Do you keep the Sabbath? (poll)

[Studyman]

The law is mentioned three times. Once in respect to circumcision,

I can see how a person might make this mistake, But the Biblical Truth is that Paul calls the promoters and followers of the "Jews religion" the Circumcision, "made with hands". I posted the Scriptures, but perhaps you didn't read them. He also called men who didn't follow the "Jews Religion", the "uncircumcision". He also called the Body of Christ, the True Circumcision and that Jesus was "a Minister of this circumcision", "The truth of God". I posted the Inspired Words of God showing His Truth here as well, but you didn't acknowledge these verses either, I'm not sure why.

The implication of this teaching is that the disciples would go up to a man, pull his pants down to see of his foreskin was still intact, and if it was would declare, "Paul, this ones for you", and if it wasn't, they would declare, "Peter, this ones for you".

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of "the uncircumcision" was committed unto me, as the gospel "of the circumcision" was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, (Non-Jews) and they unto the circumcision. (Jews)

Consider the meaning of the following scripture, viewed through the prism of this popular religious philosophy you are promoting.

1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

If I view this through the prism you are promoting, that every mention of "circumcision" is a reference to God's LAW, then this verse would mean:

19 God's Commandments mean nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.


I don't believe this is what Paul was teaching, even though this world's religious system imply that it is.

But if I view this scriptures though the prism of Paul's teaching, this verse would mean,

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

once in respect to not fellowshipping with unbelievers.

Again, there wasn't a LAW against eating with unbelievers, if that was true, Israel would have been condemned in Egypt, as they were unbelievers as well. And Caleb and Joshua would have had to separate themselves from 598,000 Israelites, who God Himself, Paul and Jesus said were not believers. The Prophets would not have been allowed to rebuke and warn the Israelites, who were unbelievers.

And the Galatians Paul is speaking to here, had already received the Spirit of God as Paul clearly points out in the beginning of chapter 3. This means they had already "repented, turned to God, and were bringing works worthy of repentance" as Paul teaches both Jew and Gentile. Also, they had already obeyed God because Peter and the Holy Spirit both testified that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit "whom God hath given to them that obey him."

So the popular religious philosophy you are promoting, that Peter was sitting with "unbelievers" in Gal. 1 cannot be true, unless I reject both his, and Paul's teaching. Not only that, but there is nowhere in the Text where Paul, Peter or God calls the Galatians in question, "Unbelievers". You injected this word into the text. That is a simple Biblical fact. Why would you do that?

And once in respect to incorporating their ways.

Whose ways? Where in the bible is it written that the Pharisees obeyed God's Ways? They might have obeyed a couple, even satan obeys some of God's laws from time to time. Jesus even said of these "children of the devil" HE called hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

Your entire premise is founded on 2 things.

#1. God's Laws were against Jesus, Paul and the Body of Christ.

#2. The Pharisees were trying to earn Salvation by obeying God's Laws.

Both philosophies, though popular, are not supported by Paul's teaching, nor that of Jesus, nor the Law and Prophets. This teaching in wrought in the heart of man, not God, according to my understanding of the Scriptures that I have posted for our examination and discernment. Scriptures I might add, that you refuse to even acknowledge.

As Paul teaches:

Rom. 2: 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

For there is no respect of persons with God.

All of which is said in relation to how the Law does not make one righteous IF NOT through the Faith of Jesus Christ. If righteousness came by circumcision, not fellowshipping with unbelievers and not incorperating their ways, the Law, the Book of the Law then Christ died in vain.

Yes, if Salvation relied on a circumcision, "made with hands", and only given to men born with Jewish DNA, and only given to men who adopt this world's religious system, then truly Jesus died in vain. But the Book of the LAW commands that we abstain from doing all these things. Why aren't you teaching this truth.

1 John 3: 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness "is righteous", even as he is righteous.

Though it is no longer in place, Not once in the entire letter is the sacrificial system mention let alone chapter 2.

If you take Galatians, separate it from the rest of the entire Bible, ALL of Jesus' Words and actions defining the "Jews Religion" and all of Paul's other letters, then create religious doctrines based on it alone, then your statement might have some merit.

