Why the Sabbath isn’t on Saturday or Sunday

[bugkiller]

I do not know what your are accusing me of dismissing, so I cannot explain; you seem to be taking my arguments out of the context of the debate I was having with the other bloke.

I never considered my post as consisting of conclusions so I wonder what you call a conclusion;

You presented Mat 5:17-18 if I remember correctly. Your version is that all things means all prophecy is fulfilled. The problem I have is Lk 24:44 -

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

This is a direct reference to Mat 5:7-18. Notice especially the last two words of the verse "concerning me." I do understand you will disagree.

That the I AM of the OT became Jesus, God in human form, and as Jesus He would not contradict what He said as the I AM.

No Jesus is not the I AM of the OT. Yes you may have Jn 8:58 in mind. Notice the KJV reads here - "I am" opposed to "I AM." John in no way is claiming Jesus is the god of Abraham (ie God the Father). I reference you to Jn 15:10 where John clearly shows with a quote from Jesus that He is not The Father. Furthermore the Redeemer of Gen 3:15 does not make an appearance until after Malachi when He was born of Mary. The law was until the seed (GEN 3:15) came (GAL 3:19). Good ole Dr. Luke said -

The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 16:16

"The spirit that leads people away from the Law is the spirit of anti-Christ."" this is a conclusion but I would call it an interpretation.

I have no idea where you get even an interpretation. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Gal 5:18. Those who are led by the Spirit are not led back to or by the law.

Jesus and the OT, which really is one testament, teaches only the keeping of the Law which is also called the covenant, never the abrogating of the Law or changing of the Law. At least in two places in the OT the Law (also called the covenant) was to go to the gentiles at some time in the future.

Again I point you to the self defining text of Jer 31:31-33 a single sentence.

In Daniel we read, "He will change Laws and times." and "He will confirm the covenant". The dispensationalists have Christ changing Laws and times (which never happened) and have Satan confirming a covenant.

No because of Jesus' own words pointed out in 3 Gospels. Jesus confirmed the new covenant. The enemy of my soul pointed out nothing.

Christ confirmed the covenant by fulfilling everything said of him in the Law and the Prophets up until the drinking of vinegar; there is more to come; but the covenant being confirmed is God's covenant first given to Israel via Moses, but renewed many times; last renewed with the lost sheep of Israel, not the Gentiles but extended unchanged to the Gentiles in around Acts 3.

Nope! Jer 31:31-33 and quoted in Heb 8 as a covenant based on promises opposed to law. Besides the words of Jesus found in 3 Gospels as the New Covenant being current.

bugkiller

 

[Bob S]

Jer 31; speaks of the Law he knows being written on the hearts and minds, not something that may remain after the Law is abrogated.

You mean to tell us that Jeremiah could not prophesy about something he didn't know anything about.

Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, in the original text the word new is not used in these verses; "This is my blood of the covenant"; only in Luke 22:20 is the word new used and the Greek word means fresh. Your error cannot be blamed on the scripture, possibly on translator/interpreters.

Fresh as in new. Thank you for the lesson. You prove our point.

Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

If it is the same covenant then why did God bother to tell Jeremiah it was going to be not the old but a new?

 

[sparow]

Why does all this sound so familiar? Are you SDA?

The date line, if you are SDA, has everything to do with God. His children are not observing the same day He is. They are out of sync. How can you go to heaven observing the wrong day?
God keeps all His creation in place, some planets giving light, some controlling tides, at least one sustaining life. So you tell me He is resting on the Sabbath. Jn5:16-18 16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. God rested from His work of creating and Jesus tells us He is working. You tell me He is resting. Now who do you think I will believe? He rested from doing any creating, but that does not mean He rested from sustaining.


Moses didn't enter the promised land. It was not given to him. How did Moses get into this picture?

Matt 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear ""until its purpose is achieved""


That is plain poppycock, nonsense, bosh. Look at the subject. The subject is the Law not all things. It is beyond belief that otherwise intelligent people will, because of their preconceived ideas, twist scripture to suit those preconceived ideas.



Vinegar??? That is a stretch and funny. He signaled that what He came to do was finished.


His purpose was to keep the law? I guess the sideline was to save mankind.

