WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[expos4ever]

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

Falsehood.

You know full well that I have posted examples of numerous translations in post 777.

At least you are predictable - your penchant for misrepresenting is well-documented in this thread.

Meanwhile we have actual scripture.

1 Cor 7:19 'what matters is kEEPING the Commandments of God"

Why are the "commandments of God" to be understood as referring to the Law of Moses? If we look at other things from Paul, we know that he is decidedly not advocating the keeping of the Law of Moses:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I suspect I am not the only reader who would be interested in how you reconcile this passage with your views about the 10 commandments.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this from Colossians 2: 16-17. I give the context of the verse as well. Paul is pretty clear that it does not matter to argue about which is the Sabbath or not. And especially to browbeat anyone if they do or do not follow any particular Sabbath or feast or ritual. All of those things were "shadows" pointing to the fulfillment in Christ. This particular translation is by Norton (1860's) of Paul's original Aramaic text.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I know commandments against idolatry are from Judaism. But Jewish people hadn't had a problem with idolatry for about 600 years at this point.

But the gentile believers had only recently been idol worshipers.

yes but it was to both audences but the quote regarding idols may have only been to the gentile Christians since they were former pagans

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Where is nomia used in the New Testament? I've looked at a few instances of lawful in the NASB, but it turns out to be a translation of ἔξεστιν, exestin

look up "nomos" and "anomos"

 

[HIM]

I never suggested anything of the sort. The NASB has sin is lawlessness, not breaking the law.

A high school student will know that lawlessness, as a concept, does not necessarily entail violation of any particular law, in this case the Law of Moses.

Indeed, when you cherry pick your translations, as you are clearly doing here, anything can be made "pretty clear".

You are attempting proof by "harrumph" followed by imaginary student.

We need actual facts.

The Septuagint which John read and quoted uses the word 198 times. What lawlessness is it referring to?

 

[HIM]

Let's go over your answer sentence by sentence:

HIM: Jesus said, We are the salt of the earth, a light unto the world but if the salt has lost its savor what good is it? In this context He continues to say that we are not to think that He came to destroy the law or the prophets He came to fulfil. The Greek word for fulfill means to bring something to completion, to its uttermost. In the sense of doing or fulfill. As when we do or complete the law or a prophecy is fulfilled or completed.

Where, in these words, is there anything that addresses my question. I think you draw the wrong conclusion when you say that when we "do" the law, we fulfill or complete it.

The BDAG says MAKE full or fill. It also says in respect to this verse fulfill can=do.

"Mt 5:17; depending on how one prefers to interpret the context, πληρόω is understood here either as fulfill=do, carry out, or as bring to full expression=show it forth in its true mng., or as fill up=complete"

Thayer says in respect to the verse, "universally and absolutely, to fulfil, i.e. "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment": Mat 5:17"

 

[Leaf473]

yes but it was to both audences but the quote regarding idols may have only been to the gentile Christians since they were former pagans

Right, some parts of the letter may have been intended for a gentile audience.

So while it's possible that
ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία

means
Breaking the law of Moses is sin,

I think it's much more likely that it means
Living an unrestrained lifestyle is sin.

I think everyone here would agree that living unrestrained is wrong, and we also know that self-control is part of the fruit of the Spirit.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 1 - J.B. Phillips New Testament

We are writing to you about something which has always existed yet which we ourselves actually saw and heard: something which we had an opportunity to observe closely and even to hold in our hands, and yet, as we know now, was something of the very Word of life himself! For it was life which...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Leaf473]

look up "nomos" and "anomos"

Well, nomos may carry a different connotation than nomia.

Where would you suggest I look it up? Do you have a URL?

 

[Leaf473]

The Septuagint which John read and quoted uses the word 198 times. What lawlessness is it referring to?

That's interesting, though it may not be a slam dunk.

Did you use an online resource to find those occurrences?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Right, some parts of the letter may have been intended for a gentile audience.

So while it's possible that
ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία

means
Breaking the law of Moses is sin,

I think it's much more likely that it means
Living an unrestrained lifestyle is sin.

I think everyone here would agree that living unrestrained is wrong, and we also know that self-control is part of the fruit of the Spirit.

What is the difference? I guess it would have to do with what your definition of sin.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Well, nomos may carry a different connotation than nomia.

