What day is the sabath what day does the bible say?

helmut · Oct 24, 2019

klutedavid said:
But the Old Testament does, in fact, present a very detailed image of the creator.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

Sorry: A figure which needs help from Michael, an angel obviously at least as high as this figure, is not God. Not in the OT.

helmut · Oct 24, 2019

klutedavid said:
Are you sure about that?

I was about to argue against Soyeong, but then I realitzed it was me who made a mistake:

In 7 weeks, there will alway be at least one transit from one moth to another. This means, that there are either two Sabbath following each other (one extra day to be added) or a "leap" day between two sabbaths (two day to be added).

Yeshua HaDerekh · Oct 24, 2019

helmut said:
No, it is Ivrit, the language now spoken in Israel. The ancient Hebrew was without a, but with Ayin. In spoken Ivrit, there is no Ayin, the letter is either pronounced as an a or as an Aleph. Written Ivrit is like Hebrew (some differences for neologisms, loan words etc., but basically identical).

No, Yeshu (with neither a nor Ayin) is an distortion of the name used by Jews to curse the one who (in their perception) caused so many persecution of Jews.

Did you overlook the mark for Ayin? Well, instead of a sign similar to the small sign used in scientific transcription, I can use phonetic signs: Yeshuʕ If you can't see the "ʕ" you fonts lack phonetic symbols. But anyway: please notice the difference between Yeshu (a curse) and Yeshu` (the name of our Savior in ancient Aramaic).

"ʕisho" is a transcription from Greek iesou(s) (with itacism) into Aramaic, not the original name. You are right that this is the origin of Arabic "ʕisa". Note that both names begin with an Ayin, because the long "i" (or "ee" for English speekers ) in Middle and modern Greek is a vowel and has to be preceded by a consonant, either Ayin or Aleph.

Semantics...what do you think Ivrit means? The Greek usage was well after the Aramaic...

packermann · Oct 24, 2019

helmut said:
No, it is not. It is from myoglobin. See also the text previous to the linked passage for the difference to blood (hemoglobin)

OK.

You forgot the Holy Spirit (v.28).

I thought that was a given. But just as the Holy Spirit works on the first Council, He has worked infallibly through the subsequent Councils.

Well, why do you say "Catholic Church"? It is the orthodox church that maintains leadership not by one person, but by all patriarchs. The Latin patriarch (aka Pope) has left this church, founded his own church (and installed "patriarchs", which should not confused with his colleagues, the real patriarchs).

No Council is valid without the approval of successor to St. Peter. If you disagree, then you must concur that the infamous "Robber Council" was a valid Council. This council has all the bishops, and they sided with the heresy of Monophysitism. Everything was valid except it did not have the approval of the pope.

Also, it is curious that the Orthodox churches have had not one council since they split from Rome. Why is that? It seems, that the patriarchs cannot agree on anything. This is only human nature. You need one guy who can ultimately call the shots. Orthodoxy does not have that, so they never never have a Council.

Also, it is only to Peter that our Lord that he is the Rock that He will be build His Church. It is only to the Church built on Peter that He said that the gates of death and hell shall not prevail against it. It is only to Peter that Jesus gave Him the keys to the kingdom. Not to the other apostles. Also, do a search in the Bible. There is no Biblical justification at all that certain bishops, patriarchs, are higher than the other bishops.

The Coptic church (which separated out of quite different reasons) calls its patriarchs "pope", I suppose there is no difference in the Coptic language between these two terms.

Interesting, but so what? If call myself "pope" does that mean I am the head of the Church? If I call myself "President of the United States" does that mean I am the President?

If I would believe that a Church Council will be automatically led by the Holy Spirit as the assembly described in Acts 15, I would become Orthodox, not a Catholic schismatic.

Instead, you are a Protestant schismatic. Check out you own denomination. Each one split from another church. I heard that there are overs 30,000 splits in Protestantism. It it at least in the thousands. Just the Baptists alone, they have over 200 splits.

Also, the Early Church Fathers BEFORE the Orthodox split saw Peter himself as the Rock that Jesus built the Church. Some are even from the East. Here is just some of them:

Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

Origen
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

klutedavid · Oct 24, 2019

helmut said:
Sorry: A figure which needs help from Michael, an angel obviously at least as high as this figure, is not God. Not in the OT.

This person is not God?

