

Answer: .....Yes.


----


All laws in existence are expected to be obeyed. But no law in existence can clear a criminal of breaking a law. Laws don't work that way. Laws set right and wrong; show what's lawful and unlawful to do. So a criminal who breaks the law must pay the price of their crime or be cleared of their crime. Those are the only ways to satisfy ANY law that's broken, in any society in existence. But once we're cleared or once we've paid, we're expected to obey the law again.

We know this intuitively by living in society. But for some reason something switches in our minds when we start considering Yah's law and Christ's blood. I'm not immune to this. I grew up learning and believing the same traditions many of our brothers here defend against my position. But Yah's law works exactly how society's laws work because the basic principles of how laws work are universal:

- Laws show what crime is.

- Broken Laws (i.e. crimes) must be satisfied with a payment.

...The only difference is, Yah ALSO shares ANOTHER set of laws that criminals WERE to do for "paying the price": the sacrifices. But these laws were ALWAYS meant as teaching tools to explain what only Christ could do when he came. So they were fine to do up until Christ. But to continue to do them after Christ performed the real version is to trample over what Christ did. It is THESE LAWS (i.e. anything that would be followed to pay for a crime against Yah) that fade away because they were just teaching tools that led to Christ.

But that didn't erase the main laws that righteous citizens are to live by in Yah's society.

----

The topic of Galatians 2 has nothing to do with what a "FORMER CRIMINAL" is required to do "AFTER ACQUITTAL" once they're made CLEAN/RIGHTEOUS.

But...

The topic of 1 John 3 DOES have to do with what a former criminal is required to do "AFTER ACQUITTAL" because they are NO LONGER A CRIMINAL anymore by the blood of Christ. They are NOW RIGHTEOUS. This is why it has such harsh language as "those who continue to sin are liars" etc, etc.

----

The payment of a broken crime against Yah is death. So through faith in Christ we die to satisfy the law's payment. Nothing happened to the commandments when this happened. They're not gone. But a change happened to us by faith.


Galatians 2:19
For through the Law I died to the Law so that I might live to God.


- For through the law = "Yah's law says you are guilty and must die."

- I died to the law = "by faith I am baptized into Christ's death. dying with him"

- So that I might live to God = "I am resurrected as a new Adam in Christ and now a slave to (doing) righteousness, like Christ."

(No animals were harmed in the making of this new man.)


NOW, we live in that righteousness by obeying the commandments because we're no longer of the 1st Adam anymore. That old man is at war with Yah and hates His law and can't be subject to it no matter how hard he tries. However, the New man finally can be subject to Yah's law, loving it and he's at peace because he is a descendant/child of the 2nd Adam who himself had the divine power to be obedient, who's no longer flesh but Spirit. And a child if of their father, and we are now of our everlasting father carrying his strength.


- If the children of 1st Adam carry his weaknesses...

- Then the children of 2nd Adam carry His strengths (He who was full of grace and truth).

----

4) The Sabbath: Remember it and keep it Holy

- So like our father did, we do good on the Sabbath, and teach others to do good also.

- Like our father did, we celebrate Yah's High Sabbaths because they are a delight to us.

- And like our father did, we rest on the 7th day and we are refreshed because He did at creation.


We are of our father and we do what we see.

 

[Grandpa]

...what can I say...

...Where are the right words...

Ok, I agree with some of what you said, but not with other points.

There's a context to Galatians. When Galatians explains righteousness, the premise is "attaining righteousness from a state of sin", not "living in righteousness from a state of righteousness". The topic of Galatians 2 is, "can a person become clean by doing anything but believing in Christ's blood to clean".

You and I both agree that the answer is "No". But we don't agree on exactly "why", which leads to our disagreement with what happens afterwards; after Christ's blood.


Let me start with a commandment we all agree with:


1) Law: Yah is one. No other Gods.


Is the righteous person expected to follow this command?

Answer: Yes.


Does the righteous person follow this command?

Answer: Yes.


If the righteous person breaks this command do they remain righteous?

