if you observe Sabbath, Christ will profit you nothing. (2)

[robinvanpersie]

Obviously because 7th day observance is not enjoined upon Christians it followed that Christian never debated it in the new testament.

This is simply your assumption based on your theology.

To me it's crystal clear that All of God's commandments are applicable and profitable for my correction, my reproof, instruction and training in righteousness as a child of God.

Obviously Christians seek to follow the example of Jesus Christ and the teaching he gave to the church through the apostles so Christians are not into incest or bestiality. The suggestion that they would engage in such unless there was a law against it is absurd.

Again it's absurd to you, because you are 'putting sins in your own personal categories'. And since you obviously don't consider breaking the 4th commandment a transgression, you don't consider the breaking of that law as absurd.

Or things like the fact that God calls pork an abomination and 'unfood'.
Your roundabout "Godly teaching=no incest and bestiality" is not really an argument, since Godly teaching = remember His Sabbath and keep it holy. This and the fact that both the Master and all of His disciples and followers actually KEPT the 4th commandment, yet you mysteriously think they taught a different 'set of instructions' than how they lived.

Obviously the last sentence is obscure. I have no idea what you are referring to. You had asked if the old testament saints were Christians. Obviously they were not. Some were Patriarchs or members of their households, and some were Jews.

Not really that obscure. God doesn't differentiate believers once they are part of His household. Either you are in and will live forever with Him or you're not damned and eternally condemned.

I am a believer, grafted in among Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Daniel, David and Paul. Are you?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Who made that rule?

I am trying to debate, using opinion with lacking evidence is showing a failure to measure up in debate and makes your point pretty much irrelevant as one could conclude anything as "laws" that Abraham was keeping by God's orders and you couldn't refute it as invalid because there is no evidence contrary to its possible existence.

Aren't you using lack of evidence as proof?

You can use logic to discern some things that have little evidence but the logic must be such that chances are in your favor of the occurance stipulated. In your case there is at best even odds to Abraham knowing of the Sabbath or not which doesn't cut it.

Right. So Adam would have just know where to cut the cord and about the removal of the placenta? Ok.

Adam could have easily seen births of many animals during prior to Eve's first child and it is quite possible that Eve expelled her placenta naturally and cutting the cord isn't a big deal as I believe Adam could have guessed about that being I figure he was well above average intelligence. The thing is you are insisting God had to instruct them on childbirth and I have shown here that it is quite possible he didn't have to do so, which if I approach a 50/50 chance of either situation your argument fails as I have presented a valid alternative to it that works.

The bible says that Abraham kept God's laws, commandments, and statutes. It seems pretty logical to me since we don't have various laws of God floating about that the same law God gave Israel, is the same one Abraham kept.

Nothing but word games here... commands, laws, instructions... there is no proof what God told Abraham to do and keep and we know that he was commanded to sacrifice his son so that must be true for us also, so where is your alter and when are you going to tie your son up if it was good enough for Abraham is must be good enough for you too... I've been over this tired argument too much. PROVE what commandments Abraham was given or you are just making a baseless opinion.

Oh please. What I'm doing is simply pointing out the bias being used here. You can't say "because it isn't specified that means it didn't happen". The bible isn't an account verbatim of all that happened. We can however use logic, as you propose, to fill in certain gaps. If God lays claim to one law, how is it illogical to think that Abraham kept something other than that law?

When you assert something you need to back it up with proof, I'm tired of you and other pulling commandments out of hats like rabbits here and making us think it isn't some sort of trickery.

Is it illogical to think that God taught Abraham to worship no other God's, or that He shouldn't take His name in vain? The bible doesn't specify that but it wouldn't be illogical to believe that is exactly what happened given God's relationship with him. If God would take care to teach Abraham how to worship Him, why think that wouldn't include the sabbath? I'll tell you why, because you simply can't see past your own bias. If you admit even a little bit that it's possible that anyone before Moses kept the sabbath, you lose every excuse you could muster up for why you don't keep it. That's the bottom line, and if you're being honest with yourself, you'll know it's true too.

