Why the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) is the Lord's Day, in the Bible

[trophy33]

The law, scripture is for the sinner and sound doctrine. So if you are sinless and do not want sound doctrine you are correct.

You are just repeating what was the purpose of the Law while ignoring its time frame - from Moses to Christ.

Its not for us. Not because we are sinless, but because we live in the New Covenant era.

 

[HIM]

You are just repeating what was the purpose of the Law while ignoring its timeframe - from Moses to Christ.

No. Paul's words through God were for the Church in Christ. For he said them to Timothy in the New Testament that the Law was for the sinner and for sound doctrine. As He said elsewhere that The Scripture was for correction and reproof and instruction in righteousness. And through cheerful enduring patience and comfort of the Scriptures we may have hope.

2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

 

[Studyman]

Let us not play silly games. You are a Seventh Day Adventist and you believe that her visions and theology is from God. She said that Sabbath is the most important and for us and so you believe so.

The Bible is interpreted in the "light" of the Ellen White writings, in your church. You are "sola scriptura" only when it suits your case.

There are others who believe in the Words of the God of the Bible, including His definition of Holy and His Creation of Sabbaths, that are not affiliated with one of the many religious sects or businesses of this world God placed us in. But the Truth is, Calvin, Wesley, Huss, or Russell or Ellen White, though popular religious philosophers whose views are adopted by "many", they did not inspire the Holy scriptures, did not create Holy or Good, nor did they create God's Holy Sabbath.

The poster you replied to isn't "playing games" by referencing what is actually written in scriptures, in my view. Most all religious sects and franchises are structured around the "light" of one of these famous religious philosophers. You seem to believe the philosopher you adopted is superior to Ellen White, and the religious sect you adopted, is superior to SDA. And this because you believe you yourself, are superior to SabbathBlessings.

In my understanding of scriptures, God's Holy Sabbath is a "fast" from the world, that HE created "for men". It has a purpose. One of its purposes, inspired by the Rock. the Holy One of Israel who became flesh, is written in Isaiah 58, that the Faithful learn "and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?".

If a man hasn't learned to be honest with or about themselves, how can they be honest with God, or with others?

Can we learn these things by following Calvin, or White, or Smith? By creating our own religion? Can a man "Delight himself in the Lord" by following the religious Traditions of men?

For me, I believe God can and will reveal Himself to those who place their faith in Him, without the interpretations or influences of one of the many popular religious philosophers of this world.

As the Christ said, when HE was up where HE was before becoming a man;

Is. 1:16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

 

[Studyman]

No. Paul's words through God were for the Church in Christ. For he said them to Timothy in the New Testament that the Law was for the sinner and for sound doctiune. As He said elsewhere that The Scripture was for correction and reproof and instruction in righteousness. And through cheerful enduring patience and comfort of the Scriptures we may have hope.

2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Absolutely.

Paul promoted the Law and Prophets to the Church of God, the Body of Christ under God's New Prophesied Priest, after the Order of a New Priesthood years after Jesus ascended, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It seems it was the Priesthood that changed, not God's definition of sin.

Certainly this aligns with the Jesus of the Bibles teaching that God's Sabbath "was made for man", not man for His Sabbath. Can a man be made perfect by following or adopting the religious traditions or philosophies of other men? It seems there are "many" who come in Christ's name, that believe and teach that very thing. I believe the Jesus of the Bible warned us about this.

Great post.

 

[trophy33]

You seem to believe the philosopher you adopted is superior to Ellen White, and the religious sect you adopted, is superior to SDA.

What philosopher and religious sect you have in mind?

Anyway, yes, I believe that many views are superior to the view of SDA. My point was that the SDA members pretend to be Sola Scriptura, but they are not. As, for example SabbathBlessing, like to use the phrase "tradition of men" - while she is fully in the tradition of the SDA men.

 

[trophy33]

No. Paul's words through God were for the Church in Christ. For he said them to Timothy in the New Testament that the Law was for the sinner and for sound doctrine. As He said elsewhere that The Scripture was for correction and reproof and instruction in righteousness. And through cheerful enduring patience and comfort of the Scriptures we may have hope.

