Where was the Sabbath Abolished?

AlightSeeker said:

God does command his people to be holy everyday. He says be holy because he is holy. Scripture clearly says God is holy and he has absolutely no fellowship with darkness. But they didn't obey God. They grumbled and wanted Egypt. They also didn't come out and be separate as he commanded. They instead was an unfaithful and abusive wife to God. They served idols and their demons. I know i dont want to walk the path of their stiffnecked folly. Scripture teaches us not to be like them.

Click to expand...

The command to be holy as God as holy is not the command to keep every day holy, but rather 1 Peter 1:16 is quoting Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, which includes keeping God's Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3) and refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). The good kings tended to live for much longer than the evil kings, so even though there were more evil kings, they were under a good king for a majority of the time, so while they were far from perfect in their service to God, they were even further from your lopsided description. Israel is a light to nations either by being an example for us to follow insofar as they were obedient to the Mosaic Law or by being an example for us to avoid following insofar as they were disobedient to it (1 Corinthians 10:1-13)

AlightSeeker said:

2 Timothy 3:1 But know this, that in the last days [a]perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, [b]unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.

The Man of God and the Word of God​

10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Click to expand...

AlightSeeker said:

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Click to expand...

It helps if you state why you are quoting a passage so that people can interact with what you understand what it is saying.

Revelation 16:14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings [g]of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

15 “Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.”

IcyChain said:

This feels like cut and paste or the rehashing of old material. It feels like a chatbot is responding to me with a bunch of preprogrammed responses and memorized verses.

It’s not really what I would call a conversation or a discussion, at least not one that I would like to have.

I mean, it sounds as if you are speaking at me instead of speaking to me, just rejecting everything I have to say without trying to find any common ground or agreement. It is you wanting to debate and convince me that you are right and I am wrong, as opposed to us having a discussion. It feels as if you are barking orders at me as if I were a child and you are the teacher who needs to correct me.

But the reality is that I have considered your arguments and I reject them, just as you have considered my viewpoint and rejected it. I think you are wrong and I don’t feel any particular need to offer a time-consuming point-by-point rebuttal of everything you write. I would rather spend that time doing something else.

Now, some folks will be happy to engage in that type of “discussion” with you but it isn’t very interesting to me honestly. My goal was to understand your view on the matter and I have done that. I hope you have a blessed day and I mean that sincerely.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've memorized a lot of verses and consider it important to try to back up as much as I can of what I say with Scripture, which also allows people who disagree with my position to explain why they think that I've misunderstood the verses that I've quoted. If I said something like that we should believe in Christ and every Christian were to agree, then there wouldn't be much to discuss until we found something where we disagreed, such as if we disagree about what exactly it means to believe in Christ. So while we no doubt have some common ground on a number of issues, discussions about theology should focus on where we disagree and why. I didn't just reject what you said, but discussed why I do so with the support of Scripture. I'm puzzled why you compared my post to barking orders at you. It's your prerogative whether you want to respond to all, some, or none of my post, but it is my hope to understand why you reject my view point.

Revelation scares me. I fear for myself and the world. But I like where those multitudes of people who God saved couldn't be counted and how in the end the nations obey God.

Soyeong said:

Jesus is God's word made flesh and the Mosaic Law is God's word, so it is contradictory to think that we find rest in him alone instead of finding rest in obeying the Mosaic Law.

Click to expand...

Jesus being the Logos and Mosaic Law being the commandments of God to Israel till Christ are two different things.

Jesus is God and a person. The Mosaic Law was a specific set of instructions to ancient Israel.

Jesus is not the Mosaic Law like I am not this post. So there is nothing contradictory in following the person instead of the old, deprecated code.

Soyeong said:

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've memorized a lot of verses and consider it important to try to back up as much as I can of what I say with Scripture, which also allows people who disagree with my position to explain why they think that I've misunderstood the verses that I've quoted. If I said something like that we should believe in Christ and every Christian were to agree, then there wouldn't be much to discuss until we found something where we disagreed, such as if we disagree about what exactly it means to believe in Christ. So while we no doubt have some common ground on a number of issues, discussions about theology should focus on where we disagree and why. I didn't just reject what you said, but discussed why I do so with the support of Scripture. I'm puzzled why you compared my post to barking orders at you. It's your prerogative whether you want to respond to all, some, or none of my post, but it is my hope to understand why you reject my view point.

Click to expand...

Well, I think I already explained my view to you. I do not believe that Christians are bound by the Mosaic law. It is the standard position of most of the 2 billion Christians on the Earth. There is much written on that topic both here in this forum, on the Internet, in hundreds of books, etc. I would guess that you have heard, considered and rejected all of those arguments before, so I don’t have any need or desire to spend a long time going back and forth with you point by point.

