Sabbath was made for man

[Gibs]

There wasn't a question involved - but at least you are honest to admit your point isn't valid. Please don't repeat it anymore.

This doesn't follow. What is your reason to quote the Mosaic covenant?

It needs repeating because you refuse to hear Him who gave it. Remember the same covenant is in the new also and we are discussing the Sabbath issue.

 

[VictorC]

It needs repeating because you refuse to hear Him who gave it.

It may be possible that you didn't see most of the content of my previous post. One could charge you with refusal to hear God, Who not only gave the Mosaic covenant, but redeemed those under the Law in His adoption. Please go back and review my previous post:

...they all must admit of the seventh day being God's Sabbath as none Truly have a valid scripture to show that God who changeth not has changed it.

This is the third time I've seen you use this straw man fallacy. No one has any obligation to address a point that isn't even valid.

I'm not among those who claim that the Mosaic covenant Law changed in essence, seeing that Hebrews 7:12 suggests a change in location (or, jurisdiction) as the Greek metatithēmi is used to declare a 'change' in the Law according to Hebrews 7:12, consistent with the context. See the Blue Letter Bible for how this same term is used in other passages.

Your fallacy of confusing the Creator with His temporal creation remains in variance with Scripture declaring how the first covenant changed in jurisdiction, and not in content.

• The first covenant demanded change (Hebrews 7:12)
• It was annulled (v.7:18)
• It was charged with a fault that called for a new covenant (v.8:7)
• It was rendered obsolete and ready to vanish away (v.8:13)
• Jesus redeemed our transgressions under the first covenant and is now the Mediator of the new covenant (v.9:15)
• He took the first covenant away by His own Hand, in order to establish that new covenant (v.10:9)

You admitted appealing to a straw man fallacy three times, and now you claim that you need to keep repeating the same fallacy. Scripture summarized above concludes your contention there was no transition to a new covenant (aka 'change') to be wholly erroneous.

Remember the same covenant is in the new also and we are discussing the Sabbath issue.

Your contention is absolutely impossible to reconcile with Scripture. The Mosaic covenant is incompatible with the new covenant, the very reason Jesus took it away when He redeemed His elect. He didn't replace Moses as a mediator of the old covenant. I have no reason to 'remember' something that is patently contrary to Scripture.

Why didn't God give us the Sabbath?
What reason would we want it once we believe God, accept His adoption, and enter into His rest?
These are among the basic questions you haven't addressed.

 

[Gibs]

VictorC,

The difference between the old and new covenants is the new was built on better promises.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Heb 8:6 ¶ But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

 

[from scratch]

It needs repeating because you refuse to hear Him who gave it. Remember the same covenant is in the new also and we are discussing the Sabbath issue.

Naw!

 

[from scratch]

Scatch, the law is the statue of rule, it is the judge who gives out the penalty called for by infraction of the law.

That law has not and never will not be abrogated! We all will meet the Most High Judge one day so it behooves us to not be based upon presumption of some slick well oiled orator of deception.

Dig deep an be honest with yourself in His Word and know He says what He means and means what He says.

By order of the law. Without this order the people would not stone a violator. The people aren't the ministry of death, the law is.

 

[VictorC]

VictorC,

The difference between the old and new covenants is the new was built on better promises.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Heb 8:6 ¶ But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

I already know this - in fact, you wrote a post representing what I affirm. But this doesn't answer anything in my previous post, including the question why you're quoting the Mosaic covenant we (as Gentiles) never even had.

 

[from scratch]

It is not a valid question because you don't want it to be, but it sure is as God has said it.

Ex 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

He is speaking to all that are vying to be His and He don't want none forgetting!

What is the penalty for disobedience? Why don't you comply?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Gibs

Scatch, the law is the statue of rule, it is the judge who gives out the penalty called for by infraction of the law.

That law has not and never will not be abrogated! We all will meet the Most High Judge one day so it behooves us to not be based upon presumption of some slick well oiled orator of deception.

Dig deep an be honest with yourself in His Word and know He says what He means and means what He says.
​

By order of the law. Without this order the people would not stone a violator. The people aren't the ministry of death, the law is.

For what reason was Stephen stoned in ACTS?
Did he break any kind of law?

Acts 6:10
And not they were strong/iscuon <2480> (5707) to withstand to the wisdom and to the Spirit to which he talked.
Acts 7:
1 And the high priest said, Are these things so? [Matt 26:64]
54 Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed upon him with their teeth.
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [the Lord], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit"

Reve 12:8
and not He is strong/iscusan <2480> (5656),
neither Place found of Them still in the Heaven.