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

You seem to believe that the man described above was not God. Well here is another portrait of that man above from the book of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 1:26-28
Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man. Then I noticed from the appearance of His loins and upward something like glowing metal that looked like fire all around within it, and from the appearance of His loins and downward I saw something like fire; and there was a radiance around Him. As the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

Be very careful how you answer.

klutedavid · Oct 24, 2019

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
Would that be BECAUSE the believer KEEPS the Law? We are not "under the law" because since we keep it, we are not under its curse...because Yeshua got rid of the curse when we DO break it.

Can you explain that again as what you said seems to be a paradox.

We are not under the law because we keep it?

Then you said, 'when we do break it'.

You either keep the law or you are a law breaker; which one is it?

klutedavid · Oct 24, 2019

packermann said:
I'll respond to the rest later, but I looked up the verse. Here it is:

Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

So we should abstain from meat from blood. Did you eat a nice, juicy steak that is red inside? Isn't that redness from blood? So would anyone who eats red meat disobeying the Bible?

Well this depends on whether the command to abstain from blood concerns the Jewish and Gentile fellowship. Jews were under specific food laws and the Gentiles were not under any laws regarding food consumption. The Jews were deeply offended by the filthy Gentile diet.

Or the command about blood is a direct command from God against Gentiles consuming blood.

Also, this command came not from the Lord. It came from the apostles AND the elders (verse 22). So what was this? It was a Church Council. So since the Bible is quoting a Council as if it is infallible, this shows that Church Councils are infallibly led by the Holy Spirit.

The commands given to the Gentiles in Jerusalem (Acts 15) are from the Holy Spirit.

Acts 15:28
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials...

So I would not say what you said, 'this command came not from the Lord'.

packermann · Oct 24, 2019

klutedavid said:
Acts 15:28
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials...

So I would not say what you said, 'this command came not from the Lord'.

I meant that it did not come from Jesus. Of course, if a person of Divine authority, such as a prophet or an apostle, speaks the inspiration comes for the Holy Spirit.

klutedavid · Oct 24, 2019

packermann said:
I meant that it did not come from Jesus. Of course, if a person of Divine authority, such as a prophet or an apostle, speaks the inspiration comes for the Holy Spirit.

If it came from the Holy Spirit, then of course it is Jesus speaking directly to the church.

A person of divine authority has never existed.

Peter was confronted and rebuked publicly by Paul at the church of Antioch. That was a minimum of seventeen years after Paul's conversion and many more years after the resurrection.

Peter was self condemned and definitely in Paul's eyes, Peter was not a person who could be trusted.

I would never see Peter as some sort of pope.

Everything a prophet speaks must be subjected to examination, it must be tested. Nothing spoken by any prophet can ever be accepted too quickly.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Oct 24, 2019

klutedavid said:
Can you explain that again as what you said seems to be a paradox.

We are not under the law because we keep it?

Then you said, 'when we do break it'.

You either keep the law or you are a law breaker; which one is it?

Were are not under it because we keep it but if we do break it, because of Yeshua we do not have to pay the penalty. We go 55 in a 55, but if we go 70, we are not under the penalty (curse).

Kaon · Oct 24, 2019

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
Were are not under it because we keep it but if we do break it, because of Yeshua we do not have to pay the penalty. We go 55 in a 55, but if we go 70, we are not under the penalty (curse).

This is precisely what it means to not be under the curse of the Law.

We were never meant to ignore the Law; if we break it, we have GRACE so that we don't have to worry about going to hell for breaking one Law of God. This frees us to be obedient to the Most High God (in the time He designates for us to reach sanctification) - it allows us to follow the Most High God because we want to be like Him, not because we are scared of going to hell.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Oct 24, 2019

packermann said:
No Council is valid without the approval of successor to St. Peter. If you disagree, then you must concur that the infamous "Robber Council" was a valid Council. This council has all the bishops, and they sided with the heresy of Monophysitism. Everything was valid except it did not have the approval of the pope.

Also, it is curious that the Orthodox churches have had not one council since they split from Rome. Why is that? It seems, that the patriarchs cannot agree on anything. This is only human nature. You need one guy who can ultimately call the shots. Orthodoxy does not have that, so they never never have a Council.