One thing I did learn about your view, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you seem to actually reject the authority of the apostles to make the decisions they made in Acts 15? The various verses in the NT suggesting that the old law has died away and that loosen things like dietary restrictions, the requirement for circumcision, etc. - it seems that you would actually reject that as an apostle contradicting the Mosaic law and actually having no authority to make those decisions in Acts?

la Son said:

Wow that was fantastic share!
Here I thought that they made the Talmud because it was their spoken word finally being written down and contained additional material that isn't in the Torah and they were attempting to preserve things as they are always being punished by God for not obeying and a lot of their punishment was slavery, exile and death.
That is quite interesting thank you. Disturbingly what surprised me wasn't shocking, what else is to be expected...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately none that is true. Wht they did was focus on human ways to stop themselves from falling into idolatry again as that had been their mo for their entire history. Instead turning to God they looked to the,selves to overcome sin. That is an impossibility. Only God's power in out lives can overcome sin. What they fell into was another form of idolatry in which they worshiped themselves rather than God.. That story is all throughout both the OT and NT. It's why the Pharisees murdered Jesus and persecuted the early Christian church.

AlightSeeker said:

John 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

1 Corinthians 2:And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power

Click to expand...

This scripture shows how both God and the devil work. We can't physically see them but we see the effects of their influence on people. God's influence makes people kinder, more loving, and creates a desire within them to treat their bodies better. The devil's influence does just the opposite. People become more controlling, hateful, and more self destructive as all of those aspects of humanity exhibit sinfulness as sin itself is self destructiveness,

Sanctification is God healing us from the scars life on a sinful plant has inflicted on us and as a result we become more self possessed, calmer, more loving and more peaceful as that is what Jesus was like here on earth. Read the story of His trial and you will see all those attributes demonstrated in supernatural ways. The HS dwelling within us gives us those attributes as we fall more in love with Jesus through our everyday communication with Him through prayer, Bible study and witnessing. Why witnessing? Because by doing that we become more aware of how little we understand the spiritual needs of others and go to God in prayer asking for wisdom and understanding to meet their needs. Helping others grow spiritually helps us to do the same. It's why God allows us to be a part of saving others.

myst33 said:

Jesus being the Logos and Mosaic Law being the commandments of God to Israel till Christ are two different things.

Jesus is God and a person. The Mosaic Law was a specific set of instructions to ancient Israel.

Jesus is not the Mosaic Law like I am not this post. So there is nothing contradictory in following the person instead of the old, deprecated code.

Click to expand...

I did not say that Jesus is the Mosaic Law, but that it is God’s word and he is God’s word made flesh. While God’s word is not Jesus in the same sense that the command to love our neighbor as ourselves is not the same as the one whose life is the embodiment of that command, there is still a direct connection between the two such us embodying that command through following the example of the one who is the embodiment of that command is the way to follow him. It would be contradictory to follow the one whose life is the embodiment the command to love our neighbor as ourselves instead of following that command in the same sense that it is contradictory to follow Jesus instead of following the Mosaic Law.

Soyeong said:

I did not say that Jesus is the Mosaic Law, but that it is God’s word and he is God’s word made flesh. While God’s word is not Jesus in the same sense that the command to love our neighbor as ourselves is not the same as the one whose life is the embodiment of that command, there is still a direct connection between the two such us embodying that command through following the example of the one who is the embodiment of that command is the way to follow him. It would be contradictory to follow the one whose life is the embodiment the command to love our neighbor as ourselves instead of following that command in the same sense that it is contradictory to follow Jesus instead of following the Mosaic Law.

Click to expand...

The English term "word" is just one of possible translations/meanings of Logos. The random fact that its the same term in English as for Bible, has no theological relevance.

IcyChain said:

Well, I think I already explained my view to you. I do not believe that Christians are bound by the Mosaic law. It is the standard position of most of the 2 billion Christians on the Earth. There is much written on that topic both here in this forum, on the Internet, in hundreds of books, etc. I would guess that you have heard, considered and rejected all of those arguments before, so I don’t have any need or desire to spend a long time going back and forth with you point by point.

One thing I did learn about your view, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you seem to actually reject the authority of the apostles to make the decisions they made in Acts 15? The various verses in the NT suggesting that the old law has died away and that loosen things like dietary restrictions, the requirement for circumcision, etc. - it seems that you would actually reject that as an apostle contradicting the Mosaic law and actually having no authority to make those decisions in Acts?

Click to expand...