.

 

[Gibs]

VictorC,

The new covenant did not take away the Sabbath from the law,

Scratch, You needs to know old Gibs does comply and it isn't galling or hard in any way!

It is my love to do and it is my desire to please Him. I am a totally free man within His will.

 

[VictorC]

VictorC,

The new covenant did not take away the Sabbath from the law

Congratulations! The Sabbath remained firmly entrenched in the Law that ordained it.
You have now arrived at the conclusion wherein the Sabbath suffered the same disposition God determined for the Mosaic covenant (aka 'the Law'). It was taken away; The Judaic believers are delivered from the Mosaic covenant (Romans 7:6-7), and the Gentile believers were instructed to cast off the covenant from Mount Sinai (Galatians 4:21-31). We have entered into God's rest, and the periodic Sabbath has no further purpose after driving us to faith in our Redeemer.

It is as I wrote yesterday:

Galatians 3
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​

 

[Gibs]

Congratulations! The Sabbath remained firmly entrenched in the Law that ordained it.
You have now arrived at the conclusion wherein the Sabbath suffered the same disposition God determined for the Mosaic covenant (aka 'the Law'). It was taken away; The Judaic believers are delivered from the Mosaic covenant (Romans 7:6-7), and the Gentile believers were instructed to cast off the covenant from Mount Sinai (Galatians 4:21-31). We have entered into God's rest, and the periodic Sabbath has no further purpose after driving us to faith in our Redeemer.

It is as I wrote yesterday:

Galatians 3
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​

You are forgetting something and the straw house you have erected has no foundation,

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

 

[VictorC]

You are forgetting something and the straw house you have erected has no foundation,

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

I see. Scripture has no foundation, your own posts have no foundation, so it becomes necessary for you to divert attention to another passage that doesn't even have relevance with your topic. This is another used Dodge. You're already on record admitting we don't have any commandment regarding the Sabbath.

 

[Gibs]

I see. Scripture has no foundation, your own posts have no foundation, so it becomes necessary for you to divert attention to another passage that doesn't even have relevance with your topic. This is another used Dodge. You're already on record admitting we don't have any commandment regarding the Sabbath.

James just didn't mention the 4'th as all at that time were keeping it and had no idea of using the Sunday in it's place and the 4'th reads,

Ex 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

[VictorC]

James just didn't mention the 4'th as all at that time were keeping it and had no idea of using the Sunday in it's place and the 4'th reads,

Ex 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

You're already on record as admitting that you don't keep the Sabbath Holy according to the Law, as I explained in my first post to you yesterday. There is no commandment anywhere to keep the Sabbath unholy, you've already admitted that the Sabbath shares the same disposition God exercised on the Mosaic covenant, and now you're trying to insert nonsense to fill in the silence the Biblical authors chose to write. This reveals a dedication to replace Scripture with your agenda that can't be reconciled with God's Word.

And for the fourth time, you've repeated the straw man fallacy that Sunday replaced the Sabbath. It did not. We don't have the Sabbath, and no one can 'change' an entity that doesn't exist within their tenure. You've already admitted we don't have the Sabbath outside the Mosaic covenant, and yet once again you couldn't help yourself but to repeat the Mosaic covenant as if it conveys a commandment outside of Judaism. It doesn't.

You can find uninspired opinions that claim to change the Sabbath, but none of them explain how they resurrected this component that depends on the Mosaic covenant to exist. It is bogus, and Sunday Sabbatarianism is as equally incompatible with Christianity as Saturday Sabbatarianism. Old-covenant "christianity" is a oxymoron that doesn't exist except in your tortured imagination. We have the liberty to assemble at any time, and we extend that same liberty to those who want to assemble on Saturday. Sunday became the common tradition for the reason our Lord chose the first day of the week to meet with us.

John 20
19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, &#8220;Peace be with you.&#8221; 20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.​

We're always glad to see the Lord, and we remember the first experience when we saw Him after His resurrection. In no way does this convey the Sabbath forward to those God redeemed as His purchased possession.

 

[disciple1]

Hebrews chapter 7
11. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
12. For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

18. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
19. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

 

[Gibs]

You're already on record as admitting that you don't keep the Sabbath Holy according to the Law, as I explained in my first post to you yesterday. There is no commandment anywhere to keep the Sabbath unholy, you've already admitted that the Sabbath shares the same disposition God exercised on the Mosaic covenant, and now you're trying to insert nonsense to fill in the silence the Biblical authors chose to write. This reveals a dedication to replace Scripture with your agenda that can't be reconciled with God's Word.

