An example of how the whole law cannot be practiced today (discussion)

[expos4ever]

Let's talk about 1 John 3:4 rendered in some translations as "Sin IS transgression of the LAW", or something that is equivalent in the sense that a clear link to the Law of Moses has been drawn, but rendered in other translations, in fact in most, as "sin is lawlessness", or something that is equivalent in the sense that a clear link to the Law of Moses has not been drawn.

It is beyond debate that the term "lawlessness" is not inherently specific to the Law of Moses. But, if the context demands it, it could indeed be argued that even in those translations that do not have specificity to the Law of Moses, this could be the intent.

Let's examine the claims set forth by those who believe that context does exactly that - that is establishes that there is indeed an intent to make specific reference to the law of Moses.

A. 1 John 5:3 is set forth: For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. The argument then gets obviously circular - the claim is made that if you take 1 John 5:3 in context with a translation of 1 John 3:4 that is specific to the Law of Moses, then that specificity justifies seeing the "commandments" of 1 John 5:3 as being specific to the Law of Moses. But this is as circular an argument as one could imagine, and gets nowhere.

B. Ephesians 6:2 is offered. Here it is together with verse 1: Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise).

Yes, Paul is effectively commanding us to honour our parents, just as the Law of Moses does.

But, and this is really important, this does not justify concluding that the Law of Moses is still in effect.

I suggest there is a perhaps subtle, but vital distinction here that is often muzzled - the distinction between the content of a moral principle and the vehicle by which it is delivered. Thus, we can have a situation where, for example, Canadian Law has some of the same content as American Law - both recognize murder as illegal - yet this does not, of course, mean that a Canadian is subject to American law!

The content of the "rule against murder" is the same but this certainly does not justify concluding, for example, that we Canadians are all subject to the American law against murder let alone the rest of American law! How is this not obvious?

So, in Eph 6:2, I can claim that Paul, speaking through inspiration of the Spirit is telling us to honour our parents, but it surely does not logically follow that we are therefore still under the Law of Moses in any sense whatsoever.

C. Romans 3:19-20 is offered: Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are [k]under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works [l]of the Law [m]none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for [n]through the Law comes [o]knowledge of sin.

First, those "under the Law" are Jews and Jews only. Paul writes that the Law is relevant to those who are under it. The word "those" always picks out a subset:

- those over 6 feet
- those with red hair
- those who get a grade of B or better.

You never hear "those humans with DNA" since, obviously all humans have DNA. So right away, we can be confident that Romans 3:19-20 does not teach that all humanity is under the Law. Now, beware the trickery that will follow - you will be told that since all are deemed sinners, all must therefore be under the law of Moses. A grade 9 student could tell you the error of logic there.

Besides, there is an even more compelling argument why we have to read Romans 3:19-20 as descriptive of what is no longer the case, all other issues notwithstanding. You are not being given verse 21:

But now apart [p]from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed,....

It is clear that Romans 3 is, among other things, a re-telling of the history of Israel from the giving of the Law till the present moment.

And where does Romans 3:20 appear? It appears before the "but now". And the use of the "but" in "but now" is clearly a way of saying that things have changed.

No one would say "The Law gives knowledge of sin, but now apart from the Law.......and not expect to be understood as saying that things have changed with respect to the law.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not sure what you mean by "greater than sin". Sin is not a ceremonial commandment given by God for some purpose, like Sabbath was.

As priests could break it and be innocent, so also Jesus could break it and be innocent.

You had said, "Jesus cannot be a sinner for breaking the Sabbath, because He is greater than Sabbath." I was just echoing that in a different application. The same principle applies whether ceremonial or not. If he is not the author of sin, but IS the cause of all things, then there is no contradiction. He is above that.

 

[HIM]

C. Romans 3:19-20 is offered: Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are [k]under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works [l]of the Law [m]none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for [n]through the Law comes [o]knowledge of sin.

First, those "under the Law" are Jews and Jews only. Paul writes that the Law is relevant to those who are under it. The word "those" always picks out a subset:

- those over 6 feet
- those with red hair
- those who get a grade of B or better.

You never hear "those humans with DNA" since, obviously all humans have DNA. So right away, we can be confident that Romans 3:19-20 does not teach that all humanity is under the Law. Now, beware the trickery that will follow - you will be told that since all are deemed sinners, all must therefore be under the law of Moses. A grade 9 student could tell you the error of logic there.

Besides, there is an even more compelling argument why we have to read Romans 3:19-20 as descriptive of what is no longer the case, all other issues notwithstanding. You are not being given verse 21:

But now apart [p]from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed,....

It is clear that Romans 3 is, among other things, a re-telling of the history of Israel from the giving of the Law till the present moment.