2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Yes, the Law was for sinners. And we can learn from it. But it is not for us today.

We must read the New Testament in its full context, not just few verses.

 

[Studyman]

What philosopher and religious sect you have in mind?


Anyway, yes, I believe that many views are superior to the view of SDA. My point was that the SDA members pretend to be Sola Scriptura, but they are not. As, for example SabbathBlessing, like to use the phrase "tradition of men" - while she is fully in the tradition of the SDA men.

Matt. 7: 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

[trophy33]

Matt. 7: 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Yes, its hypocritical of them to tell others that the views of others are "the traditions of men" and to pretend that theirs are not.

 

[Studyman]

You are just repeating what was the purpose of the Law while ignoring its time frame - from Moses to Christ.

Its not for us. Not because we are sinless, but because we live in the New Covenant era.

It's not for you maybe, or the religious sect you have adopted. But Paul teaches it was for the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile.

Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

There was a Law that was "ADDED" Till the SEED should come. It was the Levitical Priesthood with its sacrificial "Works" for forgiveness. But by these sacrificial, ceremonial "Works of the Law" was no flesh justified. It was always to lead men to Christ for the remission of sins, the true Lamb of God. Just as it did for Caleb, Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and the wise men.

Those who believed Moses and the Prophets understood this.

Is. 48: 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. 18 O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:


This same Christ also teaches.

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

It's important to consider "EVERY Word" inspired by the God of the Bible, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in my view.

 

[trophy33]

It's not for you maybe, or the religious sect you have adopted.

What religious sect do you have in mind... Christianity?

But Paul teaches it was for the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile.

Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

There was a Law that was "ADDED" Till the SEED should come. It was the Levitical Priesthood with its sacrificial "Works" for forgiveness. But by these sacrificial, ceremonial "Works of the Law" was no flesh justified. It was always to lead men to Christ for the remission of sins, the true Lamb of God. Just as it did for Caleb, Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and the wise men.

Those who believed Moses and the Prophets understood this.

Is. 48: 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. 18 O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:


This same Christ also teaches.

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

It's important to consider "EVERY Word" inspired by the God of the Bible, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in my view.

Christians keep the commandments of God. The ones that are given to us in the New Covenant era, in the kingdom of God.

It is indeed a misplaced thing to keep the commandments of God not given to us, but to somebody else. I do not understand how its not obvious.

Put simply - as it is useful for us to read about the commandment of God to Noah to build the ark, but it would be wrong to literally follow it in our life and to defend it with "All Scripture is for teaching, corrections...etc", so also it is wrong to do the same thing with the Mosaic Law, for example with keeping the Sabbath.

 

[Studyman]

Let's be clear please; God edited out of His Law 100's of His commandments when He ended sacrifices and made His Son the Great High Priest.

These Priesthood duties were temporary in their beginning. Surely God knew His Son would become His Priest, "After those days" and those who knew God, also knew this as the testimony of Zacharias, Simeon and Anna clearly show.

If Hebrews didn't tell us the Law was changed, I'd more readily say it was gone and a new one implemented. But change could also mean just that - we went from the Law of Moses to the Law of Messiah which would say Mosaic Law ended as it was a unit

This is simply not true according to Scriptures. The Holy One of Israel tells us through His Prophets, "To obey is better than sacrifice". He said to the rebellious and disobedient;

Is. 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

This is one of many deceptive doctrines promoted by the religious wise men of this world, that the Levitical Priesthood sacrificial, ceremonial "works of the Law" are one unit with God's Laws, Statutes, Judgments and Commandments God gave Abraham and then gave to Abraham's Children in Egypt. Surely God knew Jesus, from Judah, would become His Priest and therefore, the Covenant with Levi must by necessity change. Where is the Prophesy regarding the "end" of God's Sabbath? Surely there is at least one Prophesy where God foretells of the end of His Laws, "after those days". But all that is written, is a promise to change the manner in which God's Law is administered, and the manner in which Sins are forgiven.

God even warned of the Christmas tree, would HE not also give His people at least ONE Prophesy regarding the "end" of His Holy Sabbath?