I will admit Jesus has destroyed satan's ability to destroy mankind. The fact is that John 3:16 says: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


Where do you get this stuff?



The "Law" was given by God to Israel and Israel only. It was the covenant between Israel and God. It was not the covenant concerning any other nation. The covenant ended at Calvary. The sign of the covenant ending was the tearing of the veil in the Temple. The law ended with the death of our Savior. Further, we know from Jesus prophesy of the destruction of the Temple in AD70 and the scattering of Jews all over the World that the old had ended and the New and better everlasting covenant would start at the end of the old one.


My arguments come straight from scripture without any twisting to make them fit my preconceived religious beliefs. I would admonish you to go read your Bible and stop making excuses and statement that are not true and tested by scripture. The old covenant ended at the Cross. The old was a covenant of laws, the new covenant is the covenant of grace, marvelous grace. Christian's law is the law of love which surpasses all other law.

<<So you tell me He is resting on the Sabbath. Jn5:16-18 16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. >>

You are putting me in a position of having to use the scriptures inappropriately; the scriptures are the bread of life; one eats and grows into either a harvestable fruit of a tare. The scriptures have to be correctly understood before they are useful.

Who would be most likely to know how to keep the Sabbath, Jesus or the Pharisees? The Pharisees had their own Sabbath rules (traditions of men) that turned the Sabbath into a heavy burden.

I don't know how serious you are but you are hanging yourself with semantics; Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees that they attended to their animals on the Sabbath when needed and King David and his army returning from battle on the Sabbath entered the Temple and are the Show Bread; God's Law is not as inflexible as you think.

There is nothing wrong with being a good Samaritan on the Sabbath in fact it would be in the spirit of the day.

I imagine you are one who says, "Jesus kept the Law perfectly, therefore we do not have keep it." You now say Jesus did not keep the Law perfectly so does that mean we have to keep the Law perfectly, after all?

<<<His purpose was to keep the law? I guess the sideline was to save mankind.

I will admit Jesus has destroyed satan's ability to destroy mankind. The fact is that John 3:16 says: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.>>>

His purpose has nothing to do with keeping the Law; grammatically the Law is not fulfilled, the Law is kept.

Matthew 5:18 (NKJV)
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Until all is fulfilled is paraphrased better in; Luke 24:44 (NKJV)
44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."

The false Christian Church is chock a block full of lies, most concerning the Law. Of course Jesus kept the Law as He expects us to keep the Law. Jesus became human to be human not superhuman.

I doubt that Satan has ever had the ability to destroy mankind ultimately, a remnant has always be preserved; Satan's has deceived everyone and this has resulted in many committing suicide by abrogating the Law. Satan's destroying activities have not be terminated yet; just look at Syria and Iraq; Jesus has not dealt with Satan yet.

Jesus's purpose was not to condemn yet condemn He did; He condemned Judas and the Pharisees when he told them the Kingdom of God is taken from them and on other occasions; all power and authority is given to Him.

""that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."" This can only work if by believing one is motivated to do all that God requires; one cannot believe eternal life into existence.

 

[bugkiller]

Jer 31; speaks of the Law he knows being written on the hearts and minds, not something that may remain after the Law is abrogated.

Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, in the original text the word new is not used in these verses; "This is my blood of the covenant"; only in Luke 22:20 is the word new used and the Greek word means fresh. Your error cannot be blamed on the scripture, possibly on translator/interpreters.

I do not know who you are but another poster says exactly the same words about Jer 31:33.

Jeremiah clearly does not say the law issued to Israel alone at Sinai is or will be written on anyone's heart. Read the full sentence of the self defining text.

Good catch on Mat 26:28 and MK 14L24. I want and need you to show that the covenant spoken about is the one issued at Sinai sealed with blood. Why would a covenant need to be sealed twice? Jesus did not come to verify the covenant issued at Sinai. JN 1:17; LK 16:16; Gal 3:19.

I see you did admit to the text using kaine in Luke. My references of Mat and Mk do include the word new in the text of the KJV. So it is not my error. Evidently the word is added by the translators. But then you need to prove the Luke reference is a lie.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

You mean to tell us that Jeremiah could not prophesy about something he didn't know anything about.


Fresh as in new. Thank you for the lesson. You prove our point.

Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

If it is the same covenant then why did God bother to tell Jeremiah it was going to be not the old but a new?

And I want to know why Jeremiah said this covenant is "not according to...."

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

<<So you tell me He is resting on the Sabbath. Jn5:16-18 16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. >>

You are putting me in a position of having to use the scriptures inappropriately; the scriptures are the bread of life; one eats and grows into either a harvestable fruit of a tare. The scriptures have to be correctly understood before they are useful.

Please explain how this is being done.

Who would be most likely to know how to keep the Sabbath, Jesus or the Pharisees? The Pharisees had their own Sabbath rules (traditions of men) that turned the Sabbath into a heavy burden.

Question - was Isaiah and David (the Psalms) before the Pharisees? If so please quote and reference any evidence you may have.

I don't know how serious you are but you are hanging yourself with semantics; Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees that they attended to their animals on the Sabbath when needed and King David and his army returning from battle on the Sabbath entered the Temple and are the Show Bread; God's Law is not as inflexible as you think.

Yeah and Paul pointed out that David was righteous - Rom 4. Yet a man and his family were stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

There is nothing wrong with being a good Samaritan on the Sabbath in fact it would be in the spirit of the day.

I imagine you are one who says, "Jesus kept the Law perfectly, therefore we do not have keep it." You now say Jesus did not keep the Law perfectly so does that mean we have to keep the Law perfectly, after all?

What does the law say?

<<<His purpose was to keep the law? I guess the sideline was to save mankind.

Not according to Gen 3:15

I will admit Jesus has destroyed satan's ability to destroy mankind. The fact is that John 3:16 says: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.>>>

His purpose has nothing to do with keeping the Law; grammatically the Law is not fulfilled, the Law is kept.

Matthew 5:18 (NKJV)
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Until all is fulfilled is paraphrased better in; Luke 24:44 (NKJV)
44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."

True the law is kept. But the law being kept is fulfilling (completing the requirements of) the law. That is exactly what Jesus did. No one else has ever done that. Righteousness does not come by or thru the law as Romans 4 specifically states.

The false Christian Church is chock a block full of lies, most concerning the Law. Of course Jesus kept the Law as He expects us to keep the Law. Jesus became human to be human not superhuman.

Yes indeed it is. And no Jesus does not expect nor require the law to be kept. See John 15:10.

I doubt that Satan has ever had the ability to destroy mankind ultimately, a remnant has always be preserved; Satan's has deceived everyone and this has resulted in many committing suicide by abrogating the Law. Satan's destroying activities have not be terminated yet; just look at Syria and Iraq; Jesus has not dealt with Satan yet.

Sorry to inform you, but Jesus did not come to make a utopia. Jesus came to redeem mankind. This is only effective for those who accept it.

Jesus's purpose was not to condemn yet condemn He did; He condemned Judas and the Pharisees when he told them the Kingdom of God is taken from them and on other occasions; all power and authority is given to Him.

This is nothing but a side track issue.

""that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."" This can only work if by believing one is motivated to do all that equires; one cannot believe eternal life into existence.

The Christian is only obligated to My commandments per the words of Jesus found in Jn 15:10 and reinforced with I Jn 3:23.

bugkiller

 

[sparow]

You presented Mat 5:17-18 if I remember correctly. Your version is that all things means all prophecy is fulfilled. The problem I have is Lk 24:44 -

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

This is a direct reference to Mat 5:7-18. Notice especially the last two words of the verse "concerning me." I do understand you will disagree.No Jesus is not the I AM of the OT. Yes you may have Jn 8:58 in mind. Notice the KJV reads here - "I am" opposed to "I AM." John in no way is claiming Jesus is the god of Abraham (ie God the Father). I reference you to Jn 15:10 where John clearly shows with a quote from Jesus that He is not The Father. Furthermore the Redeemer of Gen 3:15 does not make an appearance until after Malachi when He was born of Mary. The law was until the seed (GEN 3:15) came (GAL 3:19). Good ole Dr. Luke said -