honestly speaking Abraham wasn't taught to worship no other gods I think that he chose not to do so because of his strong relationship with God he found NO need for any other god. Abraham's faith in God was such that he was willing to give his best to me that shows the connection or bond was at the limits. Abraham was said to even be a friend of God, friends wouldn't take their friends name in vain or berate them. As far as worship.... any of us that would see something unexplainable using normal reasoning and logic such as God without knowing the logic of God to begin with would worship such supernatural being on a level anyway.
As far as your plea to have me admit the possibility of someone keeping the Sabbath prior to Moses it doesn't matter if I think there is a possibility or not what matters is IF there is one the chances logically speaking don't make your argument valid. Even if the chance is 50/50 I'm not the one advocating that it is actually 100/0 that you are so you have to step up and give me a reason to believe the other 50% and so far your arguments are rather lame based almost entirely upon word association games that if two scriptures have the same word in them they must be connected and one must prove the other too.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I think what most people really mean is "I'm free from keeping the Sabbath". Just stop beating around the bush and talk about the commandment that you really have in mind.

I am free from keeping the Sabbath or any other Law apart from "Treat others as you would have others treat you." And even then my salvation -- my membership in the New Covenant -- is not contingent on my following that law, it is contingent on my faith.

 

[robinvanpersie]

I am free from keeping the Sabbath or any other Law apart from "Treat others as you would have others treat you." And even then my salvation -- my membership in the New Covenant -- is not contingent on my following that law, it is contingent on my faith.

John 3:36

 

[Stryder06]

I am trying to debate, using opinion with lacking evidence is showing a failure to measure up in debate and makes your point pretty much irrelevant as one could conclude anything as "laws" that Abraham was keeping by God's orders and you couldn't refute it as invalid because there is no evidence contrary to its possible existence.

This is your problem, and virtually the entire problem around here. Everyone is trying to debate, and when you debate, your object is to win. This isn't some secular topic we're talking about where the one who presents the most evidence wins. We're talking about spiritual matters, that can't be discerned the same way one would carnal matters.

So long as you continue to try to win this debate, you'll fail to under the concepts being presented.

 

[Stryder06]

I am free from keeping the Sabbath or any other Law apart from "Treat others as you would have others treat you." And even then my salvation -- my membership in the New Covenant -- is not contingent on my following that law, it is contingent on my faith.

So you're free from the "Love God with all your heart" law?

 

[Stryder06]

Obviously because 7th day observance is not enjoined upon Christians it followed that Christian never debated it in the new testament.

More likely that they were already keeping it, and that's why it wasn't debated.

Obviously Christians seek to follow the example of Jesus Christ and the teaching he gave to the church through the apostles so Christians are not into incest or bestiality. The suggestion that they would engage in such unless there was a law against it is absurd.

Christ kept the law.

Obviously the first time Christians were called Christians was at Antioch as the scripture says. We still call ourselves Christians even though the name was given to us providentially by God through pagans.

Christian is a title, and it was first given to Jews. Jews kept the sabbath.

Obviously the last sentence is obscure. I have no idea what you are referring to. You had asked if the old testament saints were Christians. Obviously they were not. Some were Patriarchs or members of their households, and some were Jews.

A Christian is one who follows Christ. Those who live and trusted in the promise of the soon to come Messiah were just as Christian as those of us who believe in Him now. You speak as if "Christian" were a nationality

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

if you observe Sabbath, Christ will profit you nothing

How about that from a different angle:

"if you observe Sabbath, Moses will profit you everything"

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
Faith of Abraham vs Law of Moses

LUKE 16:30 And he said, "Nay father Abraham!
But if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 But he said to him, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead"

Yeshua uses the last two verses of this parable as an amazing prophecy of his pending resurrection from the dead.
The rich man says that although his brothers may not accept the scriptural evidence for the identity of the Messiah, they will accept the evidence of one who is raised from the dead.

But Abraham answers and plainly tells him that anyone who rejects the Bible's teaching about the Messiah will also refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a miraculous resurrection.
This last verse is a sad prophecy about the Jews who, despite God's resurrection of His son from the power of the grave, have failed to recognize Yeshua as the prophesied Messiah.




.

 

[Strong in Him]

This is also a non-valid argument. Loving God with all of your hearts = obeying His commandments.

And the command to keep the Sabbath was NOT given in the NT, to Gentiles or Christians.

The same argument you use to say “you shouldn’t commit incest, because you’re supposed to love your neighbor” can be used to say, you shouldn’t PROFANE the Holy day of God, because you’re supposed to love God with all of your heart.