Until you would have to deal with finding the LAW that was ADDED 430 years after Abraham, that was ADDED "Because of transgression of God's Laws", and that was only to be force until the Christ came. You are preaching that this Law Paul is speaking to included "Circumcision". And the 10 Commandments, and the Judgments concerning Clean animals and the Feasts of the Lord.

I can show you in Scriptures where God's Law of Circumcision, Adultery, murder, Clean and unclean animals and God's Holy Sabbath, and I would argue even Passover, was known and honored by Noah and Abraham long before Moses. And to deny that the Pharisees didn't promote their version of the Levitical Priesthood in Paul's time is foolishness, in my view. Do you think Noah or Abraham butchered a pig for dinner, or fired up the grill on Sabbath morning and fried up some sausage and bacon for breakfast? I think not. But I know one thing for sure, they didn't take a goat to the Levite Priest and kill it for their sins, as that LAW wasn't added until 430 years after Abraham. Levi wasn't even born until after Abraham died. Why can't you accept these undeniable Biblical Truths?

It is NOT the context. Since you did not actually address the points shared in the post but attempted to talk over it I will repost it until you take the time to read it and address the points shared within the context. Whether you do or not will be seen. I hope you do.

I addressed specifically your philosophy. I posted both Jesus' and Isaiah description of the Jews who were bewitching the Galatians. A beseeched you to consider their words. I asked you question after question. You know I did, and yet now you say I didn't.

Paul mentions Circumcision in respect to Titus not being circumcised,

But neither Titus *** was compelled to be circumcised:

I addressed this specifically, and yet you accuse me of not addressing it. Why would you do such a thing?

Judeans not living as the Gentiles live but as do the Jews, and being separate from those who are not Jews in chapter 2 of Galatians.

Live as what Jews? Those Jews "Bewitching the Galatians"? Or the Jews who had "Yielded themselves servants to obey God"? I addressed this specifically, and yet you preach to others that I didn't.

All of these are laws which are within the Book of the Law that is mentioned in verse 3:10. Ergo the law mentioned that does not justify is the Book of the Law. As it is written, the just (the righteous) live out of faith vs 11, the faith that establishes the law. The faith Abraham had. For the word, the commandments and statutes contained in the Book of the Law is in our heart and in our mouth that we do it.

And yet you accuse me of not addressing these things. What Law of God is that?

That is the word of faith that we preach and must hear. The Law, the commandments and statutes contained in the Book of the Law are in our hearts and minds. He has given us His Spirit to cause us to walk in in His way. For the written Law on Stone and parchment made no one righteous, not one. But the Lord has said, I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed. The circumcision made without hands, cutting away the sins of the flesh, that we can serve the living God. Not by the letter, the knowledge of sin. But by the Spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life..

I specifically addressed this, and asked you a question, that you refused to answer. And yet you preach to the world that I didn't address it.

For that which was on the outside, the Law on stone and parchment is within. We are new creature begotten by the Word of truth. So Let us not forget what manner man we are now, or are to be, and be a doer of the Word that we are begotten of and not a hearer only deceiving ourselves. For we have conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Begotten by the Word of truth. Jam 1 and Rom 8

My friend and friends there are some truths shared in the post that you might not of took noticed to. I will repost it again and highlight one in particular which should have raised questions from you.

Your sermon on Galatians has raised many questions from me that I asked you specifically about. And how many did you answer Sir? Not One.

 

[DamianWarS]

Let's start here.

If we who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ and there is no more Jew or Gentile, Bondman or free, Male or Female, then any law pertaining to these categories is not on this list you seek.

That actually entails a lot.

I have to go, Any questions?

my question was more about which laws of the Old Testament pass over to the new. But I think you understood my question; you just seem to be avoiding it. I'm not seeking a list, and I apologize if I came across too flippant. The issue is the measure that is used to define what parts of law we continue to observe in the new covenant and how this can be biblically defended. I'm struggling to understand the logic in what to keep and what not to keep as it pertains to SDA except that it seems to be a unique SDA tradition. Simply saying it's that which is written upon our hearts or that which we have been baptized into Christ is a failure to address the issue critically, and will force me to think it cannot be critically defended (biblically or otherwise). These are serious matters to me, I don't come here just to stir the pot, I'm looking for some iron to sharpen me, please don't disappoint.