The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 16:16I have no idea where you get even an interpretation. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Gal 5:18. Those who are led by the Spirit are not led back to or by the law.Again I point you to the self defining text of Jer 31:31-33 a single sentence.No because of Jesus' own words pointed out in 3 Gospels. Jesus confirmed the new covenant. The enemy of my soul pointed out nothing.Nope! Jer 31:31-33 and quoted in Heb 8 as a covenant based on promises opposed to law. Besides the words of Jesus found in 3 Gospels as the New Covenant being current.

bugkiller

<<< presented Mat 5:17-18 if I remember correctly. Your version is that all things means all prophecy is fulfilled. The problem I have is Lk 24:44 ->>>

Without going back to see what was said you appear to not have a grasp of what is being argued; what is being argued is the Law and the Sabbath and why no Sunday. As a main argument Mat 5:17-18 is used to abrogate the Law; they say the law is fulfilled so we no longer keep the Law; but Luke 24:44 shows that it is not the Law that Jesus fulfilled but what was contained in the Law concerning Him.

Your assumption is that the Father and the I AM are the same entity; my assumption is the word of God is the only one to have spoken to Israel and is therefore the I AM. Israel has not seen the Father but 70 or so ate and drank with the God they made the covenant with.

John 8:58 (NKJV)
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

Exodus 3:14 (NKJV)
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Micah 5:2 (NKJV)
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting."

Hebrews 13:8 (NKJV)
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Revelation 1:8 (NKJV)
8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."


I do not use the apostle Paul so quoting him does not impress me. Matthew 11:12-13 (NKJV)
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Luke 16:16 (NKJV)
16 The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

I do not see any contradiction between Matthew and Luke; there are problems; there are prophesies outstanding, not fulfilled; matt 11:13 says the law and the Prophets cease prophesying at the advent of John; the preaching of the kingdom is the gospel John and Jesus preached; there is nothing in these scriptures that suggest the Law is abrogated or needs to be; there is a need to repent which implies the Law is still active.

These scripture seem to equate prophesying with preaching; John is used as the reference point for the beginning of preaching the Kingdom and because John will precede Jesus at the second coming this will be the time when the preaching of the kingdom finishes and OT prophesy resumes. I disagree with the SDA regarding the 2300 year prophesy; I see the 2300 years as a period of time, the duration of the day of the Lord, starting and finishing with John and detailed in Revelation; this time will be shortened but we do not know by how much.

On topic; do the above scriptures suggest abrogation the Law? I think not. Jesus did not confirm the covenant by speaking, He confirmed the covenant by fulfilling prophesy, by enacting His obligations of the covenant; the only thing new about the covenant is new management and new covenanters.

 

[sparow]

You mean to tell us that Jeremiah could not prophesy about something he didn't know anything about.


Fresh as in new. Thank you for the lesson. You prove our point.

Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

If it is the same covenant then why did God bother to tell Jeremiah it was going to be not the old but a new?

Thinking cap on; what use would a prophet be if he knew not what he was talking about. Jeremiah made a clear statement which is clearer when paraphrased, "the new covenant is where the old covenant is written on the heart and mind so that one does not have to learn it." Thinking cap off.

After Jeremiah the covenant was refreshed with Judah, Daniel 9:24, and refreshed the covenant with the Lost sheep of Israel during the time He was confirming the covenant.

"why did God bother to tell Jeremiah it was going to be not the old but a new?"

I cannot speak for God but because the scripture is for my info I can reason; Jeremiah was prophesying during the Babylonian captivity; the old covenant was broken; historically God always renews the covenant with the remnant that comes out of adversity; whether one calls the covenant new or old does not effect the reality. An example, suppose you brought a house signed a covenant but went broke before the house was paid for; the covenant is torn up; latter you buy another house and sign a covenant which is identical to the first covenant, differing only with regard to blank spaces being filled in differently, that is the identity of the house and the price; should this covenant be called new because it is recently entered into or old because it's wording has not changed for fifty years; does what it is called change anything?