And where does Romans 3:20 appear? It appears before the "but now". And the use of the "but" in "but now" is clearly a way of saying that things have changed.

No one would say "The Law gives knowledge of sin, but now apart from the Law.......and not expect to be understood as saying that things have changed with respect to the law.

Firstly, Romans 3 does not say under the law it is says in the law. If Paul meant under the law he would have said so as he did in other places. He didn't, he said in the law. There is a difference. That is a bad translation of that verse.

Secondly, the same chapter says all are under sin in verse 10. This is being said in context to verse 20 where it states the through the law is the knowledge of sin, Whether they knew the knowledge or not they sinned. And through the law is the knowledge of sin. And all have sinned whether they had the knowledge of sin or not.

Thirdly verse 2:12 is also said in context to chapter three where it says all are under sin and by the law is the knowledge of sin. There it says if we sinned without the law we shall perish. And if we sinned in the law we shall be judged by it.

Fourthly, Verse 2:20 is being stated in the indicative mood and future tense. In other words it is a fact that through the law is the knowledge of sin. And the justification that is in His sight is in the future. And that justification would be in the day that God shall judge the secrets of man through Jesus Christ according to the Gospel as verse 2:16 depicts.

Fifthly, immediately after Paul states, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." He starts the next clause with the word for. That means as you know what is about to be said is the reason for what was said. In other words the Gentiles shall be justified because they are doers of the law. In that they have the work of the law in their hearts and by nature do the law. In this they are justified.


Would you like to talk about what it means by the just shall live by faith as chapter begins all this that is being said in context to that?

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.


.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

 

[expos4ever]

Firstly, Romans 3 does not say under the law is says in.

Incomplete sentence, what are trying to say

Secondly, the same chapter says all are under sin in verse 10. This is being said in context to verse 20 where it states the through the law is the knowledge of sin,

Not sure what you are saying. My point is that there is nothing in the logic of the text that requires us to believe that all human beings are in the category of "those who are under the law". It is beyond obvious from scripture that one can be reckoned a sinner without particular reference to the Law of Moses.

And through the law is the knowledge of sin.

Two things are clear:

1. Only Jews are under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses
2. There is a sense (Romans 2: 14-15) that something about the content of the Law of Moses is disclosed to the Gentile.

But even if there is a sense in which all humanity comes to know their sinfulness via the Law, this is no way demonstrates that this remains the case today, especially in light of the "but now" in Romans 3:21, which clearly puts the first 20 verses of Romans 3 in the rear view mirror.

And all have sinned whether they had the knowledge of sin or not.

Thirdly verse 2:12 is also said in context to chapter three where it says all are under sin and by the law is the knowledge of sin. There it says if we sinned without the law we shall perish. And if we sinned in the law we shall be judged by it.

Yes, but the fact that there are those "without the law" demonstrates that, indeed, not all humanity fall under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses.

Hope to address the rest of your post later.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Firstly, Romans 3 does not say under the law it is says in the law. If Paul meant under the law he would have said so as he did in other places. He didn't, he said in the law. There is a difference. That is a bad translation of that verse.

Where'd you get the idea it is a bad translation —from a diagram of the Greek prepositions? The Greek is translated very well there. The preposition allows for meaning, not just logistical use. Actually, this is true in any language, I expect. Certainly in English and Spanish. It's not a good idea to get dogmatic about the use of prepositions, certainly not when the majority of Greek scholars disagree with you.

 

[HIM]

Where'd you get the idea it is a bad translation —from a diagram of the Greek prepositions? The Greek is translated very well there. The preposition allows for meaning, not just logistical use. Actually, this is true in any language, I expect. Certainly in English and Spanish. It's not a good idea to get dogmatic about the use of prepositions, certainly not when the majority of Greek scholars disagree with you.

Because it is. In and under arr different. If Paul meant under he would have said so as he did other places in Romans and Galatians.

 

[Leaf473]

Edit: Wow, part of this post got pasted-in twice. Better fix that.
_________________
The standard phrase that Paul uses for
under the law
is ὑπὸ νόμον.
Romans 3 has ἐν τῷ νόμῳ.

The issue is that
under the law
is still the best translation into English. Though, definitely, it can be confusing if you're doing a word study.

The NASB adds a footnote for clarification

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 3 - New American Standard Bible

All the World Guilty - Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God. What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? Far...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Mark Quayle]

Because it is. In and under arr different. If Paul meant under he would have said so as he did other places in Romans and Galatians.

I'm guessing you don't know more than one language. Translation doesn't work that way.

The use of the Greek, regardless of transliteration, Paul meant in the same way as we would use 'under' in English. If he had used what we would transliterate back to your diagram of definitions, it would not mean what he pretty obviously intends. "In" doesn't make good sense there, as even your narrative shows.

