WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[BobRyan]

What an outrageous statement, you have some gall.

You are entirely unrepentant...

Shame on you.

That is called a harrrumph-post.

Did you have an actual point you wanted to make

 

[expos4ever]

That is called a harrrumph-post.

Did you have an actual point you wanted to make

Of course, the point is that SB has misrepresented me and is not being truthful. Kind of like when poster carefully filter the evidence they post ....

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Not according to the NT writers.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is useful for doctrine".
Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul were so"
Luke 24 - Christ preaches the Gospel "from all the scriptures".
Acts 13 - Gentiles ask that MORE Gospel be preached to them "on the next Sabbath"

 

[BobRyan]

Of course, the point is that SB has misrepresented me and is not being truthful. Kind of like when poster carefully filter the evidence they post ....

Your accusation noted

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Context is important.
falsely accusing someone of taking a text out of context is easy to do.
Proving that there is a correction in context is more difficult but is required once you make such an accusation.

 

[expos4ever]

Your accusation noted

If you are in fact innocent of this accusation, please make your case. Did you or did you not filter the list of translations of 1 John 3:4?

Even if, you innocently got this list from another source, which had in turn done the filtering, you should have acknowledged that the list is non-representative when this was pointed out to you.

I'm just asking for fair and reasonable behavior on the part of posters.

 

[expos4ever]

Not according to the NT writers.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is useful for doctrine".

A very weak argument. You are effectively asking readers to believe that all commandments throughout scripture apply in the present. Should we be building arks and gathering two of each kind? Should we be slaughtering cattle on the altar?

Surely the sophisticated reader will understand that to say all scripture is inspired and profitable does not mean that all the Commandments of scripture apply eternally.

 

[expos4ever]

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul were so"

I am quite sure other readers will be interested to know how this is not a subtle way of undermining the inspiration of Pauline scripture, a view that we have seen crop up here from time to time

And understandably so, as Paul's writings are devastating to the view that the law of Moses remains in force.

 

[BobRyan]

A very weak argument. You are effectively asking readers to believe that all commandments throughout scripture apply in the present

No I am not as I have repeatedly stated.

we see this in my signature line

Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today
[*]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
[*]R.C. Sproul


In section 19 of the baptist confession of faith they freely point out that animal-sacrifice ceremonial laws end at the cross just as I point out in my references to Heb 10:4-12

In Heb 7 the earthly priesthood ends at the cross.

Even the Baptist Confession of Faith section 19 notes that the civil laws of the nation-theocracy end when that theocracy ended.

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul were so"

I am quite sure other readers will be interested to know how this is not a subtle way of undermining the inspiration of Pauline scripture

The idea that a mere quote of scripture would be detrimental to Paul or anything he wrote is a pretty far stretch.

Paul said in Gal 1:6-9 "Though WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different gospel - let him be accursed" --

Paul was all about sola-scriptura testing. And Paul was an inspired writer -- this does not in any way threaten Paul. I don't know how you even get there.

And understandably so, as Paul's writings are devastating to the view that the law of Moses remains in force.

Until you read what he wrote in places like Romans 7 and Eph 6:2

"honor your father and mother' which is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2 is Paul appealing to the TEN as still valid as almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms when it comes to the ten.

 

[BobRyan]

If you are in fact innocent of this accusation, please make your case. Did you or did you not filter the list of translations of 1 John 3:4?

??? What???

I recall posting over a dozen translations for 1 John 3:4.. Turns out this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do ...

You seem to be having an off day.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

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.

This goes against the very words of Jesus who said He kept the commandments John 15:10 so your whole reasoning that we can break the law, which in scripture means sinning 1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7 because Jesus did is not founded on the testimony of Jesus, but those who accused Jesus of sinning and breaking the law and crucified Him without merit. Which side are you on those who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath commandment or Jesus who said He did not. You said Jesus broke the law, which is mind blowing to me someone could come to that conclusion, by reading the scripture in context and not believing Jesus- Jesus said He kept the commandments, you claim He broke the Sabbath commandment, I do hope you see what the implication of this accusation means.

 

[expos4ever]

??? What???

I recall posting over a dozen translations for 1 John 3:4.. Turns out this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do ...

You seem to be having an off day.

Not an answer to my question.

My question is very simple: was that initial list of 15 or so translations generated by a filtering process where you preferentially selected translations that agreed with your position?

 

[BobRyan]

Not an answer to my question.

My question is very simple: was that initial list of 15 or so translations generated by a filtering process where you preferentially selected translations that agreed with your position?

I pointed to 1 John 3:4 stating "sin IS transgression of the LAW" KJV and showed over a dozen other translations that agree with KJV on that.
Including EXB (Expanded Bible) stating that this is the same as "sin is lawlessness".

4 ·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].(EXB). So "yeah" - not "Just KJV"


Here is that list in case you forgot -- or just in case you suppose all translations in the list are KJV

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.