I believe that the whole Bible is true, so I accept the authority of the Apostles, but I do not think that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded. When interpreting the Bible, it is important to have the self-awareness to be able to recognize that our interpretation must be wrong or that if it is correct, then we should reject the truth of what it says. To use an obvious example, Psalms 14:1 directly states "there is no God", so we should recognize that it must be incorrect to think that that verse is denying the existence of God, or if that were the correct interpretation, then we should reject its truth even if billions of other Christians interpreted it as denying the existence of God. Likewise, we should not interpret any part of God's word as contradicting another part of God's word or as speaking against obeying God's word.

In Acts 5:29, it states that we must obey God rather than man, so if God said to do something and the Apostles spoke against obeying God, then we should obey God instead of the Apostles. The Apostles did not have the authority to countermand God, so if it comes down to a choice between following God or the Apostles, then it should not be difficult to figure out who has the highest authority and which one we should follow, but we should be quicker to think that we must have misinterpreted the Apostles than to think that it makes perfect sense to interpret servants of God as speaking against obeying what He has commanded.

I grew up being taught that the Mosaic Law is a heavy burden that no one can bear, but that doesn't stand up under scrutiny, starting with the fact that it is in direct disagreement with God insofar as Romans 10:5-8 references Deuteronomy 30:11-16 as the word of faith that we proclaim, which states that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome.

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of the Mosaic Law, then we will share it as Paul did (Romans 7:22). Anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying the Mosaic Law is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture and we should not interpret the NT authors as expressing a view of the Mosaic Law that is incompatible with the truth of what they considered to be Scripture. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of the Mosaic Law.

Soyeong said:

I believe that the whole Bible is true, so I accept the authority of the Apostles, but I do not think that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded. When interpreting the Bible, it is important to have the self-awareness to be able to recognize that our interpretation must be wrong or that if it is correct, then we should reject the truth of what it says. To use an obvious example, Psalms 14:1 directly states "there is no God", so we should recognize that it must be incorrect to think that that verse is denying the existence of God, or if that were the correct interpretation, then we should reject its truth even if billions of other Christians interpreted it as denying the existence of God. Likewise, we should not interpret any part of God's word as contradicting another part of God's word or as speaking against obeying God's word.

Click to expand...

I agree with your general methodology here.

For me, I can reconcile the texts in the NT that seem to suggest a loosening of the restrictions on the dietary laws and so forth, because I did not reach an initial interpretation of the Bible such that the Mosiac Law is applicable to Christians.

To clarify your view - do you believe that everything in the OT is to be strictly applied to Christians?

For example, must all males be circumcised, even though many parts of the NT seem to loosen or abolish the requirement for circumcision?

If a person is found guilty of adultery, should he be put to death as commanded by Leviticus, even though Jesus seems to change that in the New Testament?

Soyeong said:

In Acts 5:29, it states that we must obey God rather than man, so if God said to do something and the Apostles spoke against obeying God, then we should obey God instead of the Apostles. The Apostles did not have the authority to countermand God, so if it comes down to a choice between following God or the Apostles, then it should not be difficult to figure out who has the highest authority and which one we should follow, but we should be quicker to think that we must have misinterpreted the Apostles than to think that it makes perfect sense to interpret servants of God as speaking against obeying what He has commanded.

Click to expand...

At a basic level I agree with you here, too.

Let's say that we were both living during the times when the apostles were alive. Let's say that you had interpreted the Bible and concluded X, but then an apostle came along and told you Y. So, either X is correct or Y is correct. How do you determine whether your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, or whether the apostle is countermanding God?

How do you resolve that dilemma? Do you have a logical debate until your intellect is convinced one way or another? Do you resolve that conflict using some other means?

Soyeong said:

I grew up being taught that the Mosaic Law is a heavy burden that no one can bear, but that doesn't stand up under scrutiny, starting with the fact that it is in direct disagreement with God insofar as Romans 10:5-8 references Deuteronomy 30:11-16 as the word of faith that we proclaim, which states that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome.

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of the Mosaic Law, then we will share it as Paul did (Romans 7:22). Anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying the Mosaic Law is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture and we should not interpret the NT authors as expressing a view of the Mosaic Law that is incompatible with the truth of what they considered to be Scripture. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of the Mosaic Law.

Click to expand...

I also have a positive view of the Mosaic Law. And I would not say that it s a heavy burden that no one can bear. A person can bear anything that God gives him the grace to bear.

If you have a 3 year old child, you might make a rule for the child "Do not touch the stove". If the child touches the stove under any circumstance, you will slap the child's hand, regardless of whether or not the stove is hot. You understand that the child does not have the capacity to determine when the stove is safe to touch and when it is not safe to touch, and that the child responds to pain, so you institute that sort of harsh rule for the child's own good.

When the child turns 14 years old - him being more mature, you might create a new rule for him: "Every evening you are to use the stove to cook dinner for the family".