 

[DamianWarS]

It could literally be written out by God and people still wouldn't believe. And He literally did just that.

I know you affirm the 10, but what else is added on. It's a serious question but if you don't want to answer it just say so.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I know you affirm the 10, but what else is added on. It's a serious question but if you don't want to answer it just say so.

I think accepting the Ten Commandments, the Testimony of God, the ones God spoke and wrote Himself, should be a good starting point. There is not any other law that we are to keep, that would not fit under one of the Ten Commandments the way Jesus explained them (magnified Isa42:21 Mat5:19-30) because they are exceedingly broad. Psa119:96. Lets elevate the works of God Exo32:16 just the way Moses did, he never elevated man over God. Lets let God by God, He is not only our Savior, He is a King, and kings have rules, God never left His up to man to write, they belong to Him, we as His servant, should want to obey and serve Him, because of love Isa56:6 John14:15 Exo20:6

 

[DamianWarS]

I think accepting the Ten Commandments, the Testimony of God, the ones God spoke and wrote Himself, should be a good starting point. There is not any other law that we are to keep, that would not fit under one of the Ten Commandments the way Jesus explained them (magnified Isa42:21 Mat5:19-30) because they are exceedingly broad. Psa119:96. Lets elevate the works of God Exo32:16 just the way Moses did, he never elevated man over God. Lets let God by God, He is not only our Savior, He is a King, and kings have rules, God never left His up to man to write, they belong to Him, we as His servant, should want to obey and serve Him, because of love Isa56:6 John14:15 Exo20:6

dietary laws?

 

[DamianWarS]

1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

If I view this through the prism you are promoting, that every mention of "circumcision" is a reference to God's LAW, then this verse would mean:

19 God's Commandments mean nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

1 Cor 7:19 when studied with Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 show us mirror versions. All address circumcision as nothing and contrast it with "what counts" and all written by Paul. The "what counts" part is not 3 separate things, it's all the same thing. This reveals to us what Paul means by "commandments of God" in 1 Cor 7:19 since it is the same thing as "faith expressed through love" in Gal 5:6 and "the new creation" in 6:15. When viewed together they move away from old covenant laws and point to values of faith and love in the new covenant under Christ. In these verses, it seems Paul is contrasting the old (circumcision) with the new (new creation). You could say circumcision is a reference to in Christ we are neither circumcised/uncircumcised but I don't think that changes the outcome of what counts. What counts still is a forward direction to Christ over a backwards to the law.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

dietary laws?

We need to remember, was it not eating something our first parents ate that God told them not to that separated them from God. Placing something above God is breaking the first commandment.

God deemed unclean foods an abomination to Him and relates to what we put in our bodies and being holy or not holy.

Lev11: 44 For I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 45 For I am the Lord who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

In the Bible, unclean foods are called:

abomination Lev 11:10–13
detestable Deut 14:3
unclean” Lev 11:8

When God calls something an abomination, but we say it doesn’t matter- we are exalting our will over God’s will, It is essentially breaking the first comamndments and idolatry.

When we do this, this is what God said it does to Him in His own words

Eze 22:26 Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

God never changed His mind on this according to His own Words again

Isa 66:17 “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves,
To go to the gardens
After an idol in the midst,
Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse,
Shall be consumed together,” says the Lord.

So, yes our bodies can defile us and anything we place over what God asks is idolatry and breaking the first commandment.

The question remains- if we love Jesus why would we not want to do what He asks. He gives us plenty of clean foods to eat, why would anyone want to eat something God deems an abomination. It’s not something I will ever understand.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

1 Cor 7:19 when studied with Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 show us mirror versions. All address circumcision as nothing and contrast it with "what counts" and all written by Paul. The "what counts" part is not 3 separate things, it's all the same thing. This reveals to us what Paul means by "commandments of God" in 1 Cor 7:19 since it is the same thing as "faith expressed through love" in Gal 5:6 and "the new creation" in 6:15. When viewed together they move away from old covenant laws and point to values of faith and love in the new covenant under Christ. In these verses, it seems Paul is contrasting the old (circumcision) with the new (new creation). You could say circumcision is a reference to in Christ we are neither circumcised/uncircumcised but I don't think that changes the outcome of what counts. What counts still is a forward direction to Christ over a backwards to the law.