 

[sparow]

Please explain how this is being done.Question - was Isaiah and David (the Psalms) before the Pharisees? If so please quote and reference any evidence you may have.Yeah and Paul pointed out that David was righteous - Rom 4. Yet a man and his family were stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.What does the law say?Not according to Gen 3:15True the law is kept. But the law being kept is fulfilling (completing the requirements of) the law. That is exactly what Jesus did. No one else has ever done that. Righteousness does not come by or thru the law as Romans 4 specifically states.Yes indeed it is. And no Jesus does not expect nor require the law to be kept. See John 15:10.Sorry to inform you, but Jesus did not come to make a utopia. Jesus came to redeem mankind. This is only effective for those who accept it.This is nothing but a side track issue.The Christian is only obligated to My commandments per the words of Jesus found in Jn 15:10 and reinforced with I Jn 3:23.

bugkiller

<<<Who would be most likely to know how to keep the Sabbath, Jesus or the Pharisees? The Pharisees had their own Sabbath rules (traditions of men) that turned the Sabbath into a heavy burden.

Question - was Isaiah and David (the Psalms) before the Pharisees? If so please quote and reference any evidence you may have.>>>

You would know as much as me about the sequence of the people.

I do not use Paul, I use Jesus;

John 7:19 (NKJV)
19 Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?"

What can I say, "How dare you say bad things about the Law when God says the Law is perfect".

When Jesus says, "Depart from me you who practice Lawlessness", who is He talking to, those who abrogate the Law or those who commit that terrible heresy of keeping the Law or if you prefer fulfilling the Law. When Jesus says, those who teach others to sin that is to not keep the Law, they will be the least in the kingdom; does this imply the Law is abrogated.

 

[Bob S]

Sparow, If Jeremiah already knew then why would God have to give him prophesies? God could have just said Jeremiah write all that you know for posterity. Your evaluation does not hold water. Jeremiah wrote that the covenant would be new and the New Testament ratifies that the covenant is exactly that, NEW. I know it blows what you now believe, but could it be possible that your belief system is wrong? We present, from scripture, exactly what it is teaching not some twisted form. If you cannot see that then 2Cor3:13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Why would Paul write in 2Cor3:7-11 that the law, 10 commandments were temporary and now our guide is the Holy Spirit? If the covenant didn't change then surely Paul would not have had the authority from God to write that it had changed. It seems, in your posts, you are grasping at straws. You surely have not given us answers that correspond to scriptural evidence. Are you letting your preconceived beliefs keeping you from admitting what you have been taught just might not be the real truth? I was SDA for many years until I started to see cracks in the foundation of beliefs. While you have not admitted that you are SDA, you have not denied it either. If you are why not admit such?

 

[bugkiller]

<<< presented Mat 5:17-18 if I remember correctly. Your version is that all things means all prophecy is fulfilled. The problem I have is Lk 24:44 ->>>

Without going back to see what was said you appear to not have a grasp of what is being argued; what is being argued is the Law and the Sabbath and why no Sunday. As a main argument Mat 5:17-18 is used to abrogate the Law; they say the law is fulfilled so we no longer keep the Law; but Luke 24:44 shows that it is not the Law that Jesus fulfilled but what was contained in the Law concerning Him.

This is all the law unless you think what applies strictly to women is not fulfilled. Jesus met all the requirements of the law. That is something no one else has or ever will accomplish according to my Bible.

Your assumption is that the Father and the I AM are the same entity; my assumption is the word of God is the only one to have spoken to Israel and is therefore the I AM. Israel has not seen the Father but 70 or so ate and drank with the God they made the covenant with.

Really? where did I ever make such a stupid assumption on this forum? I am adamantly pro-trinity. I said very plainly Jesus is not the I AM found in Ex 3:14. That is the false reason the Jews took the action in v 59.

Now I would love for you to show the actual person or entity that appeared, ate and drank with.

John 8:58 (NKJV)
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

The NKJV is wrong in capitalizing the word "AM." This changes theology entirely and make John 15:10 a fraud. It also does the same for I jn 3:23. No sale.

Exodus 3:14 (NKJV)
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

My take on this verse is that the "I AM" is God the Father. What is your proof that it is day Jesus if you want? You can not use Jn 5:58 as it was not yet written when Ex 3 was written.

Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This verse has bugged me. I finally looked it up and found it is my turn to call you out with improper basis as "Everlasting Father" is not found in the original text. Thus your key trump verse fails you and agrees with me and the NT about Jesus being God without violating he doctrine of the Trinity.

Micah 5:2 (NKJV)
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting."

The Speaker of Ex 3:14 did not come from the tribe of Judah.

