GENTILES OR CHRISTIANS PRACTICING THE SABBATH ?

[gadar perets]

Is it your claim that Numbers 9:2-3 is the work of 'man' identifying the Passover with ceremony?

It is the work of man to say the Passover is a ceremonial law.

If you draw the line in your efforts to correct them by going to the extreme of denying that there is any ceremonial law at all - then you open a huge door of vulnerability in your position because everyone can see in the Bible that Moses himself admits to some things being ceremonial as we just saw in Number 9:2-3.

Moses called it a mishpat/judgment, not ceremonial.

 

[gadar perets]

Not one of the Lev 23 annual ceremonies were mandatory for gentiles. three of them were mandatory for Jews/Israel. I just think that going down the road of denying the existence of ceremonial law - is creating an indefensible argument.

Now you are calling the Feast days "ceremonies". Are they ceremonial because sacrifices took place on those days or because 7th Day Adventists don't want to keep them so they classify them as ceremonial and abolished? Are you saying believers are not Israelites? Going down the road of identifying laws as ceremonial so they don't have to be kept along with all other moral laws causes people to sin.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Your whole argument is founded upon the assumption of what you think they should have said. The fact is, Paul disproved the false accusations that he was teaching the Jews to not circumcise their children. By joining those who took the vow, he showed the Jewish believers that they should continue circumcising their children.


Which just goes to show that the false accusers did NOT understand Paul's teaching on circumcision and the Law of Moses.


Irrelevant. The truth against the false accusations stands for all Jewish believers wherever they live.


Please show me in Scripture where the Law is divided into moral and ceremonial laws. Every law of Yahweh is a moral law.
Moral law means right actions/right living. Yahweh doesn't command unjust or wrong actions. Therefore, every law of His is moral. To break any law of His is immoral/wrong action.

Why did Jesus change the law on divorce then? And why did He refer to Moses giving the law rather than God?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I agree (animal) sacrifices and offerings came to an end (for believers), but they are not Scripturally called "ceremonial".

The priesthood of Messiah only changed concerning the high priest. The Levitical priesthood through Zadok will minister during the millennium.

As for 1 Cor 7, I agree.

where is this distinction made biblically?

 

[gadar perets]

The division of the law into civil law, ceremonial law, moral law etc is not only seen in 1 Cor 7:19 -- but many denominations also notice this Bible detail - for example the Westminster Confession of Faith - section 19 , and also the Baptist Confession of Faith section 19.

Both the WCF and BCF also cause people to sin by teaching them the 7th day Sabbath was changed to a Sunday Sabbath. Therefore, why would any Sabbath keeper care how they divide the law?

 

[gadar perets]

Why did Jesus change the law on divorce then? And why did He refer to Moses giving the law rather than God?

Where did Yeshua change the law on divorce? He spoke the truth when he referred to Moses giving the law. TheJews knew full well that God gave it to Moses first.

 

[gadar perets]

where is this distinction made biblically?

The distinction of what?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Where did Yeshua change the law on divorce? He spoke the truth when he referred to Moses giving the law. TheJews knew full well that God gave it to Moses first.

Matthew 19:8-9 Jesus says Moses gave a law that wasn't from the beginning, in fact it was given in response to the Israelites heard hearts. Then, Jesus changed the law.

Doesn't this completely oppose everything you teach about the law "being moral because God commanded it"? And doesn't it also show that God gives laws for specific cultures to tutor them into a relationship with Him?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The distinction of what?

Where is the distinction made biblically that animal sacrifices and offerings ended but the rest of the law continues?

 

[gadar perets]

Matthew 19:8-9 Jesus says Moses gave a law that wasn't from the beginning, in fact it was given in response to the Israelites heard hearts. Then, Jesus changed the law.

Doesn't this completely oppose everything you teach about the law "being moral because God commanded it"? And doesn't it also show that God gives laws for specific cultures to tutor them into a relationship with Him?

Yeshua didn't change the law. He showed them how to properly understand the law. He showed them the Father's intention when He gave them that law because of the hardness of their heart. It doesn't oppose my belief. It justifies it in that Yeshua's teaching about divorce was highly moral. If God gives laws to specific cultures to tutor them, then they are undoubtedly moral laws designed to illicit right actions from His students.

 

[gadar perets]

Where is the distinction made biblically that animal sacrifices and offerings ended but the rest of the law continues?

We are shown in Hebrews and other places that animal sacrifices and offerings were fulfilled by Yeshua's one time sacrifice so that believers need not do them, especially concerning sacrifices for sin and atonement. However, unbelievers will continue to do them during the Millennium after the Temple is rebuilt.

Yet, Paul tells us that faith does not make the Law void, but actually establishes the Law (makes it stand)(Romans 3:31). The Law is holy, just and good as long as it is rightly used. To seek to be justified (made righteous) and/or saved by the Law is an unjust use of it.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Yeshua didn't change the law. He showed them how to properly understand the law. He showed them the Father's intention when He gave them that law because of the hardness of their heart. It doesn't oppose my belief. It justifies it in that Yeshua's teaching about divorce was highly moral. If God gives laws to specific cultures to tutor them, then they are undoubtedly moral laws designed to illicit right actions from His students.