Answer: No. They become a sinner by definition.


Can a criminal, who's already CAUGHT breaking a law, start following that law he broke to no longer be a criminal?

Answer: No. He first needs to be acquitted of the crime.


Can a sinner, follow the above command to make themselves righteous?

Answer: No. First they must be acquitted of the crime. Cleansed of the sin.


How?

Answer: Faith in Christ's blood.


Once a sinner is cleansed of their sin, are they righteous?

Answer: Yes.


Is the righteous expected to follow the above commandment?

Answer: .....Yes.


----


All laws in existence are expected to be obeyed. But no law in existence can clear a criminal of breaking a law. Laws don't work that way. Laws set right and wrong; show what's lawful and unlawful to do. So a criminal who breaks the law must pay the price of their crime or be cleared of their crime. Those are the only ways to satisfy ANY law that's broken, in any society in existence. But once we're cleared or once we've paid, we're expected to obey the law again.

We know this intuitively by living in society. But for some reason something switches in our minds when we start considering Yah's law and Christ's blood. I'm not immune to this. I grew up learning and believing the same traditions many of our brothers here defend against my position. But Yah's law works exactly how society's laws work because the basic principles of how laws work are universal:

- Laws show what crime is.

- Broken Laws (i.e. crimes) must be satisfied with a payment.

...The only difference is, Yah ALSO shares ANOTHER set of laws that criminals WERE to do for "paying the price": the sacrifices. But these laws were ALWAYS meant as teaching tools to explain what only Christ could do when he came. So they were fine to do up until Christ. But to continue to do them after Christ performed the real version is to trample over what Christ did. It is THESE LAWS (i.e. anything that would be followed to pay for a crime against Yah) that fade away because they were just teaching tools that led to Christ.

But that didn't erase the main laws that righteous citizens are to live by in Yah's society.

----

The topic of Galatians 2 has nothing to do with what a "FORMER CRIMINAL" is required to do "AFTER ACQUITTAL" once they're made CLEAN/RIGHTEOUS.

But...

The topic of 1 John 3 DOES have to do with what a former criminal is required to do "AFTER ACQUITTAL" because they are NO LONGER A CRIMINAL anymore by the blood of Christ. They are NOW RIGHTEOUS. This is why it has such harsh language as "those who continue to sin are liars" etc, etc.

----

The payment of a broken crime against Yah is death. So through faith in Christ we die to satisfy the law's payment. Nothing happened to the commandments when this happened. They're not gone. But a change happened to us by faith.


Galatians 2:19
For through the Law I died to the Law so that I might live to God.


- For through the law = "Yah's law says you are guilty and must die."

- I died to the law = "by faith I am baptized into Christ's death. dying with him"

- So that I might live to God = "I am resurrected as a new Adam in Christ and now a slave to (doing) righteousness, like Christ."

(No animals were harmed in the making of this new man.)


NOW, we live in that righteousness by obeying the commandments because we're no longer of the 1st Adam anymore. That old man is at war with Yah and hates His law and can't be subject to it no matter how hard he tries. However, the New man finally can be subject to Yah's law, loving it and he's at peace because he is a descendant/child of the 2nd Adam who himself had the divine power to be obedient, who's no longer flesh but Spirit. And a child if of their father, and we are now of our everlasting father carrying his strength.


- If the children of 1st Adam carry his weaknesses...

- Then the children of 2nd Adam carry His strengths (He who was full of grace and truth).

----

4) The Sabbath: Remember it and keep it Holy

- So like our father did, we do good on the Sabbath, and teach others to do good also.

- Like our father did, we celebrate Yah's High Sabbaths because they are a delight to us.

- And like our father did, we rest on the 7th day and we are refreshed because He did at creation.


We are of our father and we do what we see.

This is all MOSTLY error.

You say we die to the law so that we can come back and be alive to the law.

The bible doesn't say anything close to that. It says we are dead to the law to live unto God.