Hebrews 13:8 (NKJV)
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

The very same entity, yes. But there was change in that Jesus took on the form of man and now there are man made things in heaven. In my opinion you are trying to say there is no trinity by combining your proof texts in the way you have.

Revelation 1:8 (NKJV)
8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

You need some commentary with this text to show what you mean. My take is you are excluding God the Father to establish that Jesus is the Sole Member of what is called the Trinity. No sale.

I do not use the apostle Paul so quoting him does not impress me. Matthew 11:12-13 (NKJV)

Ah yes and I certainly understand why. But then you delete a major portion of what Christians have for centuries regarded as Holy Writ and supported by this site as Christian Scripture.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

...and the what until when?

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Luke 16:16 (NKJV)
16 The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

Again "The what and prophets were..." Gotcha ya again with the Scripture even you quoted.

I do not see any contradiction between Matthew and Luke; there are problems; there are prophesies outstanding, not fulfilled; matt 11:13 says the law and the Prophets cease prophesying at the advent of John; the preaching of the kingdom is the gospel John and Jesus preached; there is nothing in these scriptures that suggest the Law is abrogated or needs to be; there is a need to repent which implies the Law is still active.

There are no problems as one of us believes LK 24:44 we both quoted. The Scripture clearly states the law has changed in Heb 7:12. If Jesus is not your priest you can not be a Christian nor possess what is called eternal life per the Gospel of John in 3 and 5 at least.

These scripture seem to equate prophesying with preaching; John is used as the reference point for the beginning of preaching the Kingdom and because John will precede Jesus at the second coming this will be the time when the preaching of the kingdom finishes and OT prophesy resumes. I disagree with the SDA regarding the 2300 year prophesy; I see the 2300 years as a period of time, the duration of the day of the Lord, starting and finishing with John and detailed in Revelation; this time will be shortened but we do not know by how much.

Sorry but you lost me with this seeming mumbling about prophecy.

On topic; do the above scriptures suggest abrogation the Law? I think not. Jesus did not confirm the covenant by speaking, He confirmed the covenant by fulfilling prophesy, by enacting His obligations of the covenant; the only thing new about the covenant is new management and new covenanters.

John 15:10 clearly suggests abrogation of the law by Jesus (God, Himself). But then I think you are confused as to Who exactly gave the law. Israel had no relationship with Jesus until He was born by Mary.

Your statement about covenant(s) violates Jer 31:31-33 and the restatement thereof in Heb 8.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Thinking cap on; what use would a prophet be if he knew not what he was talking about. Jeremiah made a clear statement which is clearer when paraphrased, "the new covenant is where the old covenant is written on the heart and mind so that one does not have to learn it." Thinking cap off.

I have a couple tons of dry hogwash that I can add several tons of water to make it a viable slurry of usable hogwash. Prophets do not know what they are prophesying about. It they knew it would be teaching and not prophecy.

The choice to disbelieve is yours alone.

After Jeremiah the covenant was refreshed with Judah, Daniel 9:24, and refreshed the covenant with the Lost sheep of Israel during the time He was confirming the covenant.

Jeremiah is not talking about refreshing a covenant. This is evidenced by the word "chadash" pronounced "khaw-dawsh' You substitute the word "chadash' pronounced " khaw-dash'" to establish your falsehood. In English we have a similar occurrence in "read" and "read." One is a noun and the other is a verb.

Besides this the text is self defining with v 32 -

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,

"why did God bother to tell Jeremiah it was going to be not the old but a new?"

I cannot speak for God but because the scripture is for my info I can reason; Jeremiah was prophesying during the Babylonian captivity; the old covenant was broken; historically God always renews the covenant with the remnant that comes out of adversity; whether one calls the covenant new or old does not effect the reality. An example, suppose you brought a house signed a covenant but went broke before the house was paid for; the covenant is torn up; latter you buy another house and sign a covenant which is identical to the first covenant, differing only with regard to blank spaces being filled in differently, that is the identity of the house and the price; should this covenant be called new because it is recently entered into or old because it's wording has not changed for fifty years; does what it is called change anything?

Bad illustration not applicable to the text.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

<<<Who would be most likely to know how to keep the Sabbath, Jesus or the Pharisees? The Pharisees had their own Sabbath rules (traditions of men) that turned the Sabbath into a heavy burden.