, and Law of Messiah is now in place and we're looking for commandments and instruction in the Mosaic Law (like Lev19:18 and those of the 10C that are clearly commanded in the NC

But the Jesus of the Bible said "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Why are you preaching that we are searching through the NT to find God's righteousness when We have all been given the Oracles of God, and instructed by the Jesus of the Bible and Paul to rely on them for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:?

AS Paul teaches; 1 Cor. 9: 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

If this, one of the least of the Commandments of God, was still written for the Body of Christ, how much more His Holy Sabbaths that HE gave His People to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

like the 9 of the 10 that are - and then we're looking for others that were in Moses that would relate to those 9 commandments (like Paul says in Rom13:9) as summarized by Love for Neighbor. Also, Paul used the wisdom of Deut25:4 in 1Tim5:18 & 1Cor9:9.

The greatest commandment in the Law is to Love God with all our hearts. What good is the 2nd greatest commandment for those who neglect or ignore the first? When a man remembers to keep God's Sabbath Holy, even when others don't, who is he honoring?

Is. 58: 13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

I get that man works to find another way, but Paul didn't.

BTW, "Mosaic Law" is a widely used phrase in Bible Circles. The Law of Moses shows up at least 21 times in the Bible and Moses commanded law is also stated in both the OC & NC.

The Jesus of the Bible also teaches this. "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

God the Creator finished & ceased (rest is a possible translation) His work on the seventh day. This is what Gen2:2 tells us. He blessed it and set it apart because He ceased (rest is a possible translation). This is what Gen2:3 tells us.

The noun "sabbath" is not used in Scripture until Ex16:23 when God has begun dealing with the children of Israel.

There is no command anywhere from Gen until Exodus to keep a Sabbath. Not in the Garden. Not to and through Abraham. Not until the children of Israel have to be taught like children how to keep it. And this is after Ex12:2 where God sets the beginning of their calendar for them.

Duet 6: 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

It wasn't until after Israel left Egypt that God enumerated this First and Greatest Commandment. To suggest that this Law of God didn't exist in Adam and Eve's time, or Noah's or Abraham's, is foolishness. Yet, by this same standard you are erasing God's Sabbath. Noah was given instruction regarding clean and unclean animals. He knew the difference, and yet the difference wasn't enumerated until after the Children of Israel left Egypt. For those people whose religious tradition is to reject these instructions of God, such assumptions are necessary in order to justify their rejection of one or more of God's Commandments. but for those who believe God knows what HE is doing, there is no assumption needed.

It is pure conjecture that Adam or anyone else before the kids of Israel are commanded to keep Sabbath. If anyone knows differently from Scripture, my eyes and ears are wide open for this Truth.

The teaching that Adam and Eve didn't know God rested, sanctified and made Holy the 7th day of creation after HE created them, and blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth, is total "Conjecture". Where were Adam and Eve when God sanctified His Sabbath? How could they not know? And why would a man even consider making such an assumption, if not to justify religious tradition's of men?

It is not conjecture that there was Law before Moses (Gen26:5 at minimum & God's creation is to be of God's righteous character). It is not conjecture that Law exists for our time.

It is "conjecture" to preach when God said that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws., that this didn't also include His Sabbath Instruction.

 

[Studyman]

What religious sect do you have in mind... Christianity?

Matt. 24: 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Christians keep the commandments of God. The ones that are given to us in the New Covenant era, in the kingdom of God.

Matt. 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

It is indeed a misplaced thing to keep the commandments of God not given to us, but to somebody else. I do not understand how its not obvious.

Put simply - as it is useful for us to read about the commandment of God to Noah to build the ark, but it would be wrong to literally follow it in our life and to defend it with "All Scripture is for teaching, corrections...etc", so also it is wrong to do the same thing with the Mosaic Law, for example with keeping the Sabbath.

It seems we are to build an Ark, just as Noah did. And by the instruction of the same Rock.

Matt. 7: 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Shall I not Honor Him is all of His Sayings?

Is. 43: 24 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities. 25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. 26 Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.

Is. 48: 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. 18 O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Ez. 20; 11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. 12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

In your religion, are these "Sayings" not from the same Christ, my Redeemer? Is the Redeemer of Matt. 7 not also the same Redeemer of the Law and Prophets, "up where HE was before"?