I think you see the point that I am trying to make with that example. Just because I changed the rule when the child turned 14 does not mean that there was anything wrong with the rule "Do not touch the stove". In fact, the rule "Do not touch the stove" was a perfect rule for the 3 year old child to whom it was intended. But as the child matured another law was more appropriate for him.

I think the Mosaic Law is perfect as it was created by God, but I don't think we need to conclude that because God enacted the law for a specific group of people (the Jews) at a particular point in time (before the death and resurrection of our Lord), that God intended that same law as the ideal for Christians after the death and resurrection of our Lord. At least at a philosophical level, it makes sense to me that there would be a unique code for Christians because they are the recipient of unique graces that were merited by our Lord on the cross. For example, for a group of people who do not have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they might need a harsh rule like death for committing adultery, to drive home the gravity of the sin and to create a strong deterrent effect for committing that sin. For the person who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, the proper way to act is kind of like ingrained in his heart and the Holy Spirit prompts him to act in the proper manner, if he allows the Holy Spirit to guide him and work within him. He doesn't necessarily need to see a person stoned to death to understand the gravity of the sin and to be deterred from committing it. . .

I see concepts similar to what I describe above when I read the letters of St. Paul.

I think what you wrote above is good, but I interpret Scripture a little differently than you do which causes me to view it a different way. . .

Soyeong said:

I believe that the whole Bible is true, so I accept the authority of the Apostles, but I do not think that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded.

Click to expand...

Without understanding who was commanded and for what time (i.e. the context of the commandment), you will misunderstood the Bible.

The Mosaic Law was no global commandment for the whole world and forever, it was for Israel till Christ, only. The Old Testament is in the Bible from historical reasons, not because it was given to you, personally, to live under.

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John."
Mt 11:13

"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:23-25

"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way
of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
R 7:6

"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another"
R 7:4

I would like to know when God ever demanded Gentiles to keep any of the ritual commands He required of the nation of Israel. Please do not try to insult our intelligence by saying that the Bible doesn't differentiate civil, ceremonial and moral laws. That, in no way, means laws do not have different meanings.

Bob S said:

I would like to know when God ever demanded Gentiles to keep any of the ritual commands He required of the nation of Israel. Please do not try to insult our intelligence by saying that the Bible doesn't differentiate civil, ceremonial and moral laws. That, in no way, means laws do not have different meanings.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked such an easy question to answer.

Exodus 12: 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Exodus 20: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Exodus 23: 12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

Leviticus 13: 29 ¶And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

Leviticus 17: 8 ¶And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice,
9 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the Lord; even that man shall be cut off from among his people.
10 ¶And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Leviticus 17: 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

Leviticus 18: 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

How many more verses will it take to convince you you're mistaken? There are more if you'd like to see them.

Gary K said:

I'm glad you asked such an easy question to answer.

Exodus 12: 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Exodus 20: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Exodus 23: 12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

Leviticus 13: 29 ¶And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

Leviticus 17: 8 ¶And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice,
9 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the Lord; even that man shall be cut off from among his people.
10 ¶And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Leviticus 17: 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

Leviticus 18: 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

How many more verses will it take to convince you you're mistaken? There are more if you'd like to see them.

Click to expand...

Well, you said its easy to answer and then all your answers missed the target.

All the verses you quoted are instructions for ancient Israel, none is given to Gentiles or after Christ.

myst33 said:

Well, you said its easy to answer and then all your answers missed the target.

All the verses you quoted are instructions for ancient Israel, none is given to Gentiles or after Christ.

Click to expand...

The Hebrew word translated as stranger:

[*StrongsHebrew*]
1616
גּיר גּר
gêr gêyr {gare} gare
From H1481; properly a guest; by implication a foreigner: - {alien} {sojourner} stranger.

The Greek word translated as Gentile:

[*StrongsGreek*]
01484
ἔθνος éthnos, eth'-nos
probably from 1486;
a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):--Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

Gary K said:

The Hebrew word translated as stranger:

[*StrongsHebrew*]
1616
גּיר גּר
gêr gêyr {gare} gare
From H1481; properly a guest; by implication a foreigner: - {alien} {sojourner} stranger.

The Greek word translated as Gentile:

[*StrongsGreek*]
01484
ἔθνος éthnos, eth'-nos
probably from 1486;
a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):--Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

Click to expand...

Those instructions are for ancient Israel, when strangers came to live in ancient Israel. They were not given to Gentiles elsewhere or after Christ.

myst33 said:

Those instructions are for ancient Israel, when strangers came to live in ancient Israel. They were not given to Gentiles elsewhere or after Christ.

Click to expand...

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

Gary K said:

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

Click to expand...

The context is still the people of Israel. Joining "to the Lord" means joining the people of Israel, in Isaiah.

these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar