Ten Commandments still valid so says Bible and pro-Sunday Scholars

[Albion]

Which is the very subject Christ deals with in Mark 7 and one of the reasons I keep bringing it up.

Today at 11:01 AM #616

Ah yes, but your argument on the Sabbath does not allow of any authority for the New Testament. I don't think, therefore, that you can dismiss it when Sunday people explain their decision and embrace it now when it suits your purpose.

 

[SAAN]

Actually, modern Christianity and the Bible show us that Jesus, by living a perfect life, fullfilled ALL of the Law of Moses. Something no one had been able to do until Jesus.

The Law was a ball and chain because one either kept it perfectly or kept NONE of the Law. In that, Jesus freed us from having to keep the Law in perfection, because He DID it for us and for everyone.

That is why salvation is ONLY through Jesus Christ. In the New Testament, we hear the words of Jesus Himself telling us that to keep the two most important commandments fulfills the law. Loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself.

So, your definition of or description of 'modern Christianity's theology' is not accurate.

Loving your neighbor as yourself is a tall order, that would include not sinning against others or taking their lives or property.

While God did prefer mankind to keep it perfect, like you said no one could except Jesus, but the bible doesnt say perfection or dont bother trying at all. When you slip up, repent, that is where grace comes in and try not to do it again.

In the OT salvation was never though the law and you are correct that salvation came through Christ, since his blood wiped out the animal sacrifice system.

Love your neighbor and Love God was part f the law; Lev 19:18 & Deut 6:5. We will never be perfect at it, but atleast strive to please Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

And what precisely counts as honoring one's father and mother, and what isn't good enough to constitute real honor?

Which is the very subject Christ deals with in Mark 7 and one of the reasons I keep bringing it up.

Today at 11:01 AM #616

Ah yes, but your argument on the Sabbath does not allow of any authority for the New Testament. I don't think, therefore, that you can dismiss it when Sunday people explain their decision and embrace it now when it suits your purpose.

What authority in the NT text needs to be rejected when Christ said in Mark 7 that to edit/tweek/change the LAW of God is to invalidate worship??

Notice that my argument does not change between the 4th comm and the 5th. The same point being made in Mark 7 by Christ - applies equally to all ten.

 

[Albion]

What authority in the NT text needs to be rejected when Christ said in Mark 7 that to edit/tweek/change the LAW of God is to invalidate worship??

I said that when "Sunday people" refer to the New Testament to show the basis for Sunday worship, you rule it out of consideration, insisting that your church's interpretation of the Old Testament is what governs. Yet now, you're citing the NT--Mark 7.

 

[BobRyan]

Mark 7 is Christ's New Testament argument about not messing around with Commandments of God given in the OT. I don't apply it any differently to the 4th commandment than He is already applying it to all the Commandments of God - in Mark 7. Are you saying that this is a problem?

Your own pro-sunday Bible scholars admit that in the OT the 4th Commandment applied to the 7th day not the first. But in your recent post you seem to be claiming that this is knowledge known only to my denomination.

 

[Albion]

Mark 7 is Christ's New Testament argument about not messing around with Commandments of God given in the OT. I don't apply it any differently to the 4th commandment than He is already applying it to all the Commandments of God - in Mark 7. Are you saying that this is a problem?

I'm saying you can't logically cite the New Testament as evidence in this case while not allowing it when Sunday worship people cite the several passages in the New Testament which justify Sunday worship.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm saying you can't logically cite the New Testament as evidence in this case while not allowing it when Sunday worship people cite the several passages in the New Testament which justify Sunday worship.

Actually I would never argue against a NT text saying "week day 1 is now the Sabbath" or "the 4th commandment is now changed to apply to week day 1 instead of the 7th day" or "week day 1 is the LORD's Day and the new Sabbath". OR "remember to keep holy week day 1 - six days shall you labor and do you all your work but the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God".

Or "we no longer observe the 7th day as the Sabbath - rather we gather for worship every week day 1 as our keeping Sabbath in the New Testament".

Do you have such a text?? (I know of none).

Because until then - we do have the NT text in Mark 7 saying not to edit/tweek/modify the Commandments of God via tradition.