Did Paul not tell us these examples were written so that we wouldn't lust after the same things they lusted after?

 

[trophy33]

Matt. 24: 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.



Matt. 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


It seems we are to build an Ark, just as Noah did. And by the instruction of the same Rock.

Matt. 7: 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Shall I not Honor Him is all of His Sayings?

Is. 43: 24 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities. 25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. 26 Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.

Is. 48: 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. 18 O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Ez. 20; 11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. 12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

In your religion, are these "Sayings" not from the same Christ, my Redeemer? Is the Redeemer of Matt. 7 not also the same Redeemer of the Law and Prophets, "up where HE was before"?

Did Paul not tell us these examples were written so that we wouldn't lust after the same things they lusted after?

Well, my point is still the same, no matter how many colors you use or how many strange questions you ask.

The Mosaic Law was given till Christ. Though we can learn useful insights from the Old Testament, we live in a different era. We are to walk in what was said to us, not in what was said to ancient Israel.

As we can learn from the story of Noah, while not taking the commandment to build the ark literally for us, so also we can learn from the Mosaic Law, while not taking its ceremonial commandments being literally for us (like the Sabbath keeping).

 

[GDL]

In Acts 10 all manner of animals were seen but Peter only seen two different types, common and unclean. Showing a distinction was seen. No clean animal was there because if it or anything intermingled with, touched the unclean it was considered defiled and therefore common.
And God only cleansed the common in the vision. No mention of the unclean being cleansed.

Where do you see koinos as being different than akathartos? By making them different you're saying:

• There are common animals
  • There are also unclean animals
• God cleansed the common
  • God did not cleanse the unclean

So, when God cleanses a man:

• God only cleanses the man who is common?
  • God does not cleanse the man who is unclean?

So, Peter had to go and discern if a man was common or unclean?

• Because God was only cleansing men who were common?
  • But God was not cleansing men who were unclean?

Romans 14 is also about these animals that were considered common but in respect those found in the market in respect to not being Kosher and having been used for sacrifice. Same Greek word is used in Romans as in Acts.

Same question as questions about Acts.

I'm not aware of any usage in the OC Scriptures of koinos or koinoō. I am aware of extensive instruction in the OC Scripture and some usage in the NC re: akathartos-unclean (most of the NC having to do with unclean spirits).

And as you know Peter tells what he got from the vision in 10:28.

Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Yes, as I said, I looked at this section of Scripture many, many times and noticed 10:28 & God's command in 11:9. Honestly, at the time I wanted there to be food laws and 10:28 was my fallback conclusion. But I was never settled.

Acts10:28 seems to tie koinos & akarthatos together or Peter could still be seeing men as akarthatos since, per what you seem to have said above, God did not cleanse them - but only cleansed the kainos man .

And then we do have Rom14 & 1Cor8:

NKJ Rom14:14-18 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean koinos-common of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean koinos-common, to him it is unclean koinos-common. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable-pleasing to God and approved by dokimos-valuable to men.

• Spiritually, the KOG is not eating & drinking.
  • Issues of foods being koinos seems to be a mindset issue.
• 1Cor8:3-6 There is one God - so-called gods & idols are nothing.
  • 1Cor8:7 those with weak consciences eat foods offered to idols and their weak consciences are molunō-soiled/stained.
  • 1Cor8:8 Food does not present/prove us to God:
    • We don't abound if we eat.
    • We don't lack if we don't eat.
  • This is Rom14:17 in different statements/terminology.
  • This is Jesus' instruction re: kainos in Matt15 & Mark7 - food does not make a man kainos-common - sin in man's heart coming out makes a man kainos-common.

IMcurrentO, the big lesson on all of this is Heb9:1-14 where the w(W)riter speaks of koinoō in Heb9:13 and cleansing of flesh in the old order vs. the cleansing and perfecting of consciences in the new order in Christ. Within this section we are also instructed of the earthly tabernacle with physical implements including the ark with its [memorial] items of the old covenant vs. the heavenly tabernacle. And we're told the old system sanctified for the cleansing of the flesh when a man had been koinoō-defiled-made common in sin and all of this was just literally a parable for the new order wherein the blood of Christ is cleansing consciences from dead works to serve the living God.