I don't PROFANE any day. All days, and all my time, belong to God and are his gift to me.
I belong to Him and wouldn't dream of profaning him.

You’re missing the point. I’m not saying that THE REST of the Scriptures aren’t profitable..what I AM saying and you’re ignoring is the fact that the LAW of God is also included in ALL SCRIPTURES—in fact it is the very FOUNDATION of ALL SCRIPTURES.

The Jewish law was,
a) given to the Israelites when they were brought out of Egypt. God had showed he cared for them, rescued them and made a covenant with them making them his people.
b) fulfilled by, and in, Jesus, (Matt 5:17-18)
c) a shadow of the things that were to come (Heb 10:1).

JESUS is the foundation of all Scripture.

He is the WORD of God, (John 1:1); his coming was prophesied in the OT - even in the Garden of Eden - and revealed in the New. The law and the prophets point to Jesus, and were fulfilled in him. He is a second Adam, (Rom 5:12-21), is greater than Abraham, (John 8:56-59) and Moses (Heb 3). He was the servant of the Lord (Is 42, 61) and the suffering servant, (Is 53). He was the Son of Man (Dan 7:13; John 9:35-37) and the Messiah (John 4:25-26, Mark 8:29).
The written word of God reveals God to us - his nature, his words, his will; Jesus was God in the flesh, he showed us what God is like.

You say that the Law of God is NOT profitable for reproof, instruction and training in righteousness. (You disagree with 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

No. We can learn a lot from the law; we're just not obliged to keep it.
Leviticus is actually quite interesting with all the sacrifices and how they shadow what Christ did. It's fascinating to see how Jesus' life and coming were prophesied in the OT, and we can learn a lot from the Jews' story and history.

 

[SAAN]

Matthew 22:36-40

New King James Version (NKJV)

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”




Jesus said all the OT hangs on these 2 commands, he didn't say these 2 commands canceled out everything else. They are just a sum of the laws. And no we are not still to do sacrifices, because Hebrews says they are no longer needed because Jesus was our sacrifice. So out the window goes the whole why don't you go do burnt offerings and sacrifices then.

 

[Sophrosyne]

This is your problem, and virtually the entire problem around here. Everyone is trying to debate, and when you debate, your object is to win. This isn't some secular topic we're talking about where the one who presents the most evidence wins. We're talking about spiritual matters, that can't be discerned the same way one would carnal matters.

So long as you continue to try to win this debate, you'll fail to under the concepts being presented.

I'm not failing, your arguments are highly opinionated and weak and resorting to such tactics as this post here shows me that you can't find a good way to repel my logic so you are just attempting to get me off on a tangent. Prove Abraham kept the Sabbath or are you going to admit you cannot, if you cannot admit it isn't possible to prove it then you are indeed wanting very badly to win and by win you think "NOT LOSING" is a win.

 

[NorrinRadd]

So you're free from the "Love God with all your heart" law?

John (quoting Jesus in his Gospel, and on his own in his letters) gives only one Commandment -- "Love one another."

James says we are doing fine if we fulfil the "royal" law -- "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Paul repeatedly and emphatically says that the entire Law is contained in "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Matthew says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is "the same as" the Commandment to "Love the Lord your God."

Luke folds the "two" Commandments into a single Commandment: "Love the Lord your God, and your neighbor as yourself."


I understand Scripture to teach that the primary WAY we are to love God is by loving those created in His image, which means treating others the way we would like to be treated.

 

[from scratch]

This is simply your assumption based on your theology.

To me it's crystal clear that All of God's commandments are applicable and profitable for my correction, my reproof, instruction and training in righteousness as a child of God.

Again it's absurd to you, because you are 'putting sins in your own personal categories'. And since you obviously don't consider breaking the 4th commandment a transgression, you don't consider the breaking of that law as absurd.

You wish to deny the New Covenant is different. I think you believe it is merely an extension of an existing covenant and not really new as the Bible says.

Or things like the fact that God calls pork an abomination and 'unfood'.
Your roundabout "Godly teaching=no incest and bestiality" is not really an argument, since Godly teaching = remember His Sabbath and keep it holy. This and the fact that both the Master and all of His disciples and followers actually KEPT the 4th commandment, yet you mysteriously think they taught a different 'set of instructions' than how they lived.

Who is the you in that command? And is it repeated in the New Testament as applicable to Gentile Christians? Oh that's right I forgot you believe all Christians are (spiritual) Jews.