Also, it is only to Peter that our Lord that he is the Rock that He will be build His Church. It is only to the Church built on Peter that He said that the gates of death and hell shall not prevail against it. It is only to Peter that Jesus gave Him the keys to the kingdom. Not to the other apostles. Also, do a search in the Bible. There is no Biblical justification at all that certain bishops, patriarchs, are higher than the other bishops.

Interesting, but so what? If call myself "pope" does that mean I am the head of the Church? If I call myself "President of the United States" does that mean I am the President?

Instead, you are a Protestant schismatic. Check out you own denomination. Each one split from another church. I heard that there are overs 30,000 splits in Protestantism. It it at least in the thousands. Just the Baptists alone, they have over 200 splits.

Also, the Early Church Fathers BEFORE the Orthodox split saw Peter himself as the Rock that Jesus built the Church. Some are even from the East. Here is just some of them:

Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

Origen
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

That is not true at all. If the bishop of Rome was anything, it was first AMONG EQUALS. That does not mean he is head of the church. Maybe The Orthodox Church had no need of ecumenical councils after Rome broke away from all the other Patriarchates? Also most of the CFs you cite are western. In the East, it was Peter's faith that the Church is built on. Also, whose Church did all the denominations stem from? It's Roman mother...

klutedavid · Oct 24, 2019

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
Were are not under it because we keep it but if we do break it, because of Yeshua we do not have to pay the penalty. We go 55 in a 55, but if we go 70, we are not under the penalty (curse).

We are not under the law but we keep the law?

You said yourself that you break the law, so logically, you do not keep the law.

That is a contradiction.

packermann · Oct 24, 2019

helmut said:
Well, he had a form,. as you can read in Isaiah 6. Or in other OT passages where it is said that men saw the LORD. And since no-one can see the Father, they must have seen Jesus.

God manifested Himself to Isaiah in a way that he could comprehend Him, but that does not mean that this if what God actually looked like. Theologians call this a theophany. God is everywhere. He is omnipresent. What Isaiah saw was an outline of God. But God, before the Incarnation, had no outline. If He did, He would be limited, but God is infinite. I think this is the kind of the image that God forbade. We tend to think that God is like us - only bigger. That is making God into an image, into our image.

You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully (Deuteronomy 4:15).

No one has seen God at any time. The one and only God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him (John 1:18).

Who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see [even Isaiah], to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:16).

See Theophany - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Online

How do you understand the NT command that we should abstain from images? This is the literal translation in Acts 15:20, or other verses like 1.John 5:21. An image venerated by you is an idol for you.

Acts 15:20 is not saying that we should abstain from images. It is not even about abstaining from idols. It is about abstaining from FOOD offered to idols.
Paul took that letter from the Council and brought it to the other churches throughout the Roman empire. This is what he wrote about.

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.
I Corintians 8:4-13

Since there are no other gods but the one, true God, there is no problem in eating food offered to idols as long the person eating the food is not intending by this act to worship a false god. The issue is the intention of the person. But since a weaker brother, who recently converted from paganism to Christ thinks that paganism of OK, we should not eat food offered to idols. So the whole issue is not to give the wrong impression to the weaker brother which would cause him to fall back into his paganistic ways.

1 John 5:21 says to stay away from idols, not from images.

An idol is treating anything as being more important than God or just as important as God.

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
Colossians 3:5

When Moses was called by God to deliver Israel, he asked God what is His name. In paganism, a god's name would tell you what that god would give you if you serve him. The god of fertility would make your wife fertile if you serve him. The god of gold would give you gold if you serve him. The god of harvest would give you abundant crops if you serve him.

God would have none of that! He responded to Moses "I AM WHO I AM". It is enough that God is that we should serve Him! It is not about what we can get out of Him if we serve Him. If we only worship Him because of what He has done for us or what He may do for us then we are really just worshipping ourselves and God is just a means to that. Deep down, idolatry is placing ourselves before God.

That is what idolatry is - it could be our money, our houses, our looks, our intelligence, our selfishness, our pride. Anything that means more to us than God. Ultimately, it is placing ourselves before God.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Oct 24, 2019

klutedavid said:
We are not under the law but we keep the law?

You said yourself that you break the law, so logically, you do not keep the law.

That is a contradiction.

I am not under the curse, that was done away. Sin is still the transgression of the law.

