Did Abraham observe the Sabbath day?

[oikonomia]

As I mentioned previously, most literally it is "not anyone" - "No one" saying the same thing.

I see a lot of "anyones" mentioned in context, even a few from verses you've posted above. "Not anyone" / "No one" easily seems to flow in the context. There are many sources of delusions, ungodly philosophy, defrauding. The point being our Source is clear & there are many "anyones" who rebel against it and like to take others with them.

Yes. The post directed to you GDL was also intended to answer another poster's question.

Now I have written the same thing addressing that poster.

 

[GDL]

In Matt 5 Jesus condemns the idea that someone would claim his teaching was to disregard the law of God. His enemies often did that very thing as the gospels show us.

Agreed

You are using the text out of context - because Jesus is saying that following the Law of God to the letter in the case of the Priests is to do work - to do their work as priests of God in holy office respecting and reverencing the Sabbath but if someone were not a priest and was doing their specific secular work on Sabbath it would be Sabbath breaking.

I'm simply reading the verse and asking why Jesus says what He clearly says and I'm not disregarding context.

In verse 3 Jesus refers the Pharisees to the Torah concerning what David did.

In verse 5 with the same wording Jesus refers the Pharisees to the Torah concerning the Priests desecrating the Sabbath.

Not once at Sinai or in the 40 years following Moses did God ever charge the Priests with Sabbath breaking because they chose to follow His word to the Letter in offering the sacrifices of God as part of holy worship on the Sabbath - and we all know it. By taking his statement out of context one could get to many sorts of contradictions. But if taken in context all the supposed contradictions of Christ vanish.

Nice try.

You begin with essentially saying Jesus always taught according to Law and end with saying something is not found in Torah that Jesus seems to say is found in Torah. Do you mind if I trust what He says?

I'm happy to go through this section of Matt12 word by word as necessary and try to work it out. There seem to be some zealous students of the Text here. Maybe we'll come to some agreement.

 

[GDL]

Where is the scripture that says all Christians have the Spirit.

I think Romans 8:4-8 makes the case that those who are hostile to God's law are not in His Spirit. Jesus said IF you love Me, keep My commandments And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

We're off-track which is a problem with these lengthy posts.

What's a Christian? Who's a Christian? Who's "in Spirit"? Continue reading Rom8 especially one verse more - Rom8:9.

Who is Jesus speaking to in John14? Was it pre or post Acts2?

I agree there are lessons there in regard to love and obedience. I'll not take any position against the need for obedience. You should know I see obedience as the key and connector to Biblical Love and to Biblical Faith at minimum. I am settled in this regard and more so than many others in my discussions experience. I'm also a staunch proponent of God's Law correctly understood and used lawfully. From past discussions, I think you know this.

I do not think God's Law is fully understood. I have read and done many studies on it over 3-4 decades. I wouldn't even be discussing Sabbath again if it were not for listening to some teachings on Theonomy again and reading some arguments against it that brought in some general points re: Sabbath views between the proponents and opponents of Theonomy.

At this juncture I may be more interested in the Jew's studies of the 613 and the hundreds of no longer observable than I am the more surface argumentation of the church including its traditions. I know I will encounter Sabbath and others that I will have to compare to the Law of Christ. Paul pointed us to any other commandment in Torah that we should consider for the summary command in Lev19:18. I've found few if any who have taken this cue from him and pursued it.

So, here's a question for you for this post and to end this line of discussion - Do you think I am in Spirit even though I do not fully agree that the 7th day Sabbath is a required observance in the Law of Christ? Please also answer why. If you chose not to, I'll understand and simply accept your choice.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

We're off-track which is a problem with these lengthy posts.

What's a Christian? Who's a Christian? Who's "in Spirit"? Continue reading Rom8 especially one verse more - Rom8:9.

I think this verse defines who is in the Spirit verses who is not....not sure how verse 9 deletes verse 8, they work in harmoney.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death (walking in the flesh), but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (obedience is peace Isa 48:18) 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh (sin) cannot please God.9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

So, here's a question for you for this post and to end this line of discussion - Do you think I am in Spirit even though I do not fully agree that the 7th day Sabbath is a required observance in the Law of Christ? Please also answer why. If you chose not to, I'll understand and simply accept your choice.

