WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[BobRyan]

How many KJV versions do you need?

How many do you see here?

The NT says "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4
KJV -Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
AKJV Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
CJB Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah — indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
CEV Everyone who sins breaks God’s law, because sin is the same as breaking God’s law.
KJ21- Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.
BRG Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
ERV Anyone who sins breaks God’s law. Yes, sinning is the same as living against God’s law.
EXB
·The person [L Everyone] who ·sins [commits sin] ·breaks God’s law [commits lawlessness/iniquity; C referring to the false teachers; 2:19–20]. Yes, sin is ·living against God’s law [lawlessness; iniquity].

GNV Whosoever commiteth sin, transgresseth also the Law: for sin is the transgression of the Law.
GW Those who live sinful lives are disobeying God. Sin is disobedience.
GNT Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law.
HCSB Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law.
ICB When a person sins, he breaks God’s law. Yes, sinning is the same as living against God’s law.
ISV Everyone who keeps living in sin also practices disobedience. In fact, sin is disobedience.
PHILLIPS Everyone who commits sin breaks God’s law, for that is what sin is, by definition—a breaking of God’s law. You know, moreover, that Christ became man for the purpose of removing sin, and he himself was quite free from sin. The man who lives “in Christ” does not habitually sin. The regular sinner has never seen or known him.
MOUNCE Everyone who makes a practice of · sinning is also breaking the law; indeed, · sin is · lawlessness.
NOG Those who live sinful lives are disobeying God. Sin is disobedience.
NCV The person who sins breaks God’s law. Yes, sin is living against God’s law.
NIRV Everyone who sins breaks the law. In fact, breaking the law is sin.

I only need one.. meanwhile you need something that says "Lawlessness is not transgression of the law" ---

I don't see any effort in that direction.

The point remains.

Yet you still make no effort to support the suggestion that "Lawlessness is not transgression of the law"

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???

At least 4.

Good thing you have more than a dozen others as well stating the 1 John 3:4 text as "sin is the transgression of the law", in my post above. I would not want to overwhelm the point

 

[trophy33]

How many do you see here?

Good thing you have more than a dozen others as well in my post above. I would not want to overwhelm the point

"At least 4" was answer to your question "How many KJV versions do you see here". Are you on a mobile device or something? It seems to me you strangely misinterpret various posts and put them together irrationally, not just in this thread.

Yet you still make no effort to support the suggestion that "Lawlessness is not transgression of the law"

I quoted the Greek to you and presented to you what the Greek word means. There is also nothing about the Mosaic Law, in the broader context of the verse.

What more is there to do?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

In Mark 7, Jesus says "nothing that goes into a man will defile him". That seems pretty clear - a piece of shellfish or a bit of pork certainly is a thing that can go in to you. So how do the Law supporters explain this? They frequently maintain that the entire conversation with the Pharisees is about handwashing since that is what it begins and ends with. They seem to think that no matter what Jesus goes on to say, the focus must, by some strange principle of necessity, remain solely on handwashing. But this is manifestly absurd - certainly, Jesus can take a discussion of handwashing and then bend the conversation to a more general discussion of what actually defiles a man.

It must be acknowledged, although of course it will not be, that this is a very natural transition to make. But, of course, the Law supporters cannot allow for this possibility. Yes, I know the confrontation both begins and ends with the subject of handwashing. But this does not support the idea that, in the preceding discussion, Jesus could not have spoken more generally about what defiles, and then used the general principle He has elaborated - namely that nothing that goes in to you will defile you - to answer the specific question about handwashing.

To show how manifestly silly the handwashing argument is, consider this scenario which is structurally analogous to the Mark 7 encounter over food. Suppose I go to my doctor and ask him or her about the efficacy of homeopathic ("natural medicine") drugs for my cold. And let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that it is the case that there are no kinds of treatment whatsoever to shorten a cold (whether this is true or not is obviously beside the point). My doctor, knowing full well at nothing I can take will cure my cold, will tell me "There is nothing you can take into your body that will cure your cold. Therefore, homeopathic treatments will not cure your cold"

Nobody who knows the first thing about how English sentences work would walk out of the doctor's office believing that the doctor has not ruled out all drugs, including the natural ones.

And yet this is precisely what we are being asked to believe about the Mark 7 encounter. The two scenarios are structurally equivalent in the important respects. In both cases:

1. The conversations begin with a question about a particular thing going into you (food eaten with unwashed hands vs natural medicines)

2. In both conversations, the authority figure make a general statement - "nothing that goes in you........"

3. Both conversations end with a statement about the particular thing that was the issue at first.

Yet, we know that the logic of the doctor scenario requires us to believe that the doctor believes that truly nothing that you can take into your body will cure your cold. So, how does this same logic not apply in the Mark scenario?

What kind of person would say "nothing that goes into can defile you" and mean "nothing except for A, B, and C"?

Context has a role, but it cannot miraculously make the word "nothing" mean "a whole bunch of things".

the CONTEXT was eating with unwashed hands would defile you, becoming ritually unclean. Yeshua was a JEW speaking to other JEWS. There is NO mention of allowance of eating non-kosher food. No amount of twisting will make that true...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Can you make a case that the letter was written to an exclusively Jewish readership. If you cannot, then your argument fails since Gentile readers are not even under the Law of Moses. At least one commentator believes it was primarily directed to Gentiles:

Ernest DeWitt Burton found it likely that its audience was largely gentile rather than Jewish, since it contains few Old Testament quotations or distinctly Jewish forms of expression (Wikipedia)

Besides, if one were to follow your reasoning - that is, that "lawlessness" is specific to the Law of Moses - then the only way to sin is to break the Law of Moses. And yet we all know that there are many things that are clearly sin that are not outlawed by the Law of Moses. Is it sin to publish child inappropriate contentography? Of course it is? Is it prohibited by the Law of Moses? Not as far as I can tell.

Do you understand Greek, Biblical Greek? Nomia vs anomia within the biblical context? Hamartia? Whether it was written to Jewish or gentile Christians is meaningless since sin is the same to both. Porneia...yes, it is a sin to both Jewish AND gentile Christians...it is under sexual sin, under sexual immorality (Deuteronomy 21 and Acts 15). Galatians 5:19-21. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 1:7)? The gentile city, long before Sinai, was destroyed because of immorality and wickedness.

 

[Leaf473]

I hope you don't mind my jumping in here, but does 1 John have a Jewish context? Do you mean a Jewish author and a Jewish audience?

Yes

Well, I guess that's where we see it differently. I could agree that the author is probably Jewish, but the original audience was probably mostly gentile imo.

Peace be with you!

 

[Leaf473]

Can you make a case that the letter was written to an exclusively Jewish readership. If you cannot, then your argument fails since Gentile readers are not even under the Law of Moses. At least one commentator believes it was primarily directed to Gentiles:

Ernest DeWitt Burton found it likely that its audience was largely gentile rather than Jewish, since it contains few Old Testament quotations or distinctly Jewish forms of expression (Wikipedia)

Besides, if one were to follow your reasoning - that is, that "lawlessness" is specific to the Law of Moses - then the only way to sin is to break the Law of Moses. And yet we all know that there are many things that are clearly sin that are not outlawed by the Law of Moses. Is it sin to publish child inappropriate contentography? Of course it is? Is it prohibited by the Law of Moses? Not as far as I can tell.

Interestingly, the letter ends with:

Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

From what I've heard, idolatry wasn't a problem in Jewish culture since the return from Babylon. But it was a big issue in Greek society.

 

[Leaf473]

CEB: Every person who practices sin commits an act of rebellion, and sin is rebellion.

MSG: All who indulge in a sinful life are dangerously lawless, for sin is a major disruption of God’s order.

VOICE: Everyone who lives a life of habitual sin is living in moral anarchy. That’s what sin is.

I think those translations best communicate the meaning to our modern ears. It's probably the idea that the original readers would have gotten imo.

 

[Leaf473]

Did you read Hebrews 10??? Did you lose track of the point we were discussing?

Heb 10

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.​

5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:​

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,​

But a body You have prepared for Me.​

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin​

You had no pleasure.​

7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—​

In the volume of the book it is written of Me—​

To do Your will, O God.’ ”​

8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second.​

​

Meanwhile we see the shadow element for those Lev 23 annual feasts in 1 Cor 5 "Christ our PASSOVER has been sacrificed". No wonder Heb 10 puts sacrifices and offerings at an end saying "He takes AWAY the first that He may establish the second".​

​

Yes, Hebrews 10 talks about animal sacrifices forming part of the shadow. I don't think there's a part that says that only animal sacrifices have a shadow, and that the rest of the law of Moses does not have a shadow.