NeedyFollower · Oct 24, 2019

Soyeong said:
Graciousness and righteousness have always been compatible character traits of the same God, which He expressed throughout the Bible (Exodus 34:6-7, Psalms 119:29). In Hebrews 11:7, Noah was listed as an example of faith and in Genesis 6:8-9, it says that he found grace in the eyes of God and that he was a righteous man, so he was saved by grace through faith in the same one and only way as everyone else.

In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, which is essentially what God's Law was given to instruct us how to do. Furthermore, verse 14 says that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we believe in what Jesus accomplished on the cross, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's Law (Acts 21:20) and will not return to the Lawlessness that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from. Our salvation is from sin and sin is defined as disobedience to God's Law (1 John 3:4), so being trained by grace to live in obedience to God's Law through faith is what being saved from living in disobedience to God's Law looks like.

God commanded His followers to keep the Sabbath holy by doing no work and by having a holy convocation. So if we did on every day what God wants us to do on the Sabbath, then we would do no work, but God also wants us to work.

Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of Christ. The same goes for Acts 2:38 when Peter told his audience to repent for the forgiveness of sins. In Romans 15:4, Paul said OT Scripture was written for our instruction and in 15:18-19, His Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so he was on the same page as Jesus in regard to teaching repentance from our sins.

If God's Law were His instructions for how to become self-righteous, and God does not want us to become self-righteous, then it would follow that therefore God doesn't want to be obeyed, which is absurd, therefore God's Law was not given as instructions for how to become self-righteous, and as instructions for how to express God's righteousness. In Romans 10:4, Jesus is the goal of the Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith and in Philippians 3:8, Paul had been outwardly keeping the Law without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the Law, and counted it all as rubbish, so the right solution to incorrectly obeying God's Law is to repent and to start obeying it correctly with the right focus, not to stop obeying God.

Jesus did not come to start his own religion following a different god, but rather he came to bring fullness to Judaism as its Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He practice Judaism by sinlessly keeping the Torah and by teaching his followers how to obey it by word and by example. All Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10, so Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that Jesus practiced and which recognized him as their prophesied Messiah, and this is the form of Christianity that I seek to follow with the inclusion of Gentiles. So it is not necessary for Messianics to be Jewish by birth and in fact Gentile Messianics far outnumber Jewish Messianics due to Jews making up a small percentage of the world's population, however, I do happen to be a Jew by birth and a follower of Jesus by new birth.

Loving others is way to spend the Sabbath. If you think that Paul was saying that all things are lawful, then that would include everything that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 that would cause someone not to inherit the Kingdom. However, he was quoting that phrase in order to argue against it, not in order to endorse it. Furthermore, Paul did not have the authority to countermand God by saying that all things are lawful, nor should we follow Paul instead of God even if you think that is what he was saying.

You are correct that in 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul was not speaking about sinning in order to reach sinners because that would have completely undermined his message to them, and sin is disobedience to God's Law. Rather, he said in a parallel statement that he was not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, so he equated the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ.

I do not wear clothes mixed with wool and linen. We are not commanded to blow the shofar though we are commanded to hear the voice of the shofar during the Feast of Trumpets. Even when the Law was first given to Moses, there wasn't a single person who was required to follow every single Law, and not even Jesus followed the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period. Some laws were only given to govern the conduct of the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, widows, those who are married, those with servants, those with animals, those with crops, those with tzaraat, those living in the land, and for strangers living among them, while others were given for everyone. Furthermore, many of the laws came with conditions under which they should be obeyed, such as the command to keep the Sabbath holy, which should only be obeyed under the condition that it is the 7th day or laws in regard to temple practice, which should only be obeyed under the condition that there is a temple in which to practice them.

So understanding how much of the Law to follow is a matter of careful prayer, study, and leading of the Spirit. However, if we believe the Bible that the Law was given for our own good and that God can be trusted to guide us in how to rightly live, then we will have the attitude of looking for reasons why we have the delight of getting to obey God's instructions rather than the attitude of looking for every excuse under the sun to avoid following God's guidance.

Soyeong said:
In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, which is essentially what God's Law was given to instruct us how to do. Furthermore, verse 14 says that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we believe in what Jesus accomplished on the cross, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's Law (Acts 21:20) and will not return to the Lawlessness that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from. Our salvation is from sin and sin is defined as disobedience to God's Law (1 John 3:4), so being trained by grace to live in obedience to God's Law through faith is what being saved from living in disobedience to God's Law looks like.