I think our heart can be deceptive Proverbs 16:25 and we are told to live by faith, not sight 2 Corinthians 5:7 and to live by every Word Mat 4:4. The Sabbath commandment was personally spoken and written by God alone and is part of His eternal commandments and I think you are deceiving yourself to think we can forget the one commandment God had the foresight to know man would forget and started this commandment with "Remember" and the one commandment God blessed and made holy. God wants to spend time with us on the day He set aside to do so, not the one man assigned to God. Is our birthday the same celebrated the day before or day after? I think we ought to obey God over man regardless if it makes sense to us or is not what the majority are doing.

 

[GDL]

He was using the showbread as an example of why eating is not a sin on the Sabbath- this goes back to the story when young David was running for his life from Saul and went into the temple and was given showbread to eat because he was hungry much like the disciples were when they were walking with Jesus and was plucking the heads of grain and smashing it and eating along the way walking with Jesus which is not a sin, they were not harvesting grain. Jesus was not quoting from the Ten Commandments- Jesus was referencing the laws made by the Pharisees, not the commandments of God. There is no mention of eating or drinking in the Sabbath commandment Exo 20:8-11, the Sabbath is meant to honor God on His holy day and if one is hungry on the Sabbath and wants to pick a piece of fruit off a tree to eat, its not a sin, which is why they were held blameless. Jesus is not giving permission to "profane" the Sabbath commandment - how many times did He say not to do that? You seem to keep siding with the Pharasees on this issue.

I'd appreciate it if you would cease the accusations like your last sentence. And nowhere am I saying or insinuating that Jesus is giving permission to "profane" the Sabbath commandment.

I think there is clearly more to the reference of David and the showbread. Jesus says it was not lawful for David and those with him to eat it and it was only lawful for the Priests to eat it. It's not simply about eating something on Sabbath which is clearly not unlawful or sinful.

When Jesus refers to Torah and the Priests' work in the Temple, He again uses words related to Law - desecration and blameless.

This is a discussion and lesson about Law more so than about Sabbath. Sabbath was the circumstance and Jesus was a master at even setting up these circumstances.

Another question: You have referred to the Preparation Day and we can all read the story and lesson about manna. Israel was told not to gather on Shabbat but to gather sufficiently the day before so not to gather on the 7th day. Why do you say plucking and smashing grain is different than gathering manna? Where in Torah is such distinction made? Or did this simply have to do with the fact that He and His disciples were doing God's work on Sabbath and stopped for a snack? Or ???? There's no need to refer to the oral law traditions. I've no argument that it was a problem Jesus dealt with more than once.

 

[GDL]

Yes. The post directed to you GDL was also intended to answer another poster's question.

Now I have written the same thing addressing that poster.

Understood. Thanks.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I'd appreciate it if you would cease the accusations like your last sentence.

I am simply pointing out the Pharisees are the one accusing Jesus and the disciples here- I am just pointing out the camp you appear to be siding with. Jesus said they were guiltless Mat 12:7 not because He bended the rules for His people or Himself because they were not sinning. Thats good enough for me.

And nowhere am I saying or insinuating that Jesus is giving permission to "profane" the Sabbath commandment.

Ok, agreed, so not sure why you do not understand this passage.

I think there is clearly more to the reference of David and the showbread. Jesus says it was not lawful for David and those with him to eat it and it was only lawful for the Priests to eat it. It's not simply about eating something on Sabbath which is clearly not unlawful or sinful.

Jesus is showing that He is practical - it was not in violation of the Sabbath commandment.

Another question: You have referred to the Preparation Day and we can all read the story and lesson about manna. Israel was told not to gather on Shabbat but to gather sufficiently the day before so not to gather on the 7th day. Why do you say plucking and smashing grain is different than gathering manna? Where in Torah is such distinction made? Or did this simply have to do with the fact that He and His disciples were doing God's work on Sabbath and stopped for a snack? Or ???? There's no need to refer to the oral law traditions. I've no argument that it was a problem Jesus dealt with more than once.