 

[Albion]

Actually I would never argue against a NT text saying "week day 1 is now the Sabbath" or "the 4th commandment is now changed to apply to week day 1 instead of the 7th day" or "week day 1 is the LORD's Day and the new Sabbath".

Do you have such a text??

You know the verses, I'm sure. Acts 20:7, Mk 2:27, Rom 14:5-6, Col 2:16-17

But if you insist that they must state exactly, word for word, as you dictate, of course you're intent upon having your theological cake and eating it, too.

In short, the issue of Saturday or Sunday is a matter of interpretation, even if you try to make it seem like someone is just defying God's instructions.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm saying you can't logically cite the New Testament as evidence in this case while not allowing it when Sunday worship people cite the several passages in the New Testament which justify Sunday worship.

Actually I would never argue against a NT text saying "week day 1 is now the Sabbath" or "the 4th commandment is now changed to apply to week day 1 instead of the 7th day" or "week day 1 is the LORD's Day and the new Sabbath". OR "remember to keep holy week day 1 - six days shall you labor and do you all your work but the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God".

Or "we no longer observe the 7th day as the Sabbath - rather we gather for worship every week day 1 as our keeping Sabbath in the New Testament".

Do you have such a text?? (I know of none).

Because until then - we do have the NT text in Mark 7 saying not to edit/tweek/modify the Commandments of God via tradition.

You know the verses, I'm sure.

If I did know of such texts - we would be having a very different conversation now.

I don't have to imagine that Mark 7 exists - we both know it already exists - neither do I have to make it say something that might look more like "don't mess around with God's Commandments" -- it is already there in the text.

I think we both know that.

And your own pro-sunday Bible scholars already admit that in the OT the 4th Commandment applies to the 7th day of the week -- agan... I think we both know that.

And there is no text at all in the NT saying "week day 1 is holy" or "week day 1 is the Sabbath' or "week day 1 is the Lord's Day" - I suspect we both know that as well.

So no special treatment here on my part. I am taking about what we all already know to be true.

 

[Albion]

See post 628.

 

[BobRyan]

See post 628.

Post 628 is a good example of a post listing texts that don't say anything remote like like - - "week day 1 is holy" or "week day 1 is the Sabbath' or "week day 1 is the Lord's Day" or "we gather for worship every week-day-1 which is the Lord's Day for us" - I suspect we both know that as well.

Suppose for example you had

"week day 1 is the Lord's Day"
and "we gather for worship every week-day-1"

I would think you had two texts that finally give some support for week-day-1 as a holy day. And to prove that it is not 'another Holy Day' but rather the NEW day for Sabbath you might want to add 'and of course week-day-1 is the Sabbath".

A perfect combination of 3 texts... for which you have not even one of them.

fortunately we DO have this -

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

==========================

Now the Jews of course would never have claimed that they had deleted or done away with the 5th commandment - simply because they had tweaked it (by implication) a tiny bit by adding their own rules about what is CORBAN.

 

[Albion]

Post 628 is a good example of a post listing texts that don't say anything remote like like - - "week day 1 is holy" or "week day 1 is the Sabbath' or "week day 1 is the Lord's Day" or "we gather for worship every week-day-1 which is the Lord's Day for us" - I suspect we both know that as well.

On the contrary, they say what they say and completely justify Sunday worship. You simply choose to say "Well, they don't say exactly what I have dictated, word for word, so I won't accept the obvious meaning that they convey."

And it's impossible to argue that they are vague or ambiguous. So as I said before, your effort is to say that Sunday worshippers deliberately disregard God's word--you even said that they "bend" the Scriptures in your listing of "points"--but there's no bending involved at all. There are differences in interpretation of God's word between us, that's all.

So you worship on Saturday if you wish, and the other 95% of the Christian world will continue to worship on Sunday, and we should be able to respect each other even while disagreeing on this matter of interpretation.

 

[BobRyan]

See post 628.

Post 628 is a good example of a post listing texts that don't say anything remote like like - - "week day 1 is holy" or "week day 1 is the Sabbath' or "week day 1 is the Lord's Day" or "we gather for worship every week-day-1 which is the Lord's Day for us" - I suspect we both know that as well.

