When is good, not good enough?

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Interesting

Genesis 17:13-14
My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

Hmm... sounds pretty serious.

But not spoken to a gentile -- my statement was that gentiles were not commanded in the OT to be circumcised... that point remains.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,598
Hudson
✟281,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Christ tells us that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. But it seems there is some debate as to what good acts are allowed and what good acts should be left for another day.

here are two examples:

1. My unbelieving neighbour is building a shed on the Sabbath and has no help but it looks like he could use some help. Is it good for me to help him on the Sabbath?

2. While building the shed the roof falls down on him, is it good for me to run to his aid and help him?
I would take most would allow option 2, but it seems option 1 is not so widely accepted. What if I were to add that my neighbour was depressed and although the roof didn't collapse on him the building of the shed didn't help his depression and later that night he committed suicide. Knowing this information can we return to option 1 and say it would have been good to help him build the shed on the Sabbath?

Does this seem like an unfair hypothetical? It's not so unrealistic even though it is on the extreme end. If we accept however the extreme how far can we dial it back and it still be called good?

He is an unbeliever so saving his life doesn't have to be lifting fallen wood of his body or cheering him up when he's depressed. It may mean engaging with him using opportunities that are right in front of you rather than ones that are out of reach for the sake of the gospel. Many people choose to do jobs like this on the Sabbath because they have the time to do it and they want to take advantaged of good weather (assuming there is some). So the scenario is quite plausible (even if the depression part is less plausible).

When we refuse to engage in these areas we create a sacred and secular divide implicitly showing that God cannot reach them. I would rather pick up a hammer and walk over to my neighbour and show him God can reach him right where he is.

No command is intended to be used as an excuse to avoid obeying the greatest two commandments.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Isaiah 56:6-8 says "yes"
Isaiah 66:23 says "yes"
Mark 2:27 says "yes"
Acts 13 and Acts 18:4 we see them "every Sabbath" in the Synagogues.
you say this like it's a mic drop but I see no examples of new covenant gentiles told to keep the sabbath. (btw there are commandments for foreigners to get circumcised too)

Acts 13 shows a value of going to the synagogue on the Sabbath (by Paul and Barnabas, Jews) and using that to preach the gospel, so the focus turns missional. likewise the focus of "every Sabbath" in Acts 18:4 is a missional strategy and is not about a command keeping focus, certainly not for Gentiles as you are suggesting.

The sabbath is indeed made for man, not man for the sabbath. So the sabbath is not meant to pile on a load that cannot be ever satisfied. If you wish to truly keep the sabbath according to the letter of the law you should stop doing things that cause people to work on the sabbath such as using electricity, internet or cell service (and a thousand other modern convinces). Disagree? perhaps you should read the 4th commandment again. The use of these things on the sabbath creates a demand for people to work and if you value the sabbath to the letter of the law then you should discontinue these things so as to prevent further demand/work on the sabbath. This is that load I'm talking about... the sabbath is not intended to do this. The sabbath is about rest, not about rules and that rest is fully received through Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob S
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No command is intended to be used as an excuse to avoid obeying the greatest two commandments.
so doing "good" is aligning our actions with the first 2 commandments? the problem with saying this (and I do agree) is that some argue "loving the Lord your God" is implicit of keeping the law. So for example I may not help my neighbour "work" on the sabbath as I would be not loving God in doing so because I disobey the 4th commandment. So how do we know what's involved in the greatest commandment before we go to the second greatest?
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,598
Hudson
✟281,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
so doing "good" is aligning our actions with the first 2 commandments? the problem with saying this (and I do agree) is that some argue "loving the Lord your God" is implicit of keeping the law. So for example I may not help my neighbour "work" on the sabbath as I would be not loving God in doing so because I disobey the 4th commandment. So how do we know what's involved in the greatest commandment before we go to the second greatest?

In Matthew 6:15, if we do not forgiven others their sins, then the Father will not forgive us. In Matthew 5:23-24, if we bring a gift to God and remember that our brother has something against us, then we should leave it at the altar, go become reconciled to our brother, then come back and offer the gift. In 1 John 4:20, if anyone says that the love God, but hates their brother, then he is a liar for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

All of the commandments given by God in the Bible are examples of how He wants us to love Him and our neighbor, which is why Jesus said that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them. However, while the commandment to love God is the greatest because even the command to love our neighbor hangs on it, we need to love our neighbor before we can love God. This is also why Jesus ruled that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
However, while the commandment to love God is the greatest because even the command to love our neighbor hangs on it, we need to love our neighbor before we can love God. This is also why Jesus ruled that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

that's a refreshing perspective also echoed through Mat 25:34-40

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

it seems the loving God part is demonstrated by loving our neighbour.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
you say this like it's a mic drop but I see no examples of new covenant gentiles told to keep the sabbath.

1. The "New Covenant" IS the Gospel
2. There is only ONE Gospel Gal 1:6-9
3. That Gospel was preached to Abraham Gal 3:8
4. Moses AND Elijah stand WITH Christ in glory - before the cross Matthew 17
5. So ALL the New Covenant gentiles of Isaiah 56:6-8 keeping Sabbath would say "huh?" to your claim that you can't see them.
6. ALL the New Covenant gentiles in the "ALL MANKIND" of Is 66:23 would say "huh?" to your claim that you can't see them existing.

(btw there are commandments for foreigners to get circumcised too)

hint: there are NO commandments telling gentiles NT or OT that they cannot be saved unless they are circumcised.

Acts 13 shows a value of going to the synagogue on the Sabbath (by Paul and Barnabas, Jews) and using that to preach the gospel, so the focus turns missional. likewise the focus of "every Sabbath" in Acts 18:4 is a missional strategy and is not about a command keeping focus, certainly not for Gentiles as you are suggesting.

It is not PAUL asking to have the gospel preached "Next Sabbath" it is the gentiles asking for that in Acts 13... is it your claim those gentiles were being "missional" towards Paul??? (Perhaps you are using that buzzword incorrectly at the moment)
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1. The "New Covenant" IS the Gospel
2. There is only ONE Gospel Gal 1:6-9
3. That Gospel was preached to Abraham Gal 3:8
4. Moses AND Elijah stand WITH Christ in glory - before the cross Matthew 17
5. So ALL the New Covenant gentiles of Isaiah 56:6-8 keeping Sabbath would say "huh?" to your claim that you can't see them.
6. ALL the New Covenant gentiles in the "ALL MANKIND" of Is 66:23 would say "huh?" to your claim that you can't see them existing.

Again with your mic drop Isaiah 56:6-8 verse. why is this a command again?
I assume since you accept v6's line "all who keep the Sabbath" as keeping the letter of the law you must also accept v7's line "Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar" as implicitly keeping the sacrificial system of law as well. That's the thing when you quote a prophet, nothing is skin deep and when we only look to the surface we do a disservice to it. We both know you don't demand law applied out in v7, so why are you forcing law on v6? don't you find the approach where v6 means law but v7 means Christ bias and disingenuous when both on the surface are referring to law?

hint: there are NO commandments telling gentiles NT or OT that they cannot be saved unless they are circumcised.

built in the 4th commandment is that no one should work. not you, not your kids, not your household workers, not your animals not the foreigners in your communities. it's a pretty inclusive command. Today however we have no problem with "foreigners" working on the sabbath so long as we don't work. We may sit at home, enjoy our electricity, internet, and cell phone service while the electric company, the telephone company and the ISPs actively work to give us these luxuries but we don't care if they are working so long as we are comfortable and are not working but we fail to keep the sabbath according to it's letter when we do so. Modern day systems makes it almost impossible not to cause work on the Sabbath and you would have to be completely unplugged to properly keep the sabbath.

But, in old covenant systems, this forced sabbath did not save the foreigner it was simply imposed upon them to keep. However, if a foreigner wished to partake of passover he and the males in his household were require to be circumcised. Now the passover is actually explicitly about salvation, it was not forced but optional for the foreigner to partake but if they wanted to they had to change. This is a very clear image of salvation.

It is not PAUL asking to have the gospel preached "Next Sabbath" it is the gentiles asking for that in Acts 13... is it your claim those gentiles were being "missional" towards Paul??? (Perhaps you are using that buzzword incorrectly at the moment)

I am using "missional" in the sense of using opportunities to carry out a mission (specifically the mission to spread the gospel). If you don't like the way I use the word "missional" then I've identified the meaning I've intended so let's stop talking about it because this isn't a discussion about semantics.

Acts 13 is about Paul and Barnabas being invited to say something at a synagogue that had both Jews and God fearing Gentiles in attendance. They like it so much they invited them to come back the next Sabbath and when they did the whole town showed up. This account is not about keeping the Sabbath, it's about Paul and Barnabas using every opportunity to speak the gospel (missional, carrying out their mission).

They were invited again and of course they returned again because of their missional focus (to carry our their mission of spreading the gospel) not because of the focus on the law which is not even a subject in the account. The gentiles (and jews) are not the ones being missional (they are not trying the to spread the gospel) they are responding to the gospel.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Again with your mic drop Isaiah 56:6-8 verse. why is this a command again?
.

You are continually going for the "just say no to God" as your answer for Isaiah 56.

It is a command to do right .. to not "profane" the Sabbath "of the LORD Thy God" Ex 20:10


Isaiah 56
Isaiah 56:6-8 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, everyone who keeps from profaning The Sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”
8 The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares,
“Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.”