Not really that obscure. God doesn't differentiate believers once they are part of His household. Either you are in and will live forever with Him or you're not damned and eternally condemned.

I am a believer, grafted in among Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Daniel, David and Paul. Are you?

A believer in what? God? So what satan also believes in God.

Now Abraham and Isaac weren't ever Jewish or an Israelite. Paul says there are no Jews in Christ Jesus. Jesus says were all brought into the same fold. Jesus doesn't say nor imply that fold is Israel.

You have your events mixed up as to time frame. Maybe that is caused by your view of death.

 

[robinvanpersie]

You wish to deny the New Covenant is different. I think you believe it is merely an extension of an existing covenant and not really new as the Bible says.

The funny thing about that statement is that Jeremiah 31 says absolutely nothing about the Law of God “changing” or being replaced, etc. God says I will put THAT same law in the hearts and minds. I have no problem saying that the New Covenant will have huge changes, better promises etc. But the Scriptures say NOTHING about the New Covenant containing a “new Law”.
The text clearly tells us that there will be better promises. However it doesn’t differentiate or even imply that there will be a “better law”.

Who is the you in that command? And is it repeated in the New Testament as applicable to Gentile Christians? Oh that's right I forgot you believe all Christians are (spiritual) Jews.

Bummer, I guess Romans 2:28-29 doesn't apply to you?
28. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Or Galatians 3:29?
“And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.”

Ephesians 3 further highlights the fact that the mystery is that Gentiles become fellow-heirs and citizens alongside God’s people.
4. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
5. which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
6. to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

You don’t have to agree with me. Someday you will hopefully realize it, maybe “at that time”.
it should be a simple history lesson that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—Moses, Daniel and Paul were all saved before you were, and therefore part of God’s household before you were ADDED. But hey…if you want to start at Acts 2 and add yourself to “that group” so that you are part of something (you believe to be) new…be my guest.
Scripturally---there is ONE body, One Household, as you mentioned…ONE fold. We are ALL part of said fold.

 

[Stryder06]

I'm not failing, your arguments are highly opinionated and weak and resorting to such tactics as this post here shows me that you can't find a good way to repel my logic so you are just attempting to get me off on a tangent. Prove Abraham kept the Sabbath or are you going to admit you cannot, if you cannot admit it isn't possible to prove it then you are indeed wanting very badly to win and by win you think "NOT LOSING" is a win.

My arguements are no more or less opinionated than your own. The only difference is that I'm not trying to apply carnal methods of debate to spiritual matters.

You ask "Where does the bible say Abraham kept the sabbath"
I ask "Where does it say he didn't" and yet somehow according to you my "logic" is less sound than your own? That's simply allowing your bias to show.

If you were so keen on logic we wouldn't be having this discussion. God said that Abraham kept His law and commandments. Seeing as we only see one set of laws and commandments in the scripture given by God it is highly logical to imply that this same law was given to Abraham in some form.

Logic shows that the ten commandments are a set, and there's something special about them given that God wrote them with his own finger in tablets of stone.

Logic shows that the sabbath day isn't just some holy day festival but an actual holy day. When you read the commandment you can see logically, because it's spelled out, that the day was made special from the beginning, not in an "Oh it's your birthday" type special, but in a "from sunset to sunset once a week because God says it's His day" special.

Fact is this isn't about being logical. You're not even interested in using logic because if you did, and allowed yourself to admit that someone before Moses and Israel kept the sabbath, your reason for not doing so becomes invalid.

 

[Stryder06]

John (quoting Jesus in his Gospel, and on his own in his letters) gives only one Commandment -- "Love one another."

James says we are doing fine if we fulfil the "royal" law -- "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Paul repeatedly and emphatically says that the entire Law is contained in "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Matthew says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is "the same as" the Commandment to "Love the Lord your God."

Luke folds the "two" Commandments into a single Commandment: "Love the Lord your God, and your neighbor as yourself."


I understand Scripture to teach that the primary WAY we are to love God is by loving those created in His image, which means treating others the way we would like to be treated.

The law to love God and love your neighbor were given to Israel while they were in the wildreness. Those laws have always stood. This is the kicker though, none of us knows how to love God or our neighbor without God telling us how. Those two commandments, in short, are "Ten commandments for dummies." The first four commandments teach us how to love God. The last six teach us how to love our neighbor.

