WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[trophy33]

I am not reading whole chapters

I noticed.

If you read the whole chapters, you would see that your isolated verses taken out of context you use to defend the SDA theology are not saying what you think they are saying.

Read the whole letter to Galatians, its not that long, and see for yourself what the Christian theology regarding the Law is.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I noticed.

I'm referring to not reading whole chapter to find your out of context scripture.

If you read the whole chapters, you would see that your isolated verses taken out of context you use to defend the SDA theology are not saying what you think they are saying.

Says the person who almost never quotes scripture to back up their statements.

Read the whole letter to Galatians, its not that long, and see for yourself what the Christian theology regarding the Law is.

I have many times and it doesn't say what you're claiming.

Anway, if you want to talk scripture, please do so and I will be happy to respond. I asked for you to prove your statements through scripture and instead of doing that, you just want to argue and it's impossible to reason with someone who argues with their words over the Word of God.

 

[trophy33]

I have many times and it doesn't say what you're claiming.

Well, the vast majority of Christianity thinks it does say what I am claiming. You do not see it, but thats your struggle.

 

[expos4ever]

Making Jesus a sinner, means you are making Jesus is a liar because He said He kept all of His Fathers commandments John 15:10 and is without sin 1 Peter 2:22

This has to be intentional misrepresentation on your part: since you've been reading my posts you have to know that I am doing nothing of the sort.

More specifically, you must certainly know that I have a perfectly coherent argument whereby Jesus "breaks" the law without sinning.

The fact that this argument is coherent does not mean that it is necessarily correct, but it does prove that you are deceiving readers when you tell them that I am making Jesus a sinner.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Well, the vast majority of Christianity thinks it does say what I am claiming. You do not see it, but thats your struggle.

Jesus never told us to follow the vast majority but to follow His Word, which is the lighted path. Psalms 119:105

 

[SabbathBlessings]

This has to be intentional misrepresentation on your part: since you've been reading my posts you have to know that I am doing nothing of the sort.

More specifically, you must certainly know that I have a perfectly coherent argument whereby Jesus "breaks" the law without sinning.

The fact that this argument is coherent does not mean that it is necessarily correct, but it does prove that you are deceiving readers when you tell them that I am making Jesus a sinner.

Jesus said He never broke the commandments John 15:10 I believe Jesus.

 

[trophy33]

Jesus never told us to follow the vast majority but to follow His Word, which is the lighted path. Psalms 119:105

Verses taken out of context are not His Word. They are His Word only in their proper context.

You may read instructions to ancient Israel and think its for you, but its not, you are ignoring its context and purpose.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Verses taken out of context are not His Word. They are His Word only in their proper context.

Well you have your chance to prove it through scripture but yet still use your words instead.

Take care.

 

[trophy33]

Well you have your chance to prove it through scripture but yet still use your words instead.

Take care.

No, I am telling you to read the letter to Galatians, as a whole letter, as it was intended to be read.

 

[expos4ever]

Prove this through scripture.

For technical reasons I cannot, right now least, paste specific biblical texts in. However, the case that the law of Moses is for Jews only is overwhelming. In Leviticus 20 for example, verse 25 or 26, we have God saying that the food laws were given to separate the nation of Israel from the rest of the world. How is this not devastating evidence that the law of Moses is only for Israel?

Fast forward to the New Testament. In Romans 2, around verse 12 and after, Paul makes a very clear distinction between those who are under the law and those who are not. The former are of course Jews, the latter Gentiles. Granted, Paul does refer to Gentiles obeying a form of law but, in context, it cannot be the written code of the law of Moses.

But forget about Romans 2. At the end of Romans 3 there are a couple of verses that cannot be misunderstood except through willful intention. In those verses, Paul clearly demonstrates that he believes that the law is for Jews only. His argument, and his words are very clear on this, is that if justification were based on the law, only Jews would be justified.

The logic here is ironclad: such a statement only makes sense if Paul understands that the law was only given to Israel.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus said He never broke the commandments John 15:10 I believe Jesus.

This is not the point, and I suggest you know it. You have intentionally misrepresented me by suggesting that my view puts Jesus in the position of being a sinner. You seem unable, or unwilling, to understand the difference between disagreeing with me, on the one hand, and spreading the falsehood that my view entails putting Jesus in the position of being a sinner, on the other.

This is obviously not the case has any reader with their wits about them will know if they read my posts.

You are free to disagree with me, you are not free to misrepresent to others what I am saying.

 

[trophy33]

For technical reasons I cannot, right now least, paste specific biblical texts in. However, the case that the law of Moses is for Jews only is overwhelming. In Leviticus 20 for example, verse 25 or 26, we have God saying that the food laws were given to separate the nation of Israel from the rest of the world. How is this not devastating evidence that the law of Moses is only for Israel?

Fast forward to the New Testament. In Romans 2, around verse 12 and after, Paul makes a very clear distinction between those who are under the law and those who are not. The former are of course Jews, the latter Gentiles. Granted, Paul does refer to Gentiles obeying a form of law but, in context, it cannot be the written code of the law of Moses.

But forget about Romans 2. At the end of Romans 3 there are a couple of verses that cannot be misunderstood except through willful intention. In those verses, Paul clearly demonstrates that he believes that the law is for Jews only. His argument, and his words are very clear on this, is that if justification were based on the law, only Jews would be justified.

The logic here is ironclad: such a statement only makes sense if Paul understands that the law was only given to Israel.

This thread is full of such texts, anyway.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

This is not the point, and I suggest you know it. You have intentionally misrepresented me by suggesting that my view puts Jesus in the position of being a sinner. You seem unable, or unwilling, to understand the difference between disagreeing with me, on the one hand, and spreading the falsehood that my view entails putting Jesus in the position of being a sinner, on the other.

This is obviously not the case has any reader with their wits about them will know if they read my posts.

You are free to disagree with me, you are not free to misrepresent to others what I am saying.

Not the point, you are claiming Jesus broke the Sabbath commandment and Jesus in His own words said He kept all of the commandments. I believe Jesus.

 

[Leaf473]

Jesus never told us to follow the vast majority but to follow His Word, which is the lighted path. Psalms 119:105

For whoever is interested, we have to follow the majority in some way, otherwise we don't have a Bible. Just a collection of ancient documents. Maybe they are scripture, maybe not.

The Book of Enoch? Song of the Three Hebrew Children? The Apocalypse of John?
________________
The above is off topic, just posted to show that we do pay attention to what most Christians have decided in the past.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

For technical reasons I cannot, right now least, paste specific biblical texts in. However, the case that the law of Moses is for Jews

So Gentiles do not have to keep the greatest commandments to love God with all thy heart or love thy neighbor from the law of Moses- where did you find that text.

only is overwhelming. In Leviticus 20 for example, verse 25 or 26, we have God saying that the food laws were give

Lets quote the Text

Lev. 20: 25 You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make [r]yourselves detestable by animal or by bird, or by anything that crawls on the ground, which I have distinguished for you as unclean. 26 So you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have singled you out from the peoples to be Mine.

It sounds like God wants His people to act differently than the ones that are not His people. Sounds like the theme throughout the entire bible.

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Ezekiel 20:20 hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.’

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

If God wants His people to act differently than those who are not His people, seems like an easy choice.

Fast forward to the New Testament. In Romans 2, around verse 12 and after, Paul makes a very clear distinction between those who are under the law and those who are not. The former are of course Jews, the latter Gentiles. Granted, Paul does refer to Gentiles obeying a form of law but, in context, it cannot be the written code of the law of Moses.

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

The gentiles at that time were not raised with the law and might not have access to the scriptures the way the Jews did, this is not saying the Gentiles can worship other gods or vain God's holy name, we are only judged based on our knowledge and thankfully most gentiles have access to the Word of God now and have knowledge of how God wants His people to act- which is different than someone that is not in Christ.

The apostles was getting the gospel message out to the Gentiles as we see in the Text.