Question - was Isaiah and David (the Psalms) before the Pharisees? If so please quote and reference any evidence you may have.>>>

You would know as much as me about the sequence of the people.

Then you have nothing on which to base your argument but air and someone else said so. So my question is what makes think your argument valid?

I do not use Paul, I use Jesus;

John 7:19 (NKJV)
19 Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?"

Great admission.

What can I say, "How dare you say bad things about the Law when God says the Law is perfect".

I never said anything bad about the law.

When Jesus says, "Depart from me you who practice Lawlessness", who is He talking to, those who abrogate the Law or those who commit that terrible heresy of keeping the Law or if you prefer fulfilling the Law. When Jesus says, those who teach others to sin that is to not keep the Law, they will be the least in the kingdom; does this imply the Law is abrogated.

Jesus was talking to wicked unregenerate non believers who just by coincidence happened to be Jews obligated to the law.

Now you want to argue over position in heaven. How vain.

bugkiller

 

[sparow]

Sparow, If Jeremiah already knew then why would God have to give him prophesies? God could have just said Jeremiah write all that you know for posterity. Your evaluation does not hold water. Jeremiah wrote that the covenant would be new and the New Testament ratifies that the covenant is exactly that, NEW. I know it blows what you now believe, but could it be possible that your belief system is wrong? We present, from scripture, exactly what it is teaching not some twisted form. If you cannot see that then 2Cor3:13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Why would Paul write in 2Cor3:7-11 that the law, 10 commandments were temporary and now our guide is the Holy Spirit? If the covenant didn't change then surely Paul would not have had the authority from God to write that it had changed. It seems, in your posts, you are grasping at straws. You surely have not given us answers that correspond to scriptural evidence. Are you letting your preconceived beliefs keeping you from admitting what you have been taught just might not be the real truth? I was SDA for many years until I started to see cracks in the foundation of beliefs. While you have not admitted that you are SDA, you have not denied it either. If you are why not admit such?

Our problem is not the interpretation of a few verses our problem is to do with paradigms, the big picture from Genesis to Revelation.

I do not believe Paul was sent by Jesus and I would only use him if I wished to be deceived. I acknowledge Paul was brilliant and 2cor3:13 demonstrates his brilliance. While I do not use Paul I do have a look at what he has to say when someone wants to argue a point.

In 2 cor 3:13 Paul allegorises Exodus 34:33;

Exodus 34:33 (NKJV)
33 And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.

Exodus 34:35 (NKJV)
35 And whenever the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone, then Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with Him.

2 Corinthians 3:13 (NKJV)
13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away.

How could Paul allegorise to the Law passing away from Exodus 34. Moses wearing a veil to hide a shining face from Israel but not from God. Paul is brilliant.

I an not an SDA nor am I anything else;

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

The pagan Roman Julian/Gregorian calendar that we now use was only created in 45 BC, before this time it did not exist. Therefore, the current 7 day rolling week we currently use only began at that time. Before this date the Romans (Just in the Provence of Rome) were using a calendar with an 8 day week and the Greek Mathematician Sosigenes who Julius Caesar employed to create the new calendar simply removed one of these days (Market day), so the chances of the current 7 day week matching the Jewish week was only a 1 in 7 chance.

The calendar Jesus and the Israelites had been using in Israel for over 1500 years prior to this time was completely different to our Julian calendar. Their months began with the sighting of the new crescent moon on which they rested and had a new moon feast, then there were 6 days of work followed by the first Sabbath. Lunar months are 29.53 days long and therefore Sabbaths fall on day’s 8, 15, 22 and 29 each lunar month. Then the process begins over again with the sighting of the next new moon.

The calendar the Jews used was written about by Moses in the Bible, it is God’s Calendar and you can read more about how it is explained in scripture in Chapter 1 of my book; ‘The Christian’s Guide to the Bible’: Start Reading The Book

However, God’s Calendar is not the same calendar the Jews of today use. The Jews currently use a revised version of God’s Calendar which uses the Gregorian rolling week system instead of God’s lunar weeks, this was due partly to the Roman Emperor Hadrian after he had put down the Jewish Simon Bar-Kokhba revolt in 135 AD and made an anti-religious decree forbidding Sabbath new moon observances from Jerusalem and also the Roman Emperor Constantine who began to force the Jews in 325 AD to worship on the pagan day called Saturday (named after the Roman god of agriculture; Saturnus).