Thank you for your thoughtful and I trust prayerful responses ...Yes ...The grace of God that that brings salvation ...teaching us that denying ungodliness , and worldly lust , we should live soberly , righteously and godly in this present world . This is why we do not seek political power and positions of honor nor align ourselves with those who pursue wealth . It is why it is written by the early followers of Jesus who you correctly stated were Jewish according to the flesh , Love not the world , nor the things in the world , the lust of the eye , the lust of the flesh and the pride of life . ( 1 John 2:15 ) Yes , I believe that Jesus came to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession zealous of good works . Servants , like our master . Given to intercessory prayer ...a living "house of prayer " . It is why we do not give ourselves to the foolishness of sports and the frivolities which those who perish pursue . Love commends us to do these things .
Redeeming the time for the days are evil . And salvation from sin is the gospel and lawlessness is disobedience to God's Word who became flesh ...the living Word .

Soyeong said:
God commanded His followers to keep the Sabbath holy by doing no work and by having a holy convocation. So if we did on every day what God wants us to do on the Sabbath, then we would do no work, but God also wants us to work.

If God is working through us ( as He must ) ...unless the Lord build the house , they who labor , labor in vain , then we are not working but have entered into His rest .

Soyeong said:
Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of Christ. The same goes for Acts 2:38 when Peter told his audience to repent for the forgiveness of sins. In Romans 15:4, Paul said OT Scripture was written for our instruction and in 15:18-19, His Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so he was on the same page as Jesus in regard to teaching repentance from our sins.

Yes ..not only repentance of our sins but repentance for being God's enemy ..for not loving Him as He deserves. Yes , to turn away and forsake sin but to become new creatures . ( The working out of our salvation with fear and trembling ...the endeavoring of the faith once delivered to the saints .

Soyeong said:
If God's Law were His instructions for how to become self-righteous, and God does not want us to become self-righteous, then it would follow that therefore God doesn't want to be obeyed, which is absurd, therefore God's Law was not given as instructions for how to become self-righteous, and as instructions for how to express God's righteousness. In Romans 10:4, Jesus is the goal of the Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith and in Philippians 3:8, Paul had been outwardly keeping the Law without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the Law, and counted it all as rubbish, so the right solution to incorrectly obeying God's Law is to repent and to start obeying it correctly with the right focus, not to stop obeying God.

Not of works unless any man should boast ..To God be the glory . For he is a jew who is one inwardly who's circumcision is of the heart , in spirit , not the letter , who praise is not of men but of God .
Yes , the right focus is God the Father through His Son ...not the observances which have a show . Nothing wrong with circumcision but of course we must be careful of the " I thank thee Lord that I am not like other men ..I do this ..I do that ..I ...Me . This is the danger of course as I know you understand .

Soyeong said:
Jesus did not come to start his own religion following a different god, but rather he came to bring fullness to Judaism as its Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He practice Judaism by sinlessly keeping the Torah and by teaching his followers how to obey it by word and by example. All Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10, so Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that Jesus practiced and which recognized him as their prophesied Messiah, and this is the form of Christianity that I seek to follow with the inclusion of Gentiles. So it is not necessary for Messianics to be Jewish by birth and in fact Gentile Messianics far outnumber Jewish Messianics due to Jews making up a small percentage of the world's population, however, I do happen to be a Jew by birth and a follower of Jesus by new birth.

No ..Jesus did not come to start religion at all ..He came to reconcile us to the Father ..to redeem us from sin ..to find the lost sheep . To create a new creation ...to fulfill the promises . Before Jesus was Jewish , He was the Son . He came to give life and that eternally .

Soyeong said:
Loving others is way to spend the Sabbath. If you think that Paul was saying that all things are lawful, then that would include everything that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 that would cause someone not to inherit the Kingdom. However, he was quoting that phrase in order to argue against it, not in order to endorse it. Furthermore, Paul did not have the authority to countermand God by saying that all things are lawful, nor should we follow Paul instead of God even if you think that is what he was saying.

I think Paul knew that all things were going to pass away soon and that the old covenant laws were accomplished in Christ Jesus and as Jesus is the Word of God ..He and all who are in Him will remain eternally. ( The word of God abides forever . )

Soyeong said:
You are correct that in 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul was not speaking about sinning in order to reach sinners because that would have completely undermined his message to them, and sin is disobedience to God's Law. Rather, he said in a parallel statement that he was not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, so he equated the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ.