God is describing the open door for gentiles to enter his House of Pray and to be "Gathered" to God.

Gentiles in the OT could always say "no thanks - we prefer to go to hell" they all would have free will then just as we all have that free will today. But most gentiles today who do not choose to honor God's Sabbath commandment typically do not deliberately do it on a "just sayin' no to God" basis.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are continually going for the "just say no to God" as your answer for Isaiah 56.

It is a command to do right .. to not "profane" the Sabbath "of the LORD Thy God" Ex 20:10


Isaiah 56
Isaiah 56:6-8 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, everyone who keeps from profaning The Sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”
8 The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares,
“Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.”

God is describing the open door for gentiles to enter his House of Pray and to be "Gathered" to God.

Gentiles in the OT could always say "no thanks - we prefer to go to hell" they all would have free will then just as we all have that free will today. But most gentiles today who do not choose to honor God's Sabbath commandment typically do not deliberately do it on a "just sayin' no to God" basis.
Yes, you've made that point. What of v7, you failed to highlight it in red (or reply to my response on it). Do you value the sacrifice in v7 too?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Yes, you've made that point. What of v7, you failed to highlight it in red (or reply to my response on it). Do you value the sacrifice in v7 too?

I never claim that vs 7 is not true. Rather vs 7 shows that this is not a promise "just for the future" but was a valid promise then at the time it was given. Prior to the cross animal sacrifice was a required part of the liturgy in praying to God and seeking forgiveness to express faith in the coming Messiah.

True of Adam, Eve, Cain , Able, Abraham... and of gentiles in Isaiah 56:6-8.

How is this helping your "not for gentiles in the OT" argument?
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I never claim that vs 7 is not true. Rather vs 7 shows that this is not a promise "just for the future" but was a valid promise then at the time it was given. Prior to the cross animal sacrifice was a required part of the liturgy in praying to God and seeking forgiveness to express faith in the coming Messiah.
so how is this view consistent in light of your view of v6? Why is v7 Christ but v6 is still law?
How is this helping your "not for gentiles in the OT" argument?
because it exposes your bias in the passage. If v6 is law so is v7. If v7 is Christ, so is v6. Since this is the weight of your argument it crumbles quickly because you cannot commit to a consistent view of the passage but rather pick and choose which is law and which is Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Yes, you've made that point. What of v7, you failed to highlight it in red (or reply to my response on it). Do you value the sacrifice in v7 too?

I never claim that vs 7 is not true. Rather vs 7 shows that this is not a promise "just for the future" but was a valid promise then at the time it was given. Prior to the cross animal sacrifice was a required part of the liturgy in praying to God and seeking forgiveness to express faith in the coming Messiah.

True of Adam, Eve, Cain , Able, Abraham... and of gentiles in Isaiah 56:6-8.

How is this helping your "not for gentiles in the OT" argument?

so how is this view consistent in light of your view of v6? Why is v7 Christ but v6 is still law? .

Because of "Bible details"

1. for example in Hebrews 10:4-12 where find that at the cross all sacrifices and offerings end.

2. And for example 1 Cor 7:19 where we see moral law continues (such as the Law where the 5th commandment is the first commandment with a promise - Eph 6:1-2), while ceremonial law like circumcision (which is not even in the TEN) ends..

Bible details on that "distinction" the Ten Commandments moral law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant and applicable to ALL mankind -- vs -- the ceremonial laws of offering and sacrifice... a distinction so incredibly obvious that almost all bible scholars in all denominations admit to them.

As we see here - time after time.

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

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm all TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)

it exposes your bias in the passage. If v6 is law so is v7. If v7 is Christ, so is v6. Since this is the weight of your argument it crumbles quickly because you cannot commit to a consistent view of the passage but rather pick and choose which is law and which is Christ.

On the contrary the fact that all Christian denominations are accepting the obvious Bible details I listed - that you are ignoring - is revealing your own bias... not mine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I never claim that vs 7 is not true. Rather vs 7 shows that this is not a promise "just for the future" but was a valid promise then at the time it was given. Prior to the cross animal sacrifice was a required part of the liturgy in praying to God and seeking forgiveness to express faith in the coming Messiah.

True of Adam, Eve, Cain , Able, Abraham... and of gentiles in Isaiah 56:6-8.

How is this helping your "not for gentiles in the OT" argument?

I didn't say you didn't think it was true, I said you are inconsistent with your views. You still are avoiding the question, if v7 is Christ then why isn't v6? We know why v7 is Christ but again why isn't v6? The way we approach v7 should be a hint into how we approach not just v6 but the whole passage. v7 has a clear case for Christ so then the rest is easy and falls in line.

Because of "Bible details"

1. for example in Hebrews 10:4-12 where find that at the cross all sacrifices and offerings end.