UNDER obligation to the Law.

 

[HIM]

I'm guessing you don't know more than one language. Translation doesn't work that way.

The use of the Greek, regardless of transliteration, Paul meant in the same way as we would use 'under' in English. If he had used what we would transliterate back to your diagram of definitions, it would not mean what he pretty obviously intends. "In" doesn't make good sense there, as even your narrative shows.

UNDER obligation to the Law.

I’m guessing you haven’t really looked into it yourself.When I have time I’ll post more.

 

[HIM]

I'm guessing you don't know more than one language. Translation doesn't work that way.

The use of the Greek, regardless of transliteration, Paul meant in the same way as we would use 'under' in English. If he had used what we would transliterate back to your diagram of definitions, it would not mean what he pretty obviously intends. "In" doesn't make good sense there, as even your narrative shows.

UNDER obligation to the Law

Paul used the phrase under law 8 times. Out of the 8 two are in Romans. If he meant under the law he would of said it, He didn't, he said in the law. So rather than paraphrase what we think he meant or change the wording we need to figure out what he meant.

In the law as in a position of rest, being.

Rom 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,


Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Paul used the phrase under law 8 times. Out of the 8 two are in Romans. If he meant under the law he would of said it, He didn't, he said in the law. So rather than paraphrase what we think he meant or change the wording we need to figure out what he meant.

In the law as in a position of rest, being.

Rom 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,


Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

What is your point? Where is the problem here?

 

[HIM]

What is your point? Where is the problem here?

Under is not the same as in. Under implies service in most cases Paul uses it in respect to the law. That is not what is being said in Romans 3:19.

 

[Studyman]

"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

It seem important to remember that all man have sinned.

2 Chron. 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

In the Law and Prophets, before "After those days", and after the Golden Calf, a man that sinned was required to engage with a Levite Priest. This engagement included bringing a goat or other animal to the Levite Priest and killing it before the Priest would make an atonement for the Sin. These sacrificial "Works of the Law" were required for redemption of Sin for a time. These Sacrificial Laws were "ADDED" to God's Laws Abraham obeyed 430 years after Abraham, "because of Transgressions", and were to be in place "till the Seed should come". (SEE Lev. 4) After the "SEED" came, the Priesthood Covenant changed as prophesied, so men are no longer redeemed by the "works of the Law" of redemption.

The Pharisees didn't believe Jesus was the Prophesied "Priest of God" spoken of by the Prophets. As a result, they were still promoting their version of these sacrificial "Works of the Law" for redemption. Preaching to the new converts that there was no redemption without this engagement with a Levite Priest, as per the Law of Moses. Paul, in Galatians, is fighting against these preachers who are still preaching that the Galatians must come to them for redemption.

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

These Priesthood "works of the Law" were to lead men to the Christ of the Bible, and it did for Zacharias, Simeon, Anna and the Wise men, and others as well. After HE came and became the Sacrifice once and for all, as Prophesied, there is no more requirement to be "under" this Law for redemption. But sin still exists, therefore God's Law that defines sin, still exists. The deceiver would have us believe that God's Instruction in Righteousness ended when the "SEED" came. This is not true according to Scriptures.

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 5:18

It's important to remember the Words of the Christ of the Bible.

Mark 7: 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

And again;

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Jesus didn't break God's Sabbath. He may have broken the Sabbath of the Pharisees but not God's Sabbath as defined by the Law and Prophets.

 

[trophy33]

Jesus didn't break God's Sabbath. He may have broken the Sabbath of the Pharisees but not God's Sabbath as defined by the Law and Prophets.

This is your insertion into the text. The text just says "Sabbath".

Also, you totally ignore the argumentation of Jesus about it. You create a different one.

 

[Studyman]

This is your insertion into the text. The text just says "Sabbath".

Also, you totally ignore the argumentation of Jesus about it. You create a different one.

Who accused Jesus breaking God's Sabbath? It was the same men who accused Jesus of having a devil, Yes? It was the same men who accused Jesus of being from Galilee, Yes? The same men who murdered Jesus, and stoned Stephen to death, Yes? So why do you believe and promote the teaching of these children of the devil regarding God's Sabbath? Do you also preach to others that Jesus had a devil, or was from Galilee?

I ignore nothing concerning the Scriptures. It is because I don't ignore the Scriptures, that I understand that it was the devil, through its children the Pharisees, who accused Jesus of breaking His Father's Commandments.

And now it seems you are accusing Jesus of breaking His Father's Commandments.

Peter never accused Jesus of such a thing.

1 Pet. 2: 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Paul never accused Jesus of such a thing.

2 Cor. 5: 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Hebrews author didn't accuse Jesus of such a thing.

Heb. 4: 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Isaiah never accused Him of such a thing.