Then later in Galatians it says to stand fast in the liberty of Christ and don't become entangled again in the yoke of bondage.

But you say to die to the law and then become entangled again in that same yoke of bondage.

I already know you don't understand this. I just don't exactly know why you don't. Its perfectly simple to me.

But judaizers, legalists, SDA's, Hebrew roots etc.. always bring in their circular reasoning to try and twist everything to be about their supposed obedience to the 10 commandments. Which would be funny if it weren't so sad.

2000 yrs ago; Acts 15:10 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?

It is abundantly obvious to every Christian that the way of following Commandments did not work. We needed a Saviour from this ministry of death. We needed a New Way that would actually make us Righteous before God.

And if it is not abundantly obvious it sure as well should be.

 

[Shamah]

Luke 16:16-17, "The Law and the Prophets were until John, since that time the Kingdom of YHWH is preached, and every man is pressed to enter it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one yodh of the Law to fail."



Daniyl 7:25, "And he will speak great words against YHWH, and will wear out; mentally attack to cause to fall away, the saints of YHWH, and think to change appointed times and Laws…"

 

[Dan_473]

was he going there because he considered himself under the Law or in order to preach to those who were? just 3 verses later he ceased attending the synagogue ((Acts 18:7))
in the next chapter he did the same thing again, when the Jews stubbornly rejected the good news, and stopped weekly meeting with them, instead meeting daily with the Gentiles ((Acts 19:9)). what about that?

when those who call themselves Jews and boast in the Law do the same thing today, rejecting the good news, should we also leave them and go to the the uncircumcised, who actually believe?

That's a good point. I think Paul says somewhere that he goes to the Jews first, then to Greeks. And I think he keeps that practice up till the end of the book of Acts at least, always meeting with Jewish people first until the bulk of them reject the gospel, which always happened.

 

[Yahshua]

This is all MOSTLY error.

You say we die to the law so that we can come back and be alive to the law.

The bible doesn't say anything close to that. It says we are dead to the law to live unto God.

Then later in Galatians it says to stand fast in the liberty of Christ and don't become entangled again in the yoke of bondage.

But you say to die to the law and then become entangled again in that same yoke of bondage.

I already know you don't understand this. I just don't exactly know why you don't. Its perfectly simple to me.

But judaizers, legalists, SDA's, Hebrew roots etc.. always bring in their circular reasoning to try and twist everything to be about their supposed obedience to the 10 commandments. Which would be funny if it weren't so sad.

You're taking the passage out of context. When you say "we are dead to the law" you're treating it as if the law is what died and not you, but (and I'm saying this as gently as possible...) if you truly believed you were dead to the law you wouldn't sin anymore because the "strength" of sin IS the law, but sin has no power over a dead man since he can't be tempted anymore (Romans 6). Here's what scripture says...

1) Sin enters the world because of Adam, and death passes to all of us because we were seeds in his body when he sinned (Romans 5:12)

2) Because death chases us, we sin (Romans 5:12). We're compelled to be selfish and lustful because our time is running out every day.

3) This Lust of the flesh gives birth to sin, and sin leads to death (James 1:15), more condemnation.

Why?

4) Sin is breaking Yah's Holy law (1 John 3:4) so breaking that law requires a life payment (Romans 6:23). Nothing corrupt can be in the presence of holiness.

5) This cycle repeats for every generation in Adam. [Because death chases us we sin more (Romans 5:12)]. Leading to death...sin...death...MORE sin...death...EVEN MORE sin...etc

Why?

6) The law is life (Proverbs 6:23; Psalm 19:7) and it's Spiritual, but those in Adam are carnal; slaves to sin (Romans 7:14) and war with Yah and naturally hate his law (Romans 8:7), so the mere presence of that law compels Adam's flesh to break it (Romans 7:7). Tell someone not to do something and they will want to do it even more. Tell someone a rule to follow they'll break it just because.

7) This is the ONLY reason why the strength of sin is the law (1 Corinthians 15:56), because of Adam's sinful, mortal flesh.