Are you saying Jesus didn't change the law in Matthew 19:8-9? Because if you are arguing that, then we may as well close the discussion because you may as well be arguing that 1+1=3.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

We are shown in Hebrews and other places that animal sacrifices and offerings were fulfilled by Yeshua's one time sacrifice so that believers need not do them, especially concerning sacrifices for sin and atonement. However, unbelievers will continue to do them during the Millennium after the Temple is rebuilt.

Yet, Paul tells us that faith does not make the Law void, but actually establishes the Law (makes it stand)(Romans 3:31). The Law is holy, just and good as long as it is rightly used. To seek to be justified (made righteous) and/or saved by the Law is an unjust use of it.

Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. You agree with this from what you have written here. And the definition is the same in both cases. Fulfilled means, put an end to. Notice also that Hebrews 4 talks of the Sabbath being fulfilled in Jesus.

I want hammer this point down. Fulfilled the law means, put an end to, by your own description.

 

[gadar perets]

Are you saying Jesus didn't change the law in Matthew 19:8-9? Because if you are arguing that, then we may as well close the discussion because you may as well be arguing that 1+1=3.

I guess I'm not seeing what you see. Moses gave them Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Yeshua explained what the "uncleanness" of verse 1 was (porneia). Where is the change?

 

[gadar perets]

Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. You agree with this from what you have written here. And the definition is the same in both cases. Fulfilled means, put an end to. Notice also that Hebrews 4 talks of the Sabbath being fulfilled in Jesus.

I want hammer this point down. Fulfilled the law means, put an end to, by your own description.

Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. You agree with this from what you have written here. And the definition is the same in both cases. Fulfilled means, put an end to. Notice also that Hebrews 4 talks of the Sabbath being fulfilled in Jesus.

I want hammer this point down. Fulfilled the law means, put an end to, by your own description.

Yes, he came to fulfill the Law, but it has not been totally fulfilled yet. Nor does fulfilled mean "put an end to" (destroy). If that were true, then Matthew 3:15 would mean righteousness will come to an end;

And Yeshua answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
​

Be more specific about Hebrews 4.

​

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I guess I'm not seeing what you see. Moses gave them Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Yeshua explained what the "uncleanness" of verse 1 was (porneia). Where is the change?

Wow. "Moses permitted you to divorce" ... "But I tell you..." How more clear can it be? There is no way to write it clearer. Moses said one thing, Jesus says another.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Yes, he came to fulfill the Law, but it has not been totally fulfilled yet. Nor does fulfilled mean "put an end to" (destroy). If that were true, then Matthew 3:15 would mean righteousness will come to an end;

And Yeshua answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
​

Be more specific about Hebrews 4.

​

You were the one who said the sacrifices were fulfilled. But now you say fulfilled doesn't mean to "put an end to". So if Jesus being baptised is the same as Jesus fulfilling the law and Jesus fulfilling the sacrifices, it seems seems to me each one has been accomplished and completed. No longer applicable. Does the baptism of John still apply to Jesus? Must he be baptised again?

 

[gadar perets]

Wow. "Moses permitted you to divorce" ... "But I tell you..." How more clear can it be? There is no way to write it clearer. Moses said one thing, Jesus says another.

That is not a change in the law about divorce. The school of Hillel interpreted Moses as saying they could divorce their wives any time they wanted over the smallest of things. The school of Shammai said divorce was only permissible for major transgressions. Yeshua agreed with the school of Shammai for the most part by clarifying the grounds for divorce. If Moses permitted divorce and then Yeshua said they may not divorce for any reason, then that would be a change in divorce law.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

That is not a change in the law about divorce. The school of Hillel interpreted Moses as saying they could divorce their wives any time they wanted over the smallest of things. The school of Shammai said divorce was only permissible for major transgressions. Yeshua agreed with the school of Shammai for the most part by clarifying the grounds for divorce. If Moses permitted divorce and then Yeshua said they may not divorce for any reason, then that would be a change in divorce law.

But Jesus didn't say this. He said, "Moses said X, but I tell you Y". There was no Hillel or Shammai even referenced in Jesus' teaching. He didn't correct Hillel, He corrected Moses!

 

[gadar perets]

You were the one who said the sacrifices were fulfilled. But now you say fulfilled doesn't mean to "put an end to". So if Jesus being baptised is the same as Jesus fulfilling the law and Jesus fulfilling the sacrifices, it seems seems to me each one has been accomplished and completed. No longer applicable. Does the baptism of John still apply to Jesus? Must he be baptised again?

I said sacrifices and offerings were fulfilled for believers because they received Yeshua as their true sacrifice for sin and atonement. Also, it is not that they are done away with for believers, but are now fulfilled through the effects of Yeshua's ongoing sacrifice. When we sin, his sacrificial blood continues to atone for and cleanse us from sin. The laws of sacrifice and offerings are still applicable to those who have not received Yeshua.

Yeshua himself does not need to be baptized again, but anyone receiving him as Savior does. Baptism is not abolished simply because Yeshua was baptized. Neither is any law abolished simply because Yeshua kept all the laws that applied to him (fulfilled them). Yeshua didn't fulfill laws pertaining to women. Are they abolished as well? Has heaven and earth passed away yet? If not, then neither has any jot and tittle of the law.