The Scriptures do not say the the commandments of God are redefined. When something is used interchangeably it means it works backwards and forwards, not just the one we like based on our own definition of it. The commandments of God are just that Exo20:6 Deut4:13 who better to define God’s commandments than God Himself- He did and literally wrote them out. Jesus never changed them- He promised He would not Psa89:34 Mat5:18-30 , Mat15:3-14 Mat7:7-13 Mat19:17-19 since He is the One speaking them, the only thing we should do is just believe. That’s what faith is all about. The commandments of God are kept by faith and faith is keeping the commandments of God. It works forwards and backwards not changing the definition that God gave.

 

[DamianWarS]

We need to remember, was it not eating something our first parents ate that God told them not to that separated them from God. Placing something above God is breaking the first commandment.

you must see that this is a bit of a cop-out answer because with the same logic, I could stuff any law into the 1st commandment. So why dietary laws and not other separation laws like clothing or seeds, which all have the same values? Who told you that dietary laws are implied in the 1st commandment but other separation laws are not? or for that matter any other law? this is the problem with the logic I'm speaking of. How am I supposed to know what other laws outside the 10 are a part actually implicit in the 10? What is the measure that is being used to know the difference and are there more values stuffed into the 1st commandment then just dietary laws?

This lack of transparency or refusal to engage on a critical level is a major issue with me. You know exactly what I'm speaking of but would rather ignore the gaping problem, pretending it doesn't exist, often deflecting and shifting the blame. This forces me to look at it as if it cannot be critically defended (biblically or otherwise) because no one seems to want to be a critical defender, turning it into a post-biblical traditional system (yes, that is tantamount to saying "traditions of men"). disagree? Then show me biblically the connection outside of interpretation that requires some sort of hand-waving "what-it-actually-means-is..." sentiment.

I look at law as all the same, I don't dissect and judge what is better than another because one was through his finger, another through fire, another through his servant, etc... and this is the only way to be biblically consistent. Christ accomplishes it all, not part of it or with special hand-waving exceptions. Circumcision is a great example of how we can view the entire law as a system that points to Christ, where Christ is always the better way, if we can accept the sacrifice is fulfilled (but not abolished) then that same action can be extended to the entire law (as is the context of Mat 5:17). Yes, under Christ new and old have the same values, but through different mechnism, the old through ritual/cerimony the new through faith and and good will. Christ has authority over all ceremonial/ritual/separation/sacrifices/deeper-meaning etc... actions (including the 4th or even NT baptism) because it is all points to him, for him alone and is inferior to Christ, where Christ is superior. anything short of that is counter-gospel.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Scriptures do not say the the commandments of God are redefined

I'm not saying that, I'm pointing out that the context Paul is using this terminology is not the 10 commandments. I'm using scripture and Paul's own words to unpack its meaning not by any hand-waving methods, but using mirror verses. You are stuffing the statement to only mean the 10 commandments (and others that you are not fully transparent with), then rejecting any competitive meaning regardless of it's mirror connection, using it only for a pretext to affirm the 10 commandments (and other special laws). 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15 all have the same meaning. there is no competitive meaning in them, or "in-addition-to". It's all the same. I'm not using them as a pretext to defend something that can't be defended, but rather pointing out that these verses invariably share the same subtext, which is a redemptive system under Christ (they point forward, not backwards.)

 

[Brother Del]

There was a time in the history of the church when the children of God could read and fully understand passages of scripture such as the one posted below, without any question of what was being said, or how to apply it to their lives. Yes, there has always been dissent and dissenters within the body of Christ. But they were usually dealt with swiftly and universally. These are truly the days that we were warned about, God have mercy on us all.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I'm not saying that, I'm pointing out that the context Paul is using this terminology is not the 10 commandments.