God gave manna 6 days and the Israelites were to gather twice as much on the sixth day to eat on the Sabbath. Gathering two days' worth of food, which would be the equivalent of grocery shopping today on the Preparation Day to prepare and eat on the Sabbath. The disciples were not harvesting grain, they were eating the heads because they were hungry, which is not a sin, they broke the law of the Pharisees not the law of God, which is why Jesus said they were guiltless Mat 12:7. Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for keeping their traditions over the commandments of God Mat 15:3-9 for Jesus to do the same, which makes Him a hypocrite and could not be our Savior.

 

[GDL]

I think this verse defines who is in the Spirit verses who is not....not sure how verse 9 deletes verse 8, they work in harmoney.

Are you insinuating that I suggested that verse 9 deletes verse 8? FWIW, these statements make it hard to tell.

Rom8:9 explains who is in Spirit. You [pl] are "in Spirit" if indeed - if in fact - God's spirit dwells in you [pl]. Also, you [pl] are not in flesh if in fact God's Spirit dwells in you [pl].

I think our heart can be deceptive Proverbs 16:25 and we are told to live by faith, not sight 2 Corinthians 5:7 and to live by every Word Mat 4:4. The Sabbath commandment was personally spoken and written by God alone and is part of His eternal commandments and I think you are deceiving yourself to think we can forget the one commandment God had the foresight to know man would forget and started this commandment with "Remember" and the one commandment God blessed and made holy. God wants to spend time with us on the day He set aside to do so, not the one man assigned to God. Is our birthday the same celebrated the day before or day after? I think we ought to obey God over man regardless if it makes sense to us or is not what the majority are doing.

IOW, in your view I'm not in Sprit, God's Spirit does not dwell in me, I do not have the Spirit of Christ, and thus I have not been baptized in Spirit and am not a Christian but am self-deceived because I do not fully agree with SDA interpretation of the continuing validity of the 4th of the 10?

This would be a great place to make vividly clear your view of SDA doctrine. It sounds like you could be saying if a person does not observe the 7th day Sabbath, then such person is not a Christian. Is this your belief?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Are you insinuating that I suggested that verse 9 deletes verse 8? FWIW, these statements make it hard to tell.

Rom8:9 explains who is in Spirit. You [pl] are "in Spirit" if indeed - if in fact - God's spirit dwells in you [pl]. Also, you [pl] are not in flesh if in fact God's Spirit dwells in you [pl].

Can we be walking in the flesh (sin) if the Spirit dwells in us? Are those in the Spirit hostile the law of God? I think the Spirit can be convicting us of sin (which is good we haven't been closed to His voice) but in God's Spirit, I believe we are in harmony with God's law- which brings peace Isa 48:18

IOW, in your view I'm not in Sprit, God's Spirit does not dwell in me, I do not have the Spirit of Christ, and thus I have not been baptized in Spirit and am not a Christian but am self-deceived because I do not fully agree with SDA interpretation of the continuing validity of the 4th of the 10?

This would be a great place to make vividly clear your view of SDA doctrine. It sounds like you could be saying if a person does not observe the 7th day Sabbath, then such person is not a Christian. Is this your belief?

If someone is practicing coveting or practicing adultery or worshipping other gods, which they place above God and not come to repentance is that person in a saved state? God does not pluck out the 4th commandment from the other commandments the way man does. James said, not SDA you break one of the commandments contrasting from the Ten you break them all James 2:10-12. The He who said thou shalt not murder is the same He who said Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. The same unit of Ten that God placed together that no man has authority to separate, add to or subtract from.

Will there be people who kept the first day holy over keeping the Sabbath commandment in heaven- yes. We are only judged based on the light we have, but once we come to the light (God's Truth) and reject it, we are told there remains no more sacrifice. John 3:19-21 Heb 10:26

We are not saved by law keeping, we are saved by God's grace through faith. Those with faith keep God's law not to be saved, but because the saved live differently than the lost.