And to the lawless ...in other words ... the gentiles which did not have the law ..nor dietary restrictions ..etc.

Soyeong said:
I do not wear clothes mixed with wool and linen. We are not commanded to blow the shofar though we are commanded to hear the voice of the shofar during the Feast of Trumpets. Even when the Law was first given to Moses, there wasn't a single person who was required to follow every single Law, and not even Jesus followed the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period. Some laws were only given to govern the conduct of the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, widows, those who are married, those with servants, those with animals, those with crops, those with tzaraat, those living in the land, and for strangers living among them, while others were given for everyone. Furthermore, many of the laws came with conditions under which they should be obeyed, such as the command to keep the Sabbath holy, which should only be obeyed under the condition that it is the 7th day or laws in regard to temple practice, which should only be obeyed under the condition that there is a temple in which to practice them.

I thought the "no wearing of the linen and wool" were a shadow of not mixing the profane with the holy. Such as " God and Country " or being politically active while claiming to be a stranger and a pilgrim . There are many ways I think believers do this .

Soyeong said:
So understanding how much of the Law to follow is a matter of careful prayer, study, and leading of the Spirit. However, if we believe the Bible that the Law was given for our own good and that God can be trusted to guide us in how to rightly live, then we will have the attitude of looking for reasons why we have the delight of getting to obey God's instructions rather than the attitude of looking for every excuse under the sun to avoid following God's guidance.

Taking a day of rest on Saturday would be nice ...I am lazy by nature but I must work while there is light ...the field is ripe unto harvest but the laborers are few .

klutedavid · Oct 24, 2019

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
I am not under the curse, that was done away. Sin is still the transgression of the law.

What does 'curse' mean?

packermann · Oct 24, 2019

klutedavid said:
If it came from the Holy Spirit, then of course it is Jesus speaking directly to the church.

God speaks through humans in the Bible. God did not dictate the Bible. This is what Islam believes concerning the Koran - Allah dictated it to Muhammud. But each human other of the Bible had a different style in their writing. That could not happen if God was dictating to them.

A person of divine authority has never existed.

The divine authority is ultimately God. If you deny this then you cannot be a Christian. Anyone who is call to speak or write His words has divine authority that is derived from God.

Peter was confronted and rebuked publicly by Paul at the church of Antioch. That was a minimum of seventeen years after Paul's conversion and many more years after the resurrection.

Of course. Peter and his successors are only infallible when they speak officially. David slept with another man's wife, and then had the man killed! And yet he wrote most of the Psalms. Solomon led Israel into idolatry. And yet he wrote Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes.

Peter was self condemned and definitely in Paul's eyes, Peter was not a person who could be trusted.

Can we trust his letters that are in the Bible?

I would never see Peter as some sort of pope.

Our sufficiency is from God alone. I do not trust a pope. I especially do not trust this current pope. But I trust God. The Bible says that the heart of the king is in the hands of the Lord (Proverbs 21:1). If our God can direct the heart of a king the He certainly can directly the heart of a pope.

Everything a prophet speaks must be subjected to examination, it must be tested. Nothing spoken by any prophet can ever be accepted too quickly.

When I went to a Protestant seminary, my favorite teacher was Dr. Murray J. Harris. He argued that a N.T. prophet was not on the same level as an O.T. prophet. An O.T. prophet was never subjected to examination. His "Thus saith the Lord" had an authority that a N.T.prophet did not have. An O.T. prophet was stoned to death. But a N.T. prophet was not stoned to death if judged wrong - he was just considered mistaken.

The equivalent of the O.T. prophet in the N.T. was an apostle. An apostle was not subject to examination. His word was taken as being from God. He was viewed as one with authority. That is why the Bible is infallible - the New Testament was written by the apostles and those who were directly under their authority, according to Protestant evangelicals. See Apostolic Authority | Theology Matters | July 2011 | Today in the Word and Apostolic Authority

packermann · Oct 24, 2019

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
I am not under the curse, that was done away. Sin is still the transgression of the law.

If you were no longer under the curse at all, then you would not physically die.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Oct 25, 2019

klutedavid said:
What does 'curse' mean?

Read Paul...what do you think it means?

What day is the sabath what day does the bible say?

Member

Member

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Well-Known Member

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Similar threads