This is your opinion, but not what Jesus said using the same terminology quoting from the Ten Commandments Mat15:3-14 Mark7:7-13. When God defined the Ten Commandments as My commandments Deut4:13 Exo20:6 who are we to say they don't mean just that. Paul didn't either because that would be changing what God said and Paul was a servant of God, and the the servant is not greater than their master John13:16

Paul said breaking the commandments of God is sin Rom:7:7, dishonoring God Rom2:21-23 and one becomes an enmity to God Rom8:7-8 so when he said keeping the commandments of God is what matters, I believe he means just that letting God be God to define what these things mean that they are still God's commandments Eph6:2

 

[HIM]

I can see how a person might make this mistake, But the Biblical Truth is that Paul calls the promoters and followers of the "Jews religion" the Circumcision, "made with hands". I posted the Scriptures, but perhaps you didn't read them. He also called men who didn't follow the "Jews Religion", the "uncircumcision". He also called the Body of Christ, the True Circumcision and that Jesus was "a Minister of this circumcision", "The truth of God". I posted the Inspired Words of God showing His Truth here as well, but you didn't acknowledge these verses either, I'm not sure why.

Because you left the context of Galatians 2. The issue is Titus not being compelled to be circumcised. NOT how it is fulfilled in and through Christ.
By Titus' refusal to be circumcised, he was not heeding what was written in the Law by the understanding of those in Jerusalem . This issue, not fellowshipping with Gentiles and taking on their customs is all being said in context verse 16 where it states Knowing that a man is not justified, made righteous out of the works of the law, if not (unless, except) through the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed into Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. If righteousness were by the Law, the Book of the Law outside of this Faith then Christ died in vain.
Nothing in the context of the passage says otherwise.

We are not made righteous by the works of the Law, by what we do if it is not through the faith of Jesus Christ. The faith we now have through the changed heart. In that we have been begotten by the Word of truth. His Law, His Word is now in our heart and mouth that we do it. That is the Word of faith in which we preach. That is the Faith the just, the righteous live by that establishes the Law. We are a new creature created in Christ Jesus. All is new and of God who has given us this word of reconciliation. The new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Having put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: For We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Again, there wasn't a LAW against eating with unbelievers,

Eating with would be considered fellowshipping, wouldn't it?

Gentiles would be unbelievers, unclean, heathen in the Jews eyes. The Jews have a law in the Book of the Law about not mingling with people who were not of Israel. Peter and the Disciples knew this was not an issue anymore through the Body of Christ, but when those of the Circumcision showed up, He got scared and lost his faith and disassembled himself from the gentiles because of his fear. And by his example others followed. Bad Peter...
This is what Paul is saying was going on. Here is the Law from the Book of the Law. It is repeated throughout the Law and Prophets. Even in the New Testament. in respect to the Body of Christ not fellowshipping with unbelievers. I will post that also.

I would be doing a disservice to our Father God, creator of Heaven and Earth if I did not mention that, if we who are of Christ would heed to the council of 2 Cor 6:14-17 we would have less issues in our walks individually and corporately as THE Church. The only fellowshipping we are to be doing with those do not know God and His Christ is to bring them to Christ. That means helping them when needed and sharing God's Word to bring them to God. Otherwise we are to be separate from them and their ways. As 1 Cor 5 also says, but in respect to the unrepented in the Church. A little leaven, leavens the whole.

All this, even to the heathen outside of the Church should bring sorrow to us when we reach the point when we have to heed this council, As Paul, in 1 Cor 5 also said, should you have not been puffed up but rather mourned, that they be taken from you?


Exod 34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
Exod 34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
Exod 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
Exod 34:15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
Exod 34:16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.



2Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Cor 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Cor 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Cor 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,


1Cor 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Cor 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Cor 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Cor 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Cor 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Cor 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Cor 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Cor 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Cor 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Your entire premise is founded on 2 things.

#1. God's Laws were against Jesus, Paul and the Body of Christ.

No, once again you are not reading or maybe understanding what is being relayed to you. Faith establishes the Law. The Law is in our hearts and minds. His word is in our hearts and mouths. This faith is the faith in which we preach. This is the faith that establishers the Law.

If the Law is established by the just's faith; how is it that what is being preached to you against God's laws?
Nay it is establish!