2. And for example 1 Cor 7:19 where we see moral law continues (such as the Law where the 5th commandment is the first commandment with a promise - Eph 6:1-2), while ceremonial law like circumcision (which is not even in the TEN) ends..

Bible details on that "distinction" the Ten Commandments moral law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant and applicable to ALL mankind -- vs -- the ceremonial laws of offering and sacrifice... a distinction so incredibly obvious that almost all bible scholars in all denominations admit to them.

As we see here - time after time.

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

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm all TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)

On the contrary the fact that all Christian denominations are accepting the obvious Bible details I listed - that you are ignoring - is revealing your own bias... not mine.

Sunday isn't the Sabbath so most on the list are removed, all "Sunday" keepers violate the Sabbath whether they know it or not and misunderstand the 4th commandment. Just show up on the door step of someone who subscribes to the "The Baptist Confession of Faith" on a Saturday and see what they are doing to prove that or ask Seventh-day Adventists if they keep the Sabbath if you don't believe me.

Sabbath is also not moral law. Moral laws are things that even without the written law you know it and understand it, unlike the Sabbath where you need to be told it in order to follow it and still you need to be told the reason why it's there to have understanding. I get rest makes sense and is a natural balance or life but to the degree the Sabbath is set up is ceremonially set up to obverse rest.

Sabbath is a weekly day of rest that commemorates the 7th day when God rested; it is an anniversary of rest. We know this because it opens saying "Remember the Sabbath day..." and we also know this from every other law describing the Sabbath as it needs to explain the origins of the Sabbath first in order for there to be understanding.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Sunday isn't the Sabbath so most on the list are removed, all "Sunday" keepers violate the Sabbath .

Your opposition is to the TEN Commandments themselves and to the 4th commandment being applicable at all.

That is "the detail" where the Bible and even those sunday scholars does not back you up -- so when you argue this shows "my bias" what it in fact does - is show yours.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your opposition is to the TEN Commandments themselves and to the 4th commandment being applicable at all.

That is "the detail" where the Bible and even those sunday scholars does not back you up -- so when you argue this shows "my bias" what it in fact does - is show yours.
I don't have an opposition to the 10 commandments or to the 4th commandment and I don't see how accusing me of that is helpful. Let's think of the best of each other in our dialog becuase when we think the worse it's no longer a discussion, it's a fight.

The Sabbath law is pretty specific and if we are to value it, then we can't just put it on another day because that misses the point of keeping a law that is very specific as to what day of the week it occurs on (it's part of the law to keep). If not which words in the law are we to value if we keep some but throw out the others?

Pointing the finger and repeating the same passage trying to show me that law and Christ are in competition is counter gospel. I want to interprete the passage responsibly and consistently so I can't ignore how we understand v7 without it effecting the reading of the entire passage. If how we look at v7 is an absolute (Christ ends the sacrifice) then the entire passage needs to be re-evaluated based on this absolute otherwise who is the judge? Why is one verse regarded one way and the other not?

You simply have failed to show me why this Isaiah passage should be viewed in such an inconsistent way.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I don't have an opposition to the 10 commandments or to the 4th commandment and I don't see how accusing me of that is helpful. .

Not sure how I missed that.. if so I apologize.

They are all promoting "Ten commandments for all mankind and included in the New Covenant law written on the heart" for both pre-cross and post-cross "all mankind" -- the "moral law of God" that defines what sin is --- and now you are too???!!!

What a shocker that I missed that one!!
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: DamianWarS
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I don't have an opposition to the 10 commandments or to the 4th commandment

for all mankind... the moral law of God that defines what sin is -- just like all these other denominations I keep pointing you to??

When I say --

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism. :groupray:

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)


-- so "now" you are saying you are fully on board with them on that point and that I have falsely accused you as doing otherwise??

and I don't see how accusing me of that is helpful. Let's think of the best of each other in our dialog becuase when we think the worse it's no longer a discussion, it's a fight.

Ok - I am fine with that -- but it is hard for me to tell from looking at your posts on this thread - that this really has been your position all along.


Pointing the finger and repeating the same passage trying to show me that law and Christ are in competition is counter gospel.

Something I never do.. you only have your quote "of you" for that sort of position on this thread.

Surely we both see that.


I want to interprete the passage responsibly and consistently so I can't ignore how we understand v7 without it effecting the reading of the entire passage. If how we look at v7 is an absolute (Christ ends the sacrifice) then the entire passage needs to be re-evaluated based on this absolute

Well not according to all those Christian denominations you keep saying you are now in agreement with.

And not according to 1 Cor 7:19
And not according to Hebrews 10:4-12


You simply have failed to show me why this Isaiah passage should be viewed in such an inconsistent way.

look at the texts I keep showing you - the ones that all of your own pro-sunday groups affirm for that point -- that you now say you are in agreement with.
 
Upvote 0