 

[robinvanpersie]

Prove Abraham kept the Sabbath or are you going to admit you cannot, if you cannot admit it isn't possible to prove it then you are indeed wanting very badly to win and by win you think "NOT LOSING" is a win.

Genesis 26:5 tells us that Abraham obeyed and followed God’s Laws.
Right then and there YOU have to prove that it isn’t the same Law---as God’s ONE and ONLY Law.

Because what is clear throughout the “Old Testament” is that the term “My Law” is ALWAYS in reference to God’s One and Only Law. God doesn’t have multiple “My Law”s—that’s something you would understand if you actually took the time to study the word you hate to even look at and learn that it actually means Instruction and guidelines.

God’s Law is His Instructions and Guidelines of righteousness for His people.

Case in point:
"Now therefore, O LORD, the God of Israel, keep with Your servant David, my father, that which You have promised him, saying, `You shall not lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your sons take heed to their way, to walk in My law as you have walked before Me.' – 2 Chronicles 6

"Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, A people in whose heart is My law; Do not fear the reproach of man, Nor be dismayed at their revilings. – Isaiah 51

"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. – Jeremiah 31

"But they have not become contrite even to this day, nor have they feared nor walked in My law or My statutes, which I have set before you and before your fathers."' -Jeremiah 44

"In a dispute they shall take their stand to judge; they shall judge it according to My ordinances. They shall also keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed feasts and sanctify My sabbaths. – Ezekiel 44

Though I wrote for him ten thousand precepts of My law, They are regarded as a strange thing. – Hosea 8

"THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," – Hebrews 10

 

[from scratch]

The funny thing about that statement is that Jeremiah 31 says absolutely nothing about the Law of God “changing” or being replaced, etc. God says I will put THAT same law in the hearts and minds. I have no problem saying that the New Covenant will have huge changes, better promises etc. But the Scriptures say NOTHING about the New Covenant containing a “new Law”.
The text clearly tells us that there will be better promises. However it doesn’t differentiate or even imply that there will be a “better law”.


Bummer, I guess Romans 2:28-29 doesn't apply to you?
28. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Or Galatians 3:29?
“And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.”

Ephesians 3 further highlights the fact that the mystery is that Gentiles become fellow-heirs and citizens alongside God’s people.
4. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
5. which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
6. to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

You don’t have to agree with me. Someday you will hopefully realize it, maybe “at that time”.
it should be a simple history lesson that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—Moses, Daniel and Paul were all saved before you were, and therefore part of God’s household before you were ADDED. But hey…if you want to start at Acts 2 and add yourself to “that group” so that you are part of something (you believe to be) new…be my guest.
Scripturally---there is ONE body, One Household, as you mentioned…ONE fold. We are ALL part of said fold.

We sure need a grammar expert.

 

[Stryder06]

We sure need a grammar expert.

More like the proper spirit of discernment

 

[from scratch]

The funny thing about that statement is that Jeremiah 31 says absolutely nothing about the Law of God “changing” or being replaced, etc. God says I will put THAT same law in the hearts and minds. I have no problem saying that the New Covenant will have huge changes, better promises etc. But the Scriptures say NOTHING about the New Covenant containing a “new Law”.
The text clearly tells us that there will be better promises. However it doesn’t differentiate or even imply that there will be a “better law”.


Bummer, I guess Romans 2:28-29 doesn't apply to you?
28. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

That would be correct. As a Christian I don't become a Jew nor incur obligation to their old law that was superseded.

Or Galatians 3:29?
“And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.”

Abraham was never an Israelite.

Ephesians 3 further highlights the fact that the mystery is that Gentiles become fellow-heirs and citizens alongside God’s people.
4. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
5. which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
6. to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

You don’t have to agree with me. Someday you will hopefully realize it, maybe “at that time”.
it should be a simple history lesson that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—Moses, Daniel and Paul were all saved before you were, and therefore part of God’s household before you were ADDED. But hey…if you want to start at Acts 2 and add yourself to “that group” so that you are part of something (you believe to be) new…be my guest.
Scripturally---there is ONE body, One Household, as you mentioned…ONE fold. We are ALL part of said fold.

The above passage doesn't say or imply one becomes a Jew. You're trying to use sophistry to prove a point. This is deceiving.