The Jewish calendar used today was created in 359 AD by Sanhedrin Rabbi Hillel II, this was in response to the Romans banishing the Jews from living in Jerusalem, as the Jews could no longer sight the new moon from there and so Hillel’s calendar uses a repeating 19 year lunar mathematical calculation that approximates the timing of each new moon sighting from Jerusalem. This allowed all the Jews to celebrate their feasts on the same day as they were now scattered all over the Earth

The fourth commandment; ‘Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy,’ has virtually been forgotten, a command more important than murder for example, which is the sixth commandment. Although we are saved by grace we should still use the ten commandments as our guide as to how to live. We are not dependant on the law but it will prosper us if we adhere to it, equally if we break these laws then we will face the consequences.

I hope this helps you to understand that the Sabbath is not on Saturdays or Sundays but instead can fall on any day of the pagan Julian/Gregorian week. You can view a comparison calendar on this site too, to know when the next Sabbaths will be: Sabbaths From Now Till 2029

Further studies on God’s Lunar Solar Calendar by other Bible scholars:

John D Keyser – founder of Hope of Israel ministries: From Sabbath to Saturday: The Story of the Jewish Rest Day

Robert-Aaron Richmond explains from scripture how God’s Calendar works:

Jesus is my Sabbath Rest. I rest in Him and thereby fulfill all the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Jesus is my Sabbath Rest. I rest in Him and thereby fulfill all the Law and the Prophets.

Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath, not just because He was involved in its creation but also because He will reign on Earth for the 1000 year millennial reign which is also the Sabbath day. The Bible teaches there are 6 days for rest and 1 day to rest. And that a day is as a thousand years. There will be 6000 years for mankind's toil and a 1000 years for our rest.

 

[SAAN]

Jesus is my Sabbath Rest. I rest in Him and thereby fulfill all the Law and the Prophets.

Thats not what the bible says. It says that to Love God & one another is to fulfill all the law and the prophets and that the law and the prophets were a sum of the commandments and not cancellation of them. Obedience is still required. Might not be perfect at it, but that is where the blood of Christ covers us when we fall short.

 

[bugkiller]

Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath, not just because He was involved in its creation but also because He will reign on Earth for the 1000 year millennial reign which is also the Sabbath day. The Bible teaches there are 6 days for rest and 1 day to rest. And that a day is as a thousand years. There will be 6000 years for mankind's toil and a 1000 years for our rest.

What do you have to say about Mat 11:28-30?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Thats not what the bible says. It says that to Love God & one another is to fulfill all the law and the prophets and that the law and the prophets were a sum of the commandments and not cancellation of them. Obedience is still required. Might not be perfect at it, but that is where the blood of Christ covers us when we fall short.

What do you do with Jn 15:10?

bugkiller

 

[Bob S]

Thats not what the bible says. It says that to Love God & one another is to fulfill all the law and the prophets and that the law and the prophets were a sum of the commandments and not cancellation of them. Obedience is still required. Might not be perfect at it, but that is where the blood of Christ covers us when we fall short.

Hold on there SAAN, before you start teaching that it would be wise to check out Jn13:34 where Jesus gives us a NEW command. How much does Jesus love us? He loves us so much that He laid down His life for us. There is no command in the old covenant that compares with Jesus NEW command. So, since there is not any command in the Law and the prophets it cannot revert to Torah. 1Jn tells us the duty of Christians is to Jesus.

1Jn3:
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

19 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

As you can plainly see there is no command to observe Torah. The new covenant command is so much greater than anything in Torah. It doesn't just cover 9 rules of right doing. It covers all aspects of right doing and notice John doesn't mention keeping of days. No, in fact the New Testament is mum on any command to observe any day. Hebrews tells us we have our rest in Jesus. According to all of the New Testament your belief system is not found there and furthermore since you do not answer my posts about some of the laws I have ask if you observe I can only presume you are not observant of those laws. What you practice is only part of what is required to be Torah observant.