Where would you suggest I look it up? Do you have a URL?

It is basically the same...like noun vs verb, same root. It is always related to the biblical context of the law

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this from Colossians 2: 16-17. I give the context of the verse as well. Paul is pretty clear that it does not matter to argue about which is the Sabbath or not. And especially to browbeat anyone if they do or do not follow any particular Sabbath or feast or ritual. All of those things were "shadows" pointing to the fulfillment in Christ. This particular translation is by Norton (1860's) of Paul's original Aramaic text.


View attachment 330524

It’s referring to the annual sabbath(s) ordinances that have to do with food and drink offerings, not the weekly Sabbath commandment, God’s holy day.

 

[expos4ever]

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!’

Whether you are intentionally doing this or not, this error needs to be corrected.

Lawlessness is, yes, a general term, there is no necessary connection to the Law of Moses - you are reading such a connection in to support your position.

One can certainly be lawless in all sorts of ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Law of Moses. If Jesus had said "I never knew you; depart from me, you who break the Law", then, and only then would you have an argument here.

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.

This is not Romans 7:8, it is Romans 8:7. But, in any event, you are not accounting for the broader context. Yes, if you take this verse out of context, there is a strong implication that those who are not "carnal" are indeed empowered to follow the Law.

But we know, beyond any doubt from Romans 7 that Paul cannot mean this:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Whatever Paul means in Romans 8:7, it cannot be that we are still in any way under the Law.

Although you will likely deny this, a neutral evaluation of Romans 7 and the first part of 8 reveals Paul's thinking: the Law enslaves the Jew - it energizes sinful impulses within him. But later in chapter 7, Paul echoes what he writes in 7:6 about being set free from the Law:

Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [y]the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin

Although you guys always muddle this up, Paul is acknowledging that while the Law itself is good - he delights in it in his mind - it nevertheless enslaves him to sin.

This is beyond clear from the text of Romans 7 but you will almost certainly refuse to take Paul at his word as it undermines your position.

So when we get to Romans 8:7, we know that Paul is reflecting on the state of his contemporaries - Jews who, as he was before conversion, are enslaved to sin by the action of the Law. These Jews are "stuck" in their struggle - they try to obey the Law, but they cannot.

What Paul is saying has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion that believers are somehow empowered to obey the Law. How could he be saying this - he has just told us in Romans 7:6 that we are entirely set free from the Law.

 

[expos4ever]

The Septuagint which John read and quoted uses the word 198 times. What lawlessness is it referring to?

Well, we would have to look at each case. But let's say that they are all references to the Law of Moses. Surely, you must realize that this in no way necessitates that we have to interpret any New Testament references to "lawlessness" in the same way.

What are you doing here is very subtly begging the question (making a circular argument).

The assertion that I, and others perhaps, am defending is that the Law comes to an end at the cross. And there have been many arguments put forward to that effect. Suppose, just for the sake of the argument that it is indeed a fact that the Law ended at the cross and that the author of 1 John knows this. You should see where this is going. Knowing as he does, in this hypothetical, that the Law of Moses has been set aside, he makes a more general claim that "sin is all about violating any set of laws that happen to be in force".

The point is this: You simply assume that the Law, or at least part of it, remains in force and you then leverage that assumption into what seems to be a very reasonable expectation that "lawlessness" in the Old Testament is the same as "lawlessness" in the New Testament. But if the Law has been set aside - and that is a different debate - then such a line of reasoning obviously fails.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Whatever Paul means in Romans 8:7, it cannot be that we are still in any way under the Law.

You do not seem to understand what that means. Being "under the law" means you are under the curse. The consequences of breaking the law. We are not. Yeshua has become a curse for us. The wages of sin is death...that is the curse of the law. It does not mean what you think it means.

 

[expos4ever]

You do not seem to understand what that means. Being "under the law" means you are under the curse.

I completely understand this - where in any of my posts have I written anything that would indicate otherwise?

The consequences of breaking the law. We are not. Yeshua has become a curse for us. The wages of sin is death...that is the curse of the law. It does not mean what you think it means.

Is this the old "we are set free from the law means we are set free from the consequences of breaking it but still need to obey it" argument"?

