I've answered with response or discussion to those responses. What i get is more repeated statements with no Scriptural proof.The statement in MK 2:27 makes no such allusion. It wasn't addressed to the world or mankind. It was addressed to the Jews who asked the question. The word man thus acts like a pronoun.
What proof do you have that he was referring only to the Jews in Mark 2:27? You have produced none. I take the verse just for what it says. You induce into scripture that He is only referring to the Jews. I suppose Mark 2:27, somehow, does not take into account Isaiah 56. You haven't convinced me yet. I see no sound basis for your argument.
It makes no sense whatsoever to say that the Sabbath was made for the Jew when it was made at Creation 2,000 years before any Jew existed.
In Exodus 20:11 we read that the seventh day of Genesis 2:3 is called “the Sabbath day.” Therefore, the Sabbath day has existed from creation. (Genesis 2:3.) That is when it was made, and Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Since man has existed since creation week, it is easy to see that the Sabbath was made for man more than two thousand years before there was a Jew.
Mark 2:27 still stands as I have presented it before.
Man with a vested interest. He was asked about by me with no response. I personally think from visiting his web site that he is SDA selling primarily to the chior.
Seems to me as though you are focusing on the person rather than the argument presented. This is a popular tactic, directed toward SDA's, rather than dealing with the arguments themselves. If you have a problem with Bob Pickle, you are free to email him. As for me, I could care less if he was a Hindu. His argument stands on its own two feet.
Please provide discussion for such. Yes I can read and have read the 4th commandment in Exodus and Deuteronomy.
It says "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy", it does not say "Now you shall keep the Sabbath Holy". The implication is that the Sabbath existed as an already standing institution prior to Sinai. Exodus 16 validates this.
How is this possible? According to Deut 5:3 there wasn;t any such agreement or command to their fathers which would includ Abraham. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi a long time professor at Andrews, author and guest lecturer in the SDA church said that Abraham keeping the sabbath is mere speculation at best.
It's interesting how you like to quote Samuel Bacchiochi who was a staunch Sabbath keeper and defender himself (even though I disagree with him on many points). But taking that argument for what it is, one could say that it is mere speculation at best to say that Abraham kept the 5th commandment, or that he kept the 8th or 9th commandment. Nowhere does it say he kept any of these commandments.
Deut 5:3 refutes this statement outright.
Not really. The covenant made with Israel was far more sharpened, but it was still a covenant that was designed to bring them into harmony with the faith of Abraham. This truly was not the same covenant made with Abraham. Yet the purpose of this covenant given to Israel was to bring Israel back into fellowship and communion with God, so that they might have faith in Him. This is a very simple, logical, understanding.
You are not grasping the big picture. Rather, you are getting caught up in semantics and wordings. All the covenants that God gave were gradual reintegrations of the Everlasting Covenant, for which the Ten Commandments were intrinsically tied to.
I would like very much to be informed what was old if there was to be a new (covenant). Please inform me. I think it is the one (covenant) made with there fathers Jeremiah talks about. What is the NC Jesus talks about in Mat 26:28, MK 14:24 and LK 22:20? I would love some very detailed answers to those Scriptures if you don't mind. While you're at it please include Hosea 2:11 Deut 5:1-5, 12-15. I currently have no detailed discussion from the law camp on those verses. If there is such you can just referme to the post in this forum. I would also like to know why a reference to Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi isn't suffiencient or there is no proof that he has been rejected from the SDA church as a heretic.
It's very simple. and I have explained this a million times. You are missing my point when I said. Hebrews 8:13 is clear that God had made the first "old". It decayed and vanished away. But we're told in verse 7. That it was full of "fault", and the fault was with "them", the Israelites, not the Law. The reason why a New Covenant became absolutely necessary is because Israel failed to live up to the faith of Abraham. See Romans 9:31,32. This is why it "became old", and a New Covenant became absolutely necessary.
It was NEVER God's plan for Israel to live by works. Salvation has always been, and will always by faith alone, and not the works of the law.
Abraham was justified by faith alone, and I believe all men who have been saved, and will be saved, throughout human history, are saved by faith alone, and not the works of the law. God will not have a divided camp in heaven where this group of people were saved by faith, and that group of people were saved by works. God would then be accused of having a
double standard. Works accomplish absolutely nothing if the reasons for doing them are not heart-born. But as I have established, faith without works is dead. Works cannot save you, but faith is
revealed with fruit in the life. We obey God because we are saved, not to be saved. It was this faith of Abraham that the Children of Israel had forgotten in Egypt and on their way back to Canaan. God never has instituted a covenant of works, but the children of Israel certainly were guilty of turning it into one of works. (See Heb 8:7,8; Rom 9:31,32).
And we see why it had to vanish.