And for the fourth time, you've repeated the straw man fallacy that Sunday replaced the Sabbath. It did not. We don't have the Sabbath, and no one can 'change' an entity that doesn't exist within their tenure. You've already admitted we don't have the Sabbath outside the Mosaic covenant, and yet once again you couldn't help yourself but to repeat the Mosaic covenant as if it conveys a commandment outside of Judaism.

You can find uninspired opinions that claim to change the Sabbath, but none of them explain how they resurrected this component that depends on the Mosaic covenant to exist. It is bogus, and Sunday Sabbatarianism is as equally incompatible with Christianity as Saturday Sabbatarianism. Old-covenant "christianity" is a oxymoron that doesn't exist except in your tortured imagination. We have the liberty to assemble at any time, and we extend that same liberty to those who want to assemble on Saturday. Sunday became the common tradition for the reason our Lord chose the first day of the week to meet with us.

John 20
19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.​

We're always glad to see the Lord, and we remember the first experience when we saw Him after His resurrection. In no way does this convey the Sabbath forward to those God redeemed as His purchased possession.

Well now VictorC these verses you just posted only prove they had kept Sabbath and were still gathered together in the beginning of the Sunday and Jesus came in and met with them. Using this to sanctify the Sunday is ludicrous to say the least.

Joh 20:19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

Strange is it not that Jesus or none of the Apostles ever even made the least statement of any change from Sabbath to the Sunday.

 

[Gibs]

Hebrews chapter 7
11. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
12. For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

18. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
19. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

The law that Paul is speaking of is the ceremonial law which Jesus fulfilled to become our high priest nailed to His cross.

You me and all will be judged by the immutable law, the Royal law, known also as the law of liberty,

Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty

 

[VictorC]

Well now VictorC these verses you just posted only prove they had kept Sabbath and were still gathered together in the beginning of the Sunday and Jesus came in and met with them. Using this to sanctify the Sunday is ludicrous to say the least.

Joh 20:19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, &#8220;Peace be with you.&#8221; 20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

Strange is it not that Jesus or none of the Apostles ever even made the least statement of any change from Sabbath to the Sunday.

Pure conjecture, contrary to the passage.

Nowhere did you respond to any content of my post, choosing for a fifth time to repeat your straw-man fallacy that is already dead on arrival. No one sanctified a periodic event you've replaced God's rest with. Trying to support this by inserting a meaning into Scripture that isn't even there confirms your opinions contrary to Holy Writ.

Let me tell you what I see as the casual observer: I see someone who has gotten a notion and reduced the Bible to a small collection of sound-bites in an effort to insert your notion into the Bible. However, it doesn't fit at all once you gain a better knowledge of the Bible's contents and learn the Gospel from the inspired authors. You've contradicted more than you can find for support, and there isn't a first-year seminary student alive who couldn't shred you to kitty litter in twenty minutes flat. Old-covenant "christianity" remains a oxymoron inside your tortured imagination, and you didn't get it from Scrpture.

Here's your previous post:

VictorC,

The new covenant did not take away the Sabbath from the law

You've already lost your argument. It is time to move on and reconcile your mistakes with your own admission.

 

[Gibs]

Pure conjecture, contrary to the passage.

Nowhere did you respond to any content of my post, choosing for a fifth time to repeat your straw-man fallacy that is already dead on arrival. No one sanctified a periodic event you've replaced God's rest with. Trying to support this by inserting a meaning into Scripture that isn't even there confirms your opinions contrary to Holy Writ.

Let me tell you what I see as the casual observer: I see someone who has gotten a notion and reduced the Bible to a small collection of sound-bites in an effort to insert your notion into the Bible. However, it doesn't fit at all once you gain a better knowledge of the Bible's contents and learn the Gospel from the inspired authors. You've contradicted more than you can find for support, and there isn't a first-year seminary student alive who couldn't shred you to kitty litter in twenty minutes flat. Old-covenant "christianity" remains a oxymoron inside your tortured imagination, and you didn't get it from Scrpture.

Here's your previous post:

You've already lost your argument. It is time to move on and reconcile your mistakes with your own admission.

VictorC,

Your house of cards you are thinking is a fort is soon to fall as nothing you have given has any substance to support your claiming.

 

[VictorC]

VictorC,

Your house of cards you are thinking is a fort is soon to fall as nothing you have given has any substance to support your claiming.

Denial of content results in the pompous holier-than-thou used Dodge.