No wonder - Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN"

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy

At the same time that they admit that the Sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross. This is the easy part.

I think we can all see that detail.

Had you offered to explain why those groups say that? I know that you had posted some scriptures, but is that what, say, John Paul II used in his reasoning?

 

[expos4ever]

So you are saying we are allowed to covet now? The Holy Spirit guides us to keep the commandments, not break them John 14:15-18

No, I am certainly not saying this. If we have the indwelling Spirit, we do not need the Law.

And John 14:15-18 nowhere mentions the Law!

15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [g]Helper, so that He may be with you forever; 17 the Helper is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him; but you know Him because He remains with you and will be in you. 18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.

Are you conveniently assuming that "My commandments" = "the Law"?

 

[expos4ever]

first of all you already admitted I have more than a dozen but then complain that I do not have 51. ... I see a game being played in that case.

Come on, man. You, and everyone else, knows that the significant majority of translations do not have specificity to the Law of Moses. If anyone is playing a game, it is you who cherry-pick those translations that align with your view.

But meanwhile you need something that says "Lawlessness is not transgression of the law" ---to get your argument off the ground. Instead you leave your case dead in the water. Why not at least try to rescue it.

This is, again, absurd reasoning for the very reasons I have already provided. If someone says "sin is lawlessness", and if there is no other context information to bring to bear, they are making a clear statement that sin entails breaking any law whatsoever. That is what the words mean! And, frankly, you have to know this - you know that sin can be, for example, breaking the speeding laws, or breaking the laws that apply in your particular country, whether they have any connection to the Law of Moses or not.

Imagine how silly it would be for me to take "sin is lawlessness" and insist that unless you can find scripture that say "lawlessness is not transgression of the law of 1st century Persia", we have to conclude that is only defined with reference to the law of 1st century Persia!

And yet, this is exactly what you are doing.

 

[BobRyan]

Come on, man. You, and everyone else, knows that the significant majority of translations do not have specificity to the Law of Moses.

You offer that suggestion with absolutely no proof at all of it.

Meanwhile we have actual scripture.

1 Cor 7:19 'what matters is kEEPING the Commandments of God"
Where "The first commandment with a promise is 'Honor your father and mother'" Eph 6:2
Rom 7 "the LAW says do not covet"
1 John 3:4 "Sin IS transgression of the LAW"
James 2:11 "The Law" says - "do not covet" "Do not murder"

You have free will and can keep responding with posts of the form "I do not see it... I don't see that... it is not the Commandments of God"

Deut 5:22 He spoke the Ten words from the mountain to the people "And added no more".

If anyone is playing a game, it is you

I was about to say that.

who cherry-pick those translations that align with your view.

This is, again, absurd reasoning for the very reasons I have already provided. If someone says "sin is lawlessness", and if there is no other context information to bring to bear, they are making a clear statement that sin entails breaking any law whatsoever.

How nice for you then that so many translations inform us that it is "Sin IS transgression of the LAW". I would hate to see you having that confusion without help from scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, Hebrews 10 talks about animal sacrifices forming part of the shadow. I don't think there's a part that says that only animal sacrifices have a shadow, and that the rest of the law of Moses does not have a shadow.

Had you offered to explain why those groups say that? I know that you had posted some scriptures, but is that what, say, John Paul II used in his reasoning?

That bit of slip-sideways comment is all you have Leaf? are you running out of ideas?

Notice that expose4ever also seems to be running out of ideas? He keepsposting "Sin is transgression of the LAw is only in a dozen or so translations, how about having more?" And also posts of the form "how can lawlessness be transgression of the Law - who would have known that?"

Meanwhile we have actual scripture.

1 Cor 7:19 'what matters is kEEPING the Commandments of God"
Where "The first commandment with a promise is 'Honor your father and mother'" Eph 6:2
Rom 7 "the LAW says do not covet"
1 John 3:4 "Sin IS transgression of the LAW"
James 2:11 "The Law" says - "do not covet" "Do not murder"

You have free will and can keep responding with posts of the form "I do not see it... I don't see that... it is not the Commandments of God"

Deut 5:22 He spoke the Ten words from the mountain to the people "And added no more".

How nice for you then that so many translations inform us that it is "Sin IS transgression of the LAW". I would hate to see you having that confusion without help from scripture.