This is why Israel stumbled at the stumblingstone, because they attempted to attain the law of righteousness by the works of the law--and therefore failed to attain the law of righteousness which can only be achieved by faith alone--that faith that was of Abraham when he put his full and complete trust in God that He would give him a son (Isaac) through the freewoman (Sarah) (rather than trying to fulfill a promise his way, through Hagar, the bondwoman--an allegory for lack of faith, and salvation by works).
The only kind of genuine faith is a
faith that works by love and purifies the soul.
Keeping the law itself has
nothing to do with salvation by works. Instead, salvation by works has to do with a
wrong motive for keeping the law. And this wrong motive has to do with the fact that you are keeping it to earn salvation, as a ticket to heaven, and not because it is your true heart-felt desire to please God in all things, and in gratitude for what He has done for you. You are also not leaning on God and allowing Him to work in you to do of His good pleasure. Salvation by faith is when God is working in you, and salvation by works is when you are relying on your own strength to keep the law. This method will fail every time, for it is impossible to please God without faith (Heb 11:6).
As far as Hosea 2:11 is concerned, these vanished along
with the Old Covenant. But they were not THE "Old Covenant". The Law itself was not "THE" Old Covenant. It was the BASIS of the Covenant, and the Ten Commandments was the words for which the agreement was made to keep! A covenant is an "agreement", a "pact", a "contract", a "promise" between two parties. A Law is not a promise or an agreement. It is the basis by which the promise is based on. But it was called the "Tables of the Covenant" simply for the reason that it was the basis for the Covenant!
Yet the sabbath is in the 10 Cs which is the covenant - Deut 4:13. The sabbath is very much intrinsic to the covenant. It is the sign (signal, distinguishing mark) of the covenant.
Nobody denies that the Sabbath was part of the Old Covenant. Yet, at the same time, it transcends the Old Covenant.
It is inclusive of the Old Covenant, but not exclusive to the Old Covenant. The sacrificing of animals was part of the Old Covenant, yet it stood prior to the Old Covenant.
The Sabbath was the sign or distinguishing Mark of the Old Covenant, and yet it is a sign or distinguishing Mark also of the New Covenant. Hebrews 4 perspicuously establishes this by saying that the Sabbath "remains". It was to be a sign "forever". And don't pull that card out that says that other statutes were forever, yet we don't keep them. That argument won't fly because the point was that those were "statutes" that symbolically still stand today in Christ's High Priestly Ministry. The Sabbath was not part of the statutes. Therefore, since it was part of the Ten Commandments written in Stone, the "forever" in this contexts stands for eternity.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
13Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
14Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
Who is the you in the above Scripture? The only possibility I see is the nation of Israel. Why is this? If it is for everybody how could it be special sign? Please explain.
Because the kingdom was taken from Israel and given over to the the Church. Therefore, Israel is now realized in the Church. So if the kingdom was given over, the plain logical sense tells you that the Sabbath sign transfers over to the new nation. The name "Israel" was a Spiritual name given to a man. It means "Prince of God". God gave the sign to Israel simply for the fact that He chose them for bearing the gospel commission of salvation to the world. But they failed in their mission. God had to start somewhere. But all nations that take hold of God's Covenant also inherit that sign.
The New Covenant was also only made to the House of Israel. Should we conclude that those who are not Jews cannot be saved as they are not "New Covenant Christians"?
Isaiah 56 is plain enough that shows that all strangers will be accepted in the benefits of salvation to take hold of God's Covenant and keep the Sabbath from polluting it.
Therefore, the Sabbath Sign can only be made to Israel, because Israel encompasses the saints of all ages, from all nations.
The New Jerusalem will house ALL the saints from Adam to the last living saint. This kingdom will be Spiritual Israel, which encompasses Jews and Gentiles. All will be included in the "House of Israel".
I agree and there is nothing to base a valid assumption on that Abraham kept the sabbath or any of the law which came 430 after him and Moses said very plainly wasn't given to him - Deut 5:3. So one must not only deny Gal 3:17 as correct and reject Paul, but also must reject Moses as a reliable source. What is left?
Please, you're wearing me out with Deuteronomy 5:3. Nothing I have said is out of harmony with Deuteronomy 5:3. I have already explained a number of times that the covenant was different. But the principles of love IN that covenant have NEVER been different. Israel's motives in the New Covenant were based on works, and not love. Not faith.
And there is indirect evidence that Abraham kept the Sabbath.
You say that "Israel's fathers” - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were “not commanded” to keep the Sabbath. But we do find such indirect evidence. Notice what we find in Jeremiah 17:22:
“But hallow you the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.” Then in Numbers 20:15 we read,
“Our fathers went down into Egypt.” That was centuries before the giving of the law on Sinai and proves the Sabbath was observed from the time it “was made for man.”
(Cont.)