#2. The Pharisees were trying to earn Salvation by obeying God's Laws.

Unless through Faith, the changed heart they were. But alas they were saying and doing not. Breaking the least and teaching men so.

Matt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Your sermon on Galatians has raised many questions from me that I asked you specifically about. And how many did you answer Sir? Not One.

Are the theatrics for affect. As if they add any credit to what you post in regard to this topic?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

you must see that this is a bit of a cop-out answer because with the same logic, I could stuff any law into the 1st commandment. So why dietary laws and not other separation laws like clothing or seeds, which all have the same values? Who told you that dietary laws are implied in the 1st commandment but other separation laws are not? or for that matter any other law? this is the problem with the logic I'm speaking of. How am I supposed to know what other laws outside the 10 are a part actually implicit in the 10? What is the measure that is being used to know the difference and are there more values stuffed into the 1st commandment then just dietary laws?

This lack of transparency or refusal to engage on a critical level is a major issue with me. You know exactly what I'm speaking of but would rather ignore the gaping problem, pretending it doesn't exist, often deflecting and shifting the blame. This forces me to look at it as if it cannot be critically defended (biblically or otherwise) because no one seems to want to be a critical defender, turning it into a post-biblical traditional system (yes, that is tantamount to saying "traditions of men"). disagree? Then show me biblically the connection outside of interpretation that requires some sort of hand-waving "what-it-actually-means-is..." sentiment.

I look at law as all the same, I don't dissect and judge what is better than another because one was through his finger, another through fire, another through his servant, etc... and this is the only way to be biblically consistent. Christ accomplishes it all, not part of it or with special hand-waving exceptions. Circumcision is a great example of how we can view the entire law as a system that points to Christ, where Christ is always the better way, if we can accept the sacrifice is fulfilled (but not abolished) then that same action can be extended to the entire law (as is the context of Mat 5:17). Yes, under Christ new and old have the same values, but through different mechnism, the old through ritual/cerimony the new through faith and and good will. Christ has authority over all ceremonial/ritual/separation/sacrifices/deeper-meaning etc... actions (including the 4th or even NT baptism) because it is all points to him, for him alone and is inferior to Christ, where Christ is superior. anything short of that is counter-gospel.

This is your opinion, I provided Scripture that said otherwise. If you do not believe when we do what we want over what God stated plainly as not breaking the commandments, I guess we will find out soon enough. God told us in His own words- that eating unclean foods and sanctifying ourselves is going after an idol Isa66:17, nor is it the first time He said this in the Bible, when did idols not become part of the Ten Commandments? When we spiritualize everything in the Bible when we don't like what it literally says, especially when God is the one speaking directly, its taking away what God says as inconsequential and elevating our own words over His. I believe this is very much breaking the commandments. I think its a matter of not truly understanding how deep and wide God's commandments are Isa42:21 Psa119:96 Mat5:19-30 or not allowing God to determine what is right and wrong and instead lean on our own understanding.

I will just agree to disagree.

 

[HIM]

There was a time in the history of the church when the children of God could read and fully understand passages of scripture such as the one posted below, without any question of what was being said, or how to apply it to their lives. Yes, there has always been dissent and dissenters within the body of Christ. But they were usually dealt with swiftly and universally. These are truly the days that we were warned about, God have mercy on us all.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Yes indeedy! No one thought that the Sabbath of the Decalogue was of the sabbaths mentioned in Colossians. They kept a Sabbath on the 1st day of the week following the tradition of man in apostacy or they kept the Sabbath as God ordained. Only within the last 100 to 200 years has the Church for the most part completely apostatized.

 

[Brother Del]

Yes indeedy! No one thought that the Sabbath of the Decalogue was of the sabbaths mentioned in Colossians. They kept a Sabbath on the 1st day of the week following the tradition of man in apostacy or they kept the Sabbath as God ordained. Only within the last 100 to 200 years has the Church for the most part completely apostatized.

The true Church is immune from apostasy, or perhaps I've misunderstood the text.
The unholy entity presently passing itself off as the Body of Christ however, has completely lost the plot.
The term Apostasy is certainly worthy of deeper study, it seems a bit incongruous to my simple mind.
But I'm certain someone will come along to straighten out my thinking for me.