 

[GDL]

I am simply pointing out the Pharisees are the one accusing Jesus and the disciples here- I am just pointing out the camp you appear to be siding with. Jesus said they were guiltless Mat 12:7 not because He bended the rules for His people or Himself because they were not sinning. Thats good enough for me.

You're quite mistaken in what you say I seem to be doing or who I seem to be siding with. And you're really not grasping any depth in these verses.

Ok, agreed, so not sure why you do not understand this passage.

I may well understand more than you about these passages. In fact, from reading this post, I think you're interpreting them at a very surface level and then using your surface level understanding to assert the validity of the 4th from an event that is pre resurrection and session and pre AD70. It's not very convincing.

Jesus is showing that He is practical - it was not in violation of the Sabbath commandment.

OK. It's nice that Jesus is practical.

God gave manna 6 days and the Israelites were to gather twice as much on the sixth day to eat on the Sabbath. Gathering two days' worth of food, which would be the equivalent of grocery shopping today on the Preparation Day to prepare and eat on the Sabbath.

Thank you for the grocery store analogy.

The disciples were not harvesting grain, they were eating the heads because they were hungry, which is not a sin,

Seems they might have been shopping and picking up groceries on Sabbath and not on Prep Day.

they broke the law of the Pharisees not the law of God, which is why Jesus said they were guiltless Mat 12:7. Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for keeping their traditions over the commandments of God Mat 15:3-9 for Jesus to do the same, which makes Him a hypocrite and could not be our Savior.

Is the above strikethrough OK with you, or am I misunderstanding you?

There's more to this blameless and guiltless (same Greek word BTW - basically means innocent). IMO there's a greater lesson here and a reason Jesus goes into this level of referencing. IMO He is speaking to more than their traditions and is getting deeper into their not knowing how to analyze and use the Law as it is structured and as to its main goal. IOW, at times Jesus deals with their traditions (like Matt15 as you've referenced above) but here He's telling them they don't even understand how to think through written Torah and they're dealing with the Lord of Sabbath who's there making His case against them. If He's Lord of Sabbath, then what else is He also Lord of?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You're quite mistaken in what you say I seem to be doing or who I seem to be siding with. And you're really not grasping any depth in these verses.

I may well understand more than you about these passages. In fact, from reading this post, I think you're interpreting them at a very surface level and then using your surface level understanding to assert the validity of the 4th from an event that is pre resurrection and session and pre AD70. It's not very convincing.

OK. It's nice that Jesus is practical.

Thank you for the grocery store analogy.

Seems they might have been shopping and picking up groceries on Sabbath and not on Prep Day.

Is the above strikethrough OK with you, or am I misunderstanding you?

There's more to this blameless and guiltless (same Greek word BTW - basically means innocent). IMO there's a greater lesson here and a reason Jesus goes into this level of referencing. IMO He is speaking to more than their traditions and is getting deeper into their not knowing how to analyze and use the Law as it is structured and as to its main goal. IOW, at times Jesus deals with their traditions (like Matt15 as you've referenced above) but here He's telling them they don't even understand how to think through written Torah and they're dealing with the Lord of Sabbath who's there making His case against them. If He's Lord of Sabbath, then what else is He also Lord of?

Sorry please show from scripture where the apostles were gathering two days worth of food or harvesting. This is exactly what the Pharisees were accusing them of and not what they were doing.

The same Pharisees who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath and not being equal to God.

Can you please post your reference re 70AD and how that changes the 4th commandment and what changes you are implying here? When Jesus died on the cross- He said it is finished- nothing can be added/changed to His covenant.

 

[GDL]

Can we be walking in the flesh (sin) if the Spirit dwells in us? Are those in the Spirit hostile the law of God? I think the Spirit can be convicting us of sin (which is good we haven't been closed to His voice) but in God's Spirit, I believe we are in harmony with God's law- which brings peace Isa 48:18


If someone is practicing coveting or practicing adultery or worshipping other gods, which they place above God and not come to repentance is that person in a saved state? God does not pluck out the 4th commandment from the other commandments the way man does. James said, not SDA you break one of the commandments contrasting from the Ten you break them all James 2:10-12. The He who said thou shalt not murder is the same He who said Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. The same unit of Ten that God placed together that no man has authority to separate, add to or subtract from.