Paul never says this in Romans 7:6, he merely says we are released from the Law; how do you justify adding in the qualification that we are only set free from its consequences? And please make a Biblical argument, appealing to actual texts to make your case.

Second, Paul says we no longer serve according to the letter of the law. How do you, assuming you are making the argument from the first paragraph, justify taking "we no longer serve according to the Law" and morph it into "we are no longer to be judged by the Law".

 

[eleos1954]

I disagree - I believe Jesus intentionally broke the Sabbath as a way of signalling that the Law of Moses was coming to an end. Consider this from Matthew

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2 Now when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath!

Now I am aware that Jesus "defends" His actions and at least appears to claim innocence. Those, like you, who believe the Sabbath is still in force understandably argue, not least based on Jesus's explanation, that He is not breaking the Sabbath. Fair enough. But look at this from Exodus 16:

Now on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, [o]two omers for each one. When all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, 23 then he said to them, “This is what the Lord [p]meant: Tomorrow is a Sabbath observance, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over [q]put aside to be kept until morning.” 24 So they put it aside until morning, as Moses had ordered, and it did not stink nor was there a maggot in it. 25 Then Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be [r]none.”

It certainly seems that "being hungry" is no excuse for violating the Sabbath. Or, putting in another way, if, as required by Exodus, there was to be no gathering of manna on the Sabbath, it seems hard to imagine how it would be defensible for Jesus to pick grains on the Sabbath.

In any event, I think there are a myriad of other Biblical reasons to believe the Sabbath is now no longer in force even if this argument of mine is not convincing.

Since Jesus was sinless, He never broke God's laws. Hence, He could not have broken the Sabbath. 1 Peter 2:22

Scripture states that Jesus kept the Sabbath faithfully, as God intended it to be kept. In doing so, He set us an example. "He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked" 1 John 2:6.

There is nothing wrong with eating food on the Sabbath. Eating food is not work (ie they were not harvesting), eating food is a human and animal necessity.

Point ... Jesus was sinless .... if not .... He could not be our savior.

Walk as He walked ..... Jesus kept the 7th day Sabbath.

No where in His Word does it state otherwise .... even in His death .... Jesus rested in the tomb ... and also His followers waited until the Sabbath was over to prepare His body (of which never happened because He rose from the grave)

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

It’s referring to the annual sabbath(s) ordinances that have to do with food and drink offerings, not the weekly Sabbath commandment, God’s holy day.

Actually, no. Paul specifically refers to food and drink and feasts earlier. The concept of sabbath was any day of rest, not just the one on the 7th day. This is plainly evident in the Gospels where the sabbaths are talked about during the crucifixion narrative. Only John makes a point to call out the sabbath before the Feast of Unleavened Bread. That is why the majority of the Western Church believes the crucifixion happened on a Friday. They are ignorant about the sabbaths during the prescribed Feast days.
And we can be absolutely sure of this because Paul uses the plural "sabbaths", not "the Sabbath". Many English versions neglect to translate it as a plural. However, because it is plural, Paul is not just talking about the weekly Sabbath but also includes all sabbaths in the Feast Days.

 

[Leaf473]

What is the difference? I guess it would have to do with what your definition of sin.

Well, an example of a difference would be drinking to excess. It's not prohibited in the law of Moses, but it's an example of being out of control.

Or wearing clothes without fringes. Prohibited by Moses, but a person can be very self-controlled and wear fringe-less clothes.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I completely understand this - where in any of my posts have I written anything that would indicate otherwise?

Is this the old "we are set free from the law means we are set free from the consequences of breaking it but still need to obey it" argument"?

Paul never says this in Romans 7:6, he merely says we are released from the Law; how do you justify adding in the qualification that we are only set free from its consequences? And please make a Biblical argument, appealing to actual texts to make your case.

Second, Paul says we no longer serve according to the letter of the law. How do you, assuming you are making the argument from the first paragraph, justify taking "we no longer serve according to the Law" and morph it into "we are no longer to be judged by the Law".

Released usually means released from its consequences. No penalty. Maybe you have a different definition of sin or what it means biblically?? what are the wages of sin...death. that is the ultimate curse of the law. What was the first sin? What was its consequence? Yeshua became that curse for us. Otherwise what is the standard and what does Yeshua judge against those who did not repent and believe?