Endure to His Glory my Brother.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The true Church is immune from apostasy, or perhaps I've misunderstood the text.
The unholy entity presently passing itself off as the Body of Christ however, has completely lost the plot.
The term Apostasy is certainly worthy of deeper study, it seems a bit incongruous to my simple mind.
But I'm certain someone will come along to straighten out my thinking for me.

Endure to His Glory my Brother.

We are told...
2 Timothy 4 I charge you [a]therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead [b]at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

We are told this is what a saved person looks like

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Sadly we are told its a remnant Rev12:17

Notice how it says the faith of Jesus, not in Jesus. The faith of Jesus is how Jesus lived and what Jesus taught. He never taught the Sabbath commandment would end at His cross - He very much told His faithful would be keeping up to His Second Coming Mat24:20 and for eternity Isa66:22-23


Many have used Paul's words out of context against the plain teachings of Jesus. I did not come to destroy the law or prophets, not a jot or tittle can pass from the law (yet alone a whole commandment or two) not to break the least of these commandments Mat5:17-30. Paul certainly never went against Christ so if we look deeper at Col2:14-17 we will plainly see what he is referring to and its not one of God's written and spoken commandments, that Jesus plainly said would be kept and Paul himself kept every Sabbath with Jews and Gentiles just as Jesus predicted for His church Isa56:6-7 Acts 13:42, Acts13:44 Acts 18:4

 

[HIM]

my question was more about which laws of the Old Testament pass over to the new. But I think you understood my question; you just seem to be avoiding it. I'm not seeking a list, and I apologize if I came across too flippant.

Good, Maybe someday I will feel compelled to make such a list.

If we have been baptized into Christ we have put on Christ and there is neither jew nor Greek. The statutes that pertain to how a Jew was to look and what it took to be a Jew are fulfilled. And those which dealt with how they were to interact with Gentiles.

As are the Laws pertaining to those who are in slavery or has a slave if one is in Christ.

The male and female is another issue. Not to many have come to that point sadly. Let the Spirit lead.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The issue is the measure that is used to define what parts of law we continue to observe in the new covenant and how this can be biblically defended. I'm struggling to understand the logic in what to keep and what not to keep as it pertains to SDA except that it seems to be a unique SDA tradition. Simply saying it's that which is written upon our hearts or that which we have been baptized into Christ is a failure to address the issue critically, and will force me to think it cannot be critically defended (biblically or otherwise).

Not sure why you are saying this. I seen what has been posted to you in the past, So I know you have been shown a lot of things in regard to this and other things.

The Sabbath and unclean foods is the issue for most in respect to this.

Nowhere is the New Testament does it say they are done away with or that they are fulfilled in Christ. If you think otherwise please post one section at a time and we will address each issue separately.

These are serious matters to me, I don't come here just to stir the pot, I'm looking for some iron to sharpen me,

I hope that is true..


You keep mentioning the SDA Church. I am of that denomination but I do not teach from it.

 

[Brother Del]

We are told...
2 Timothy 4 I charge you [a]therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead [b]at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

We are told this is what a saved person looks like

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Sadly we are told its a remnant Rev12:17

Notice how it says the faith of Jesus, not in Jesus. The faith of Jesus is how Jesus lived and what Jesus taught. He never taught the Sabbath commandment would end at His cross - He very much told His faithful would be keeping up to His Second Coming Mat24:20 and for eternity Isa66:22-23


Many have used Paul's words out of context against the plain teachings of Jesus. I did not come to destroy the law or prophets, not a jot or tittle can pass from the law (yet alone a whole commandment or two) not to break the least of these commandments Mat5:17-30. Paul certainly never went against Christ so if we look deeper at Col2:14-17 we will plainly see what he is referring to and its not one of God's written and spoken commandments, that Jesus plainly said would be kept and Paul himself kept every Sabbath with Jews and Gentiles just as Jesus predicted for His church Isa56:6-7 Acts 13:42, Acts13:44 Acts 18:4

Thanks, I needed a little chuckle this morning.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Thanks, I needed a little chuckle this morning.

What do you mean?