• This is the reason I said "Spiritually" under Rom14 above. I think a wrong focus on food & false-gods, idols, physical things like what we do on Saturday vs. Sunday vs. any other strict calendar issue is just living with one foot in the parable - the old order - the age of childhood.
• This is a spiritual issue now - a growing up and grownup issue now. It's a perfecting of conscience with Law put in minds & written on non-hardened hearts so there is nothing in us that can make us koinos-common.
  • This takes us into the righteous character of God that is the issue now that He's established the grown-up era in His Perfect Son.

As for food on a physical plane: I've been observant of food as it relates to physical health issues for over 4 decades. I read and studied OC food laws. One example I recall is some fish that God says not to eat. In researching it I found it to basically be functioning as a water filter - cleansing the water of filth. I thought and still think it makes sense not to eat water filters & to let the Creator instruct us on such matters. As I look around and having done so for those decades, it's little to no wonder to me why there is so much physical sickness and, with the physcho somatic ties in the flesh, why there are some mental issues. BUT, based on what I read, food is not stronger than Christ and does not present us to God.

I like to think I am lol.

A common thing for most if not all of us.

It tells us outright what God places in the heart.
Romans 10:6-8 is a paraphrase of Deut 30 10-14. Paul's readers would have made that connection and read Deut.

I suppose you mean "Christ".

 

[Studyman]

Well, my point is still the same, no matter how many colors you use or how many strange questions you ask.

You mean your religion is right regardless of what the scriptures actually say. I get that, the mainstream preachers of Jesus Time thought the same thing.

I asked questions regarding your preaching because I am told to "test the spirits", and also to be careful of someone preaching "another Jesus".

The Jesus of the Bible said to His Disciples,

John 6: 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Paul teaches;

1 Cor. 10: 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The Scriptures I posted, that you refused to acknowledge, are from this same Christ in my understanding. I asked you, because I am told to ask you, if your religion considers this "Redeemer" as the same Christ who became a man in the person of Jesus.

I get that you don't want to answer. The preachers in Jesus Time didn't either.

The Mosaic Law was given till Christ. Though we can learn useful insights from the Old Testament, we live in a different era. We are to walk in what was said to us, not in what was said to ancient Israel.

The Jesus of the Bible teaches "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

When given the option of listening to this world's preachers, or God, Peter, inspired by the Spirit of the Christ of the Bible, teaches me this. Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

When asked how to enter Life, the Jesus of the Bible said "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." When asked "Which", HE said "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Are these not that same Laws this same Christ gave to ancient Israel? And in your religion, because Jesus didn't mention the First and Greatest commandment here, are the faithful supposed to ignore it as well??

As we can learn from the story of Noah, while not taking the commandment to build the ark literally for us, so also we can learn from the Mosaic Law, while not taking its ceremonial commandments being literally for us (like the Sabbath keeping).

I guess it depends on what Jesus a person believes in. The Jesus of the Bible said it was lawful to do Good on God's Sabbath that was created for men, HE didn't say it was Lawful to reject it or forget to keep it Holy.

Because I believe in this Jesus, these Words of His mean something to me. As for His Teaching only being for Ancient Israel, the Christ doesn't agree with your religion on this point either.

Is. 56: 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Surely the Jesus of the Bible honored His Father in His Commandments. Since it is written "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.", perhaps you might reconsider your religious philosophy. Or not, it's a choice all men are to make.

 

[trophy33]

You mean your religion is right regardless of what the scriptures actually say. I get that, the mainstream preachers of Jesus Time thought the same thing.

I asked questions regarding your preaching because I am told to "test the spirits", and also to be careful of someone preaching "another Jesus".

The Jesus of the Bible said to His Disciples,

John 6: 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Paul teaches;

1 Cor. 10: 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The Scriptures I posted, that you refused to acknowledge, are from this same Christ in my understanding. I asked you, because I am told to ask you, if your religion considers this "Redeemer" as the same Christ who became a man in the person of Jesus.

I get that you don't want to answer. The preachers in Jesus Time didn't either.