Suppose for example you had

"week day 1 is the Lord's Day"
and "we gather for worship every week-day-1"

I would think you had two texts that finally give some support for week-day-1 as a holy day. And to prove that it is not 'another Holy Day' but rather the NEW day for Sabbath you might want to add 'and of course week-day-1 is the Sabbath".

A perfect combination of 3 texts... for which you have not even one of them.

fortunately we DO have this -

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

==========================

Now the Jews of course would never have claimed that they had deleted or done away with the 5th commandment - simply because they had tweaked it (by implication) a tiny bit by adding their own rules about what is CORBAN.

On the contrary, they say what they say

far be it from me to ever deny that they 'say what they say'. Here again I think we can all agree on that point.

and completely justify Sunday worship.

They make no claim at all to Sunday worship much less to claiming it is the "Sabbath" or "The Lord's Day".

And it's impossible to argue that they are vague or ambiguous.

Agreed - they are not vague - because they say nothing at all like -- week-day-1 is the "Sabbath" or "The Lord's Day" or that the saints meet every "week day 1 for worship".

I prefer "sola scriptura".

 

[BobRyan]

I'm saying you can't logically cite the New Testament as evidence in this case while not allowing it when Sunday worship people cite the several passages in the New Testament which justify Sunday worship.

Are you being careful NOT to say "when Sunday worship people cite several passages in the New Testament which say that Sunday is now the Sabbath or that Sunday is to be kept holy or that the 4th commandment now refers to Sunday"???

 

[bugkiller]

Which is the very subject Christ deals with in Mark 7 and one of the reasons I keep bringing it up.

Today at 11:01 AM #616



What authority in the NT text needs to be rejected when Christ said in Mark 7 that to edit/tweek/change the LAW of God is to invalidate worship??

Notice that my argument does not change between the 4th comm and the 5th. The same point being made in Mark 7 by Christ - applies equally to all ten.

The NT isn't an edit.

bugkiller

 

[Sophrosyne]

I am getting that a lot from atheists as well over on the evolution debate section of this board -- claiming that they should not know about Christianity so they would not be held accountable.

I've never made that claim nor does my church make that claim, I stand by the Gospel of Grace as the only true way to be saved. While it is entirely possible one can be saved without the Gospel there is no written word proclaiming such so teaching that there is one is like adding words to the Bible and hoping God approves. Meanwhile there are words proclaiming one can be saved while totally IGNORING the Sabbath commandment.... for ALL of your life.

 

[bugkiller]

Actually I would never argue against a NT text saying "week day 1 is now the Sabbath" or "the 4th commandment is now changed to apply to week day 1 instead of the 7th day" or "week day 1 is the LORD's Day and the new Sabbath". OR "remember to keep holy week day 1 - six days shall you labor and do you all your work but the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God".

Or "we no longer observe the 7th day as the Sabbath - rather we gather for worship every week day 1 as our keeping Sabbath in the New Testament".

Do you have such a text?? (I know of none).

Because until then - we do have the NT text in Mark 7 saying not to edit/tweek/modify the Commandments of God via tradition.



If I did know of such texts - we would be having a very different conversation now.

I don't have to imagine that Mark 7 exists - we both know it already exists - neither do I have to make it say something that might look more like "don't mess around with God's Commandments" -- it is already there in the text.

I think we both know that.

And your own pro-sunday Bible scholars already admit that in the OT the 4th Commandment applies to the 7th day of the week -- agan... I think we both know that.

And there is no text at all in the NT saying "week day 1 is holy" or "week day 1 is the Sabbath' or "week day 1 is the Lord's Day" - I suspect we both know that as well.

So no special treatment here on my part. I am taking about what we all already know to be true.

We know you wouldn't argue your exact requested words, you're a lawyer refusing to comunicate because you'd have to admit you're wrong.

Jesus offered the Jews something they didn't have anc couldn't enter into in Mat 11:28-30.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

This is what disgusts me, as Adventists believe that those ignorant of the Sabbath Law can be saved if they reject it but those who know about it are now suddenly guilty. I called several adventists on the carpet asking them if they enjoyed teaching people about the Sabbath so they could be damned to hell when they refused to obey it. If they had just left everyone in ignorance (kept their mouth shut) these "un" Sabbath people could be saved. It was so "loving" to damn people by teaching them about the Sabbath......