- you know that sin can be, for example, breaking the speeding laws...

Imagine how silly it would be for me to take "sin is lawlessness" and insist that unless you can find scripture that say "lawlessness is not transgression of the law of 1st century Persia"

By contrast we give scripture all the while you guys seem to be running out of ideas altogether.

Here is another "out of ideas" example

BobRyan said:

How many do you see here?
Good thing you have more than a dozen others as well stating the 1 John 3:4 text as "Sin is transgression of the Law" in my post above. I would not want to overwhelm the point

We saw once again in that post over a dozen translations stating the 1 John 3:4 text as "Sin is transgression of the Law"

"At least 4" was answer to your question "How many KJV versions do you see here". Are you on a mobile device or something?

With so little by way of substance in opposition Is it any wonder that almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN"??

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy

At this point in the thread - it has to be incredibly obvious. There just isn't any serious alternative. How is it even a little confusing for anyone at this point? It is a mystery.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, I am certainly not saying this. If we have the indwelling Spirit, we do not need the Law.

Jesus says something different….

Matthew 7:23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Paul says something different…

Romans 7:8 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

And John 14:15-18 nowhere mentions the Law!

15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [g]Helper, so that He may be with you forever; 17 the Helper is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him; but you know Him because He remains with you and will be in you. 18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.

Are you conveniently assuming that "My commandments" = "the Law"?

Coveting is a commandment and law of God Romans 7:7 from Exodus 20 your argument seems to be with the Text.

We do not determine what is righteousness God does Psalms 119:172 it is His works are righteous, Exodus 32:16 not ours. We cannot sanctify ourselves only God can do that through the Truth of His Word. John 17:17

 

[Leaf473]

That bit of slip-sideways comment is all you have Leaf? are you running out of ideas?

What do you mean "slip sideways"?

The subject is the law having a shadow.

Hebrews 10 says the law has a shadow. If you change that to only part of the law has a shadow, that's changing scripture.

Peace, my man!

 

[Leaf473]

Notice that expose4ever also seems to be running out of ideas? He keepsposting "Sin is transgression of the LAw is only in a dozen or so translations, how about having more?" And also posts of the form "how can lawlessness be transgression of the Law - who would have known that?"

Well, no. What I see is you grossly misrepresenting what other people say.

 

[Leaf473]

With so little by way of substance in opposition Is it any wonder that almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN"??

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy

At this point in the thread - it has to be incredibly obvious. There just isn't any serious alternative. How is it even a little confusing for anyone at this point? It is a mystery.

So... Turning my phone horizontally this morning in an effort to get the page to display better, I see that at the bottom of your signature, it says:

"* - 10 as-is or else in edited form"

Which ones are doing it in edited form? Also, is that list the result of original research on your part? Or was it copied from somewhere?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Interestingly, the letter ends with:

Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

From what I've heard, idolatry wasn't a problem in Jewish culture since the return from Babylon. But it was a big issue in Greek society.

I agree however it really does not matter since keeping away from idols was both a Jewish Christian and gentile Christian command in Acts. However its origin is from Judaism.

 

[expos4ever]

However its origin is from Judaism.

Not the point. You have been arguing that "lawlessness" must be understood in specific and exclusive relation to the law of Moses. That argument only has legs if, repeat if, the letter is targeted to a specifically Jewish readership. The fact that it's origin is from Judaism is not the point - it is the target reader that is of relevance here. People right for their readers, not for themselves.

And, as far as I can tell, we see no evidence at all that this letter was intended for an exclusively Jewish readership.

 

[Leaf473]

I agree however it really does not matter since keeping away from idols was both a Jewish Christian and gentile Christian command in Acts. However its origin is from Judaism.

Doesn't it seem like it would be more likely that the original audience was mostly gentile? Jewish people in general not needing to be reminded to stay away from idols at that time?

 

[expos4ever]

And also posts of the form "how can lawlessness be transgression of the Law - who would have known that?

Yet another misrepresentation. I, of course, never posted anything remotely like this - of course lawlessness could be transgression of the law. My point is that most translations, including the widely acknowledged as accurate NASB, have something like "sin is lawlessness" with no specificity to the law of Moses

We saw once again in that post over a dozen translations stating the 1 John 3:4 text as "Sin is transgression of the Law"

Interesting how you remain silent on how many versions do not make specific reference to the law.