The Jesus of the Bible teaches "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

When given the option of listening to this world's preachers, or God, Peter, inspired by the Spirit of the Christ of the Bible, teaches me this. Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

When asked how to enter Life, the Jesus of the Bible said "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." When asked "Which", HE said "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Are these not that same Laws this same Christ gave to ancient Israel? And in your religion, because Jesus didn't mention the First and Greatest commandment here, are the faithful supposed to ignore it as well??



I guess it depends on what Jesus a person believes in. The Jesus of the Bible said it was lawful to do Good on God's Sabbath that was created for men, HE didn't say it was Lawful to reject it or forget to keep it Holy.

Because I believe in this Jesus, these Words of His mean something to me. As for His Teaching only being for Ancient Israel, the Christ doesn't agree with your religion on this point either.

Is. 56: 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Surely the Jesus of the Bible honored His Father in His Commandments. Since it is written "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.", perhaps you might reconsider your religious philosophy. Or not, it's a choice all men are to make.

If you want to talk about the points I made, we can. But make it simple, I am not willing to read through chaotic long posts with random colorization of various words in unrelated verses.

1. The Law was given to Israel.
2. The Law was given only till Christ.

Do you have anything against those? It would surprise me, considering that its quite clearly in the Bible.

 

[Studyman]

If you want to talk about the points I made, we can. But make it simple, I am not willing to read through chaotic long posts with random colorization of various words in unrelated verses.

1. The Law was given to Israel.

Ex. 12: 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

According to the Christ of the Bible, God's Law was for both homeborn and the stranger. I also posted the Christ's Own Words regarding who God's Sabbaths were for as well. But you are not willing to consider them.

2. The Law was given only till Christ.

Sacrificial Law of Forgiveness "After the Order of Aaron" was given Till the Prophesied Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek" should come. At least according to the Words of the Holy One of Israel, the Christ of the Bible. God's definition of Holy, Just and Good didn't change, at least according to the Jesus of the Bible.

Do you have anything against those? It would surprise me, considering that its quite clearly in the Bible.

Only Scriptures. But many are not persuaded to believe in the Jesus of the Bible, based on Scriptures. The Jesus of the Bible tells me this as well.

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[trophy33]

Ex. 12: 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

According to the Christ of the Bible, God's Law was for both homeborn and the stranger.

"Among you" is quite clear - it was about strangers living in Israel. If I moved to the USA, I would be under the US laws as any American, while being there, though I was born elsewhere.

Such concepts are so easily understood that I wonder why you struggle with them.

Sacrificial Law of Forgiveness "After the Order of Aaron" was given Till the Prophesied Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek" should come. At least according to the Words of the Holy One of Israel, the Christ of the Bible. God's definition of Holy, Just and Good didn't change, at least according to the Jesus of the Bible.

Biblical terms are "the Law" or "the law of Moses" and similar. For example, there is nothing sacrificial about stoning adulterers to death. But its discontinued, anyway - as a part of the Law that was discontinued as a whole, after fulfilling its purpose.

Only some things from the Law still apply, being universal, moral and repeated to Christians. And also new ones were given to Christians, unknown to Jews before.

 

[HIM]

Yes, the Law was for sinners. And we can learn from it. But it is not for us today.

We must read the New Testament in its full context, not just few verses.

Is for sinners and for sound doctrine. Present tense not past. Paul was speaking to Timothy instructing him for the church. Saying it is not doesn't change what God said through Paul to the church through Timothy.

1Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

 

[trophy33]

Is for sinners and for sound doctrine. Present tense not past. Paul was speaking to Timothy instructing him for the church. Saying it is not doesn't change what God said through Paul to the church through Timothy.

1Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

Do you stone adulterers?

If not, then what are we talking about? We both agree the Law is not for us, as a whole and in its literal meaning.

The Law is useful to understand the theological history of faith or for its moral teachings that continue in the New Covenant era. Certainly, it was a useful tool for Christians from Jews to preach to other Jews about Christ, but not so much for us today.

Its easy to misunderstand one specific verse, if we ignore the whole context of the Gospel, of the kingdom of God and of the very specific transitional era (since the birth of Christ until the final judgement of 70 AD) between covenants.