I am getting that a lot from atheists as well over on the evolution debate section of this board -- claiming that they should not know about Christianity so they would not be held accountable.

I've never made that claim

It is left as "an exercise for the reader" to consider the truthfulness of that claim then.

Meanwhile there are words proclaiming one can be saved while totally IGNORING the Sabbath commandment.... for ALL of your life.

Here 'again' - you 'quote you'.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm saying you can't logically cite the New Testament as evidence in this case while not allowing it when Sunday worship people cite the several passages in the New Testament which justify Sunday worship.

Actually I would never argue against a NT text saying "week day 1 is now the Sabbath" or "the 4th commandment is now changed to apply to week day 1 instead of the 7th day" or "week day 1 is the LORD's Day and the new Sabbath". OR "remember to keep holy week day 1 - six days shall you labor and do you all your work but the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God".

Or "we no longer observe the 7th day as the Sabbath - rather we gather for worship every week day 1 as our keeping Sabbath in the New Testament".

Do you have such a text?? (I know of none).

Because until then - we do have the NT text in Mark 7 saying not to edit/tweek/modify the Commandments of God via tradition.
=============================

Suppose for example you had

"week day 1 is the Lord's Day"
and "we gather for worship every week-day-1"

I would think you had two texts that finally give some support for week-day-1 as a holy day. And to prove that it is not 'another Holy Day' but rather the NEW day for Sabbath you might want to add 'and of course week-day-1 is the Sabbath".

A perfect combination of 3 texts... for which you have not even one of them.

fortunately we DO have this -

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

==========================

Now the Jews of course would never have claimed that they had deleted or done away with the 5th commandment - simply because they had tweaked it (by implication) a tiny bit by adding their own rules about what is CORBAN.

We know you wouldn't argue your exact requested words, you're a lawyer...

It is left as "an exercise for the reader" to see if that resolves the problem you have in the text -- at all.

Bible avoidance of the details in that discussion is not the great solution to the problem you seem to have at first imagined it to be.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe this ^ explains the eternal popularity of this question. Those who keep Sunday neither deny that there is a Sabbath or counsel that one is not to respect the rest, etc. that the Commandment attaches to it.

I have been claiming that for a long time on this board (when it comes to the "majority" of pro-sunday scholarship) - but the highest volume of posts against it - come from pro-Sunday proponents that flatly reject the core of what you are saying. So then I and a few others have to defend the POV you are stating instead of have the luxury of promoting our own real "Sabbatarian" agenda.

I agree with 6 of the 7 points - but many/most of the pro-sunday posts here - oppose all 7 points.

So for example notice the flocking of "complaints" from the pro-sunday groups here - when I quote those pro-sunday sources making your very same point.

The remaining section of your post is "debatable".

============================

the thread title says that these obvious pro-Ten Commandment facts in the Bible are also affirmed by pro-Sunday scholarship.

How can that possibly be?

First a summary of the pro-Sunday scholarship statements affirming the TEN Commandments.

Here is an example of claims made by the pro-Sunday sources - and 6 of the 7 are actually correct according to the Bible!.


Yes that is right - 6 of the 7 are actually common ground between Sabbath keeping and Sunday keeping Christians.


1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross.

I agree with 6 out of 7 as listed above - and yet many who post against God's TEN commandments object to all of the points listed above. And sometimes they will even go on to complain that so many of the points above are in agreement with my position and opposed to the war-against-the-Ten-Commandments position.

OK. If that's the case (and I certainly haven't been keeping score, so I can't dispute what you say about that), I'd suggest that you not bother too much with them.

But to be fair, your seventh point is worded in a way that is prejudicial to Sunday people of all varieties, so some people are going to feel bound to reply just for that reason.

A large number of pro-sunday posts agree with point 7 when they reject 6 of your 7 points listed - they agree that the 4th commandment is not to be changed at all because for them it is "deleted just as it is" - nailed to the cross just as it is.

you and others on the other hand would argue that re-pointing the 4th commandment to "the first day" rather than "the 7th day" does not harm it at all but leaves it fully in force, fully binding just as it was before - though now 'changed' to point to week-day-1 - as you continue to affirm that all TEN commandments are still binding on all the saints just as they were in the OT.

in Christ,

Bob