=========================

What I did NOT do is offer a mere "suggestion" that "Sin is Transgression of the LAW" is somehow excluded from "Sin is lawlessness" in the book of 1 John since in 1 John 5:3 we find "this IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments". John is speaking in the context of the Commandments of God -- and this is also seen in his statement in Rev 14:12 for the saints.

 

[expos4ever]

Here is what someone posted in response to my statement that Romans 3:28-29 proves that Paul believes that the Law is for Jews only:

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

How is not beyond obvious that this response simply sidesteps an irrefutable fact, namely that these two verses prove Paul believes the Law only governs Jews:

28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

In verse 28, Paul declares that justification has nothing to do with doing the things prescribed by the Law of Moses. Then we get verse 29. The "or" at the beginning clearly shows that the rest of verse 29 will tell us what would be the case if, in fact, justification were indeed somehow achieved by doing the works of the Law. And what does Paul say would be the case in that event?

That God would only be a God of, yes, Jews. Therefore - and how is this not painfully obvious - it must be the case that Jews, to the exclusion of Gentiles, are the only ones who do the works of the Law

This ends the discussion - there is simply no counterargument unless you are going to argue for a translation error.

But, of course, this is not acceptable to some. So what is the response? In this case, it is diversion - we are told something else that is true - that we are all justified by faith, apparently in the hopes that such a claim will divert the reader's attention from another truth - that the text proves that Paul believes the Law only governs Jews.

 

[expos4ever]

Nor the Words of Jesus who never broke the Sabbath commandment or any law for that matter.

The words of Jesus:

Getting into a boat, Jesus crossed over the Sea of Galilee and came to His own city. 2 And they brought to Him a paralyzed man lying on a stretcher. And seeing their faith, Jesus said to the man who was paralyzed, “Take courage, [a]son; your sins are forgiven.”

Now then, what does the Law of Moses say is the means to get forgiveness? On my understanding, one goes to the temple and offers some sort of sacrifice.

How, then, is Jesus not effectively doing away with these rules about sacrifice by claiming you do not actually need to do what is prescribed by the Law?

 

[expos4ever]

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.

You are not looking carefully enough at the logic of what is being said. First, we get the rules - you cannot eat X, Y, and Z. Then we immediately get a "so" statement that connects these rules to something. What is that something? It is that these rules serve to mark the Jew out from the rest of the world.

And that would only make sense if these rules were for Jews alone.

You are glossing over this critical bit of logic by, again, telling us something else that is true, that God wants Israel to act differently, but evading the clear logic of the details, namely that it is through following the specified rules that they will be marked out as different.

Imagine that the Gentile also had these rules which is what I believe you are claiming - you are denying that the Law is for Jews only. Then the text would effectively read thusly:

You, that is both Jew and Gentile, are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you, that is both Jew and Gentile, 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.

We all know that verse 26 does not make sense if, as I believe you believe, the Law applies to both Jews and Gentiles.

 

[expos4ever]

Acts 13 - Gentiles ask that MORE Gospel be preached to them "on the next Sabbath"

How is this evidence that the Law is still in effect? It is a statement of fact about what Gentiles asked for.

In Genesis, the men of Sodom asked for something - to have homosexual sex with angels. Now then, is that evidence that having homosexual sex with angels is part of God's plan? I trust the point is clear.

 

[expos4ever]

I pointed to 1 John 3:4 stating "sin IS transgression of the LAW" KJV and showed over a dozen other translations that agree with KJV on that.
Including EXB (Expanded Bible) stating that this is the same as "sin is lawlessness".

4 ·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].(EXB). So "yeah" - not "Just KJV"


Here is that list in case you forgot -- or just in case you suppose all translations in the list are KJV

......

Still won't answer the question, eh? You must know that readers will know you are dancing. Here is the question yet again:

Was that initial list of 15 or so translations generated by a filtering process where you preferentially selected translations that agreed with your position?

 

[expos4ever]

What I did NOT do is offer a mere "suggestion" that "Sin is Transgression of the LAW" is somehow excluded from "Sin is lawlessness" in the book of 1 John since in 1 John 5:3 we find "this IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments". John is speaking in the context of the Commandments of God -- and this is also seen in his statement in Rev 14:12 for the saints.

I trust that you know how I will answer - you are engaging in obvious circular reasoning here when you simply assume that this:

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and [c]follow His commandments

...means this:

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and [c]follow the Law of Moses

Surely you must realize that a neutral reader will know that (a) Paul says 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 [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter - what do you think Paul is saying here?; and (b) Jesus (and Paul) give us "commands" that cannot be found in the Law of Moses.

So what is your response - surely you cannot deny that there some "commandments of God" that are not in the Law of Moses. And therefore the category "commandments of God" would not be empty if the Law were not in force.