Will there be people who kept the first day holy over keeping the Sabbath commandment in heaven- yes. We are only judged based on the light we have, but once we come to the light (God's Truth) and reject it, we are told there remains no more sacrifice. John 3:19-21 Heb 10:26

We are not saved by law keeping, we are saved by God's grace through faith. Those with faith keep God's law not to be saved, but because the saved live differently than the lost.

You're dancing. Please get focused and succinct in your answer to my question.

 

[GDL]

Sorry please show from scripture where the apostles were gathering two's worth of food or harvesting

Please show from Scripture that the disciples were not visiting the grocery store on Sabbath or that such manna reference is out of place here. Your analogy, not mine.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Please show from Scripture that the disciples were not visiting the grocery store on Sabbath or that such manna reference is out of place here. Your analogy, not mine.

You're the one who equated that with what the apostles were doing, "gathering two days' worth of groceries" not me.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You're dancing. Please get focused and succinct in your answer to my question.

No, I am sharing what the scriptures state. I need to run anyway- may check back later. Take care.

 

[GDL]

Can you please post your reference re 70AD and how that changes the 4th commandment and what changes you are implying here? When Jesus died on the cross- He said it is finished- nothing can be added to His covenant.

Isn't this the reason there is so much referencing and debate on this Sabbath issue? You can't prove to your opponents' satisfaction that Sabbath is valid in the Law of Christ. They can't prove to your satisfaction that it's not. I'm taking the side that it's not valid while being open to the Truth. What I'm seeing from your side is mainly some weak interpretation and even some error IMO. As I said, such is not convincing.

The issue re: 70 AD is simple in concept and a lot of work in reality. Some of it is tied into different views of Eschatology which makes it even more challenging.

The Law was changed. Hebrews says this very clearly. If not, then Jesus is not Great High Priest. As I've mentioned it is clear that a large body of Mosaic Law is no longer observable or applicable. You know better than many the arguments that posit that the 4th Word/Statement is among those laws that are not applicable and the reasons for those interpretations.

AD70 comes into play because that was the final destruction of the OC Jerusalem and system. But this destruction was assured when Jesus was resurrected and seated. So, there were approximately 40 years between Jesus being made Messiah and High Priest and the final taking down of the OC system.

You continually point to Sabbath keeping of Jesus. But of course, He lived under and by Mosaic Law. Then you continually point to Sabbath observance by the Apostles while the Jewish system was still in place. Simply put, pre-resurrection and pre AD70 are not normative but transitional.

You know the rest. SDA has done more work than most if not all in regard to taking a stand against Rome on the Sabbath matter. I've listened to, read, and found such work to be of interest.

I'm not advocating for Sunday, and I'm not resolved about Saturday. Until the issue is made clear to me in Scripture, I'll rest on being convinced in my own mind and must consider your work and the work of your opponents to be the mind of men.

With this said, I'm going to look for an answer to my question that IMO you've danced around. IMfurtherO, if you're making Sabbath an issue related to being in Spirit and having Christ in us, then your advocacy for Sabbath is unbiblical in this era. I'm also stepping away for a while, so more will have to wait.

 

[BobRyan]

I'll disregard Isaiah for now. As I said, eschatology needs to be included in the analysis. I have no argument against the importance of Sabbath in the OC era.

NKJ Matthew 12:5 "Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?

It seems Jesus is making reference to Torah to make this observation. Jesus disagreed with Torah?

In Matt 5 Jesus condemns the idea that someone would claim his teaching was to disregard the law of God. His enemies often did that very thing as the gospels show us.

Agreed

So then we have to keep that context in mind since Jesus makes that Matt 5 statement at the start of His ministry. We can't come back later and claim Jesus was breaking God's law and teaching others to do likewise -- AS IF that is in line with what He told us not to do in Matt 5.