It's a prison. There's nothing wrong with the law. The law isn't the problem. The 1st Adam is the problem. The only solution to end this prison is a death and then rebirth into a completely different bloodline, one whose patriarch never sinned so that heritage can be passed down his descendants.

6) Perfection enters the world: Christ, and he never breaks Yah's law, and his everlasting life passes to all who are in his body. If they believe, they are no longer being chased by death's condemnation (John 3:16-19).

Just like we were in Adam's body, those who believe in Christ *as the scriptures have said of him* are in Christ's body. Baptized into his death (satisfying the wage), and resurrected into his life (to live in obedience to Yah), being hidden in him (Colossians 3:3) just as we were once seeds hidden in Adam...until the time we are born into this world, being seen as our Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6) now is (1 John 3:4); in glory.

7) This was Christ's prayer in the garden; that we be one "in him" [in his body] and he "in us" [as life-giving spirit in our dead body] (John 17:20).

8) But there is no sin in Christ's living body. Christ is righteous. So members in him can not sin. Sin is breaking Yah's law.

And if we do sin we are not in him.

...Because there is no sin in Christ's living body. Christ is righteous.

This is why when we DO sin we must immediately go to the throne (Hebrews 4:16) to confess our sin to be cleansed (1 John 1:9).

This is also why if we claim to be in him but we practice sin (i.e. breaking Yah's law) we are liars.

This is also why if we claim to have no sin to confess at all (as if he covered all future sins before they were even committed) we are also liars.

...Because there's no sin in Christ's living body. Christ is righteous.

He only bore sin in his death. But he has now risen. So if we continue to sin (i.e. breaking Yah's law) while also not confessing any of those sins we're either prophesying that Christ is still dead and never resurrected to life (impossible), OR that the living Christ is full of sin in his body (i.e. The Man of Sin).

Christ was always obedience to Yah's law while his body was alive...whose body we now are.

----

The law hasn't gone anywhere. And the law will go no where until heaven and earth passes away. WE are the ones who are supposed to pass away so that all that remains alive is what was sown in the earth: The Son (Romans 8:29), he who practiced no sin.

2000 yrs ago; Acts 15:10 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?

It is abundantly obvious to every Christian that the way of following Commandments did not work. We needed a Saviour from this ministry of death. We needed a New Way that would actually make us Righteous before God.

And if it is not abundantly obvious it sure as well should be.

The forefathers were never able to bear remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy? No, he was talking about fleshy circumcision not the Sabbath.

The Law is the scales of balance that will always exist to measure everything as good and evil.

And the commandments are NOT the ministry of death. They are the way to life.


Matthew 19:17
"Why ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. But to answer your question--if you want to receive eternal life, keep the commandments."


No, having to kill something to pay for a sin, THAT was the ministry of death. Literally:

- Ministry = the work of a minister (priest)

- Of death = killing something


The ministry of death; the law of "if you sin something has to die" is the yoke of bondage, not the commandments.

 

[oldethennew]

Thank You. BRoethre!!

 

[Wall]

SDA's seem to spend a lot of time harping on the sin of not keeping the Sabbath, yet we hear nothing about this under the new covenant. Adventists want us to believe that worshipping God on Sunday is the one heinous sin above all others that identifies someone who is disloyal to God and according to Adventists, the Mark of the Beast is Sunday-keeping.

Im not SDA but i believe the scriptures. Sabbath keeping is but 1 of the 10 commandments. Practice to break 1 youve broken them all. You are a transgressor!

REV.14 [9] And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,[10] The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

above scripture sign – hand - forehead (between the eyes) - cup of indignation – the bad guys

below scriptures sign – hand - between thine eyes (forehead) - the LORDS LAW – the good guys

DEUT.6 [2] That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and HIS COMMANDMENTS, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.[3] Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.[4]Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: [5]And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. [6]And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: [7]And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. [8]And thou shalt bind them for A SIGN UPON THINE HAND, and they shall be as FRONTLETS BETWEEN THINE EYES.

Pretty simple