Acts 13:42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

But forget about Romans 2. At the end of Romans 3 there are a couple of verses that cannot be misunderstood except through willful intention. In those verses, Paul clearly demonstrates that he believes that the law is for Jews only. His argument, and his words are very clear on this, is that if justification were based on the law, only Jews would be justified.

The logic here is ironclad: such a statement only makes sense if Paul understands that the law was only given to Israel.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Sorry this verse says no such thing. No one is justified through the law, we are justified through faith. Keeping the law is a result of faith as the last verse says. Which is why we are called to be doers of the Word and not just hearers. James 1:22

 

[Leaf473]

We establish the animal sacrifices in the law of Moses by believe in Jesus, yes.
________________
Edit: by believing in Jesus...

 

[expos4ever]

Not the point, you are claiming Jesus broke the Sabbath commandment and Jesus in His own words said He kept all of the commandments. I believe Jesus.

Nice dodge, I see you have now altered your claim. You had falsely claimed that I had put Jesus in the position of being a liar. Apparently you think falsely characterizing the views of others is beside the point. Let other readers judge whether they think that's true.

In this latest post, by contrast, you are correctly characterizing my position. I have indeed repeatedly said that Jesus broke the law. But, as I have carefully explained, this does not put me in the position of calling Jesus a liar, and you should acknowledge this.

In any event, I challenge you to post any texts where Jesus unambiguously declares that he has fully obeyed the Law of Moses. If you succeed, I suggest this will show contradiction in the scriptures as we know that Jesus declared all foods clean, which directly contradicts the law of Moses. And if you don't like that example, He declared himself to be the place to go for forgiveness, indirect conflict with the law which designates the temple as having this function.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Nice dodge, I see you have now altered your claim. You had falsely claimed that I had put Jesus in the position of being a liar. Apparently you think falsely characterizing the views of others is beside the point. Let other readers judge whether they think that's true.

These are your words, not mine

I have indeed repeatedly said that Jesus broke the law.

Nor the Words of Jesus who never broke the Sabbath commandment or any law for that matter. And in stating and believing this is crucifying Jesus all over again.

I'm not going to continue debating this, if this is what you choose to believe about our Savior, that's your free will. I believe Jesus and those who testified about Him through the scripture that Jesus was sinless, meaning He never broke the law.

 

[expos4ever]

These are your words, not mine


Nor the Words of Jesus who never broke the Sabbath commandment or any law for that matter. And in stating and believing this is crucifying Jesus all over again.

What an outrageous statement, you have some gall.

You are entirely unrepentant for your demonstrable falsehood that I have put Jesus in the position of being a sinner. What I have done, and anyone who can read will know this, is put Jesus in the position of someone who has broken the law. There is an important conceptual distinction here which either eludes you, or you are not willing to accept. If, as I am suggesting, Jesus is announcing the end of the law through these acts of breaking the law, He is clearly not sinning. You appear willing to misrepresent the views of others in service of your overall position. Fine, as you say you are free to do this. But people will know, people will see the difference.

You are free, of course, to dispute my claims that Jesus violated the law. But what should not be countenanced is your shameless misrepresentation of my position - you surely must know that, if I am correct in claiming Jesus is bringing an end to the law, then he most is most certainly not a sinner if He violates a law in the very act of signaling its retirement. In fact, if Jesus is bringing the law to an end, what more effective way to announce this than by symbolically breaking the law?

And yet you double down on your falsehoods, outrageously suggested but I am somehow participating in the recrucifixion of my Lord and Savior.

 

[BobRyan]

We establish the animal sacrifices in the law of Moses by believe in Jesus, yes.
________________
Edit: by believing in Jesus...

No.

Heb 10:4-12 says that law ended at the cross.

1 Cor 5 "Christ our PASSOVER has been sacrificed".

There is no "by believing in Jesus you sacrifice a lamb each passover".
Heb 10 says "he takes AWAY the first to establish the second"

Playing fast and loose with the text is not as helpful as one might suppose at first.