So then Jesus is saying that following the Law of God to the letter in the case of the Priests is to do work - to do their work as priests of God in holy office respecting and reverencing the Sabbath

This is irrefutable and all sides of the Sabbath debate can freely admit it.

but if someone were not a priest and was doing their specific secular work on Sabbath it would be Sabbath breaking. -- again just stating the obvious.

so then -- Not once at Sinai or in the 40 years following Moses did God ever charge the Priests with Sabbath breaking because they chose to follow His word to the Letter in offering the sacrifices of God as part of holy worship on the Sabbath - and we all know it.

Again impossible to refute this obvious detail.

By taking his statement out of context one could get to many sorts of contradictions. But if taken in context all the supposed contradictions of Christ vanish.

I'm simply reading the verse and asking why Jesus says what He clearly says and I'm not disregarding context.

Then it is obviously because those opposing him were trying to accuse him of sin , of rebellion against the Law of God, of what 1 John 3:4 calls "transgression of the Law" since the NT says that is what "sin IS" in 1 John 3.

In verse 3 Jesus refers the Pharisees to the Torah concerning what David did.

Indeed. In both cases Jesus points to context - arguing that "context matters".

In context - Jesus and his disciples were engaged in Gospel ministry just as the priests of Moses' day were.

In verse 5 with the same wording Jesus refers the Pharisees to the Torah concerning the Priests desecrating the Sabbath.

Indeed and both side of this discussion admit that the Priests were actually obeying God's law for priests - to the letter, even during the 40 years in the wilderness as they did the work of conducting worship services on Sabbath.

I don't see how that is even a little bit confusing.

His point was that "in context" they were engaged in obedience - even though in a different context it would be transgressing God's Law

Nice try.

Does context not appeal to you?

So far I have only been stating the obvious.

 

[BobRyan]

SabbathBlessings said:

Can you please post your reference re 70AD and how that changes the 4th commandment and what changes you are implying here? When Jesus died on the cross- He said it is finished- nothing can be added to His covenant.

Isn't this the reason there is so much referencing and debate on this Sabbath issue? You can't prove to your opponents' satisfaction that Sabbath is valid in the Law of Christ.

Jesus could not prove "to his opponents satisfaction" that He was the true Messiah. Even though millions of others free admitted that His proofs were more than enough. This is the same case with the Sabbath topic. Many who oppose it claim "not enough" while millions of others that read the text of scripture and notice the details - freely admit to the obvious about the TEN and the unedited "Commandments of God" containing God's seventh day Sabbath.

They can't prove to your satisfaction that it's not.

Just as the enemies of Christ could not prove to His satisfaction that His teaching was in error.

The fact that "opposers exist" is not proof that something is right or wrong.

It is the "details" of scripture that matter.

The Law was changed. Hebrews says this very clearly.

Not true of the moral law of God -- which almost every Christian denomination on planet Earth will admit regarding "the TEN" still being authoritative. They still seem to get that detail correct.

Hebrew 7 states that it is specifically speaking of Law regarding who is a valid priest and who is not. Details matter. By skimming over enough of them you could argue almost any idea - but when the details matter to a Bible student they often come to a consistent bible supported conclusion.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Please forgive me for not having read your 1000 discussions. That's the thing with forums like this. These discussions are one big repetitive merry-go-round that normally resolve nothing but keep the posters looking at advertisements or paying fees like a good social media venture. So, please don't blame me for not having focused on your discussions. Nothing personal.

You're being a little too aggressive for my tastes. I'm quite able to respond in kind but would rather keep that side of me at rest for now.

Yes, I do understand these things you mention. And I attended a Messianic congregation on Shabbat with a wonderful Rabbi for years when the movement was much younger and have continued to read Messianic writings for decades along with extensive non-Messianic writings and studies. I'm surprised you haven't read my few 1000 posts and don't know me better (got that out, now resting again).

If I'm asking questions and putting forth argument for or against something, it doesn't always mean I'm settled one way or the other.

Why don't you say something constructive and analyze Matt12:1-8 for us? One of the most interesting explanations - in part - that I've read was written by a Messianic.

Also, if you haven't done so already, why don't you answer the bottom section of this post for me linked here?

You are right, it does get annoying answering the same things over and over and over.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Seems like more insertion into the Text than taking from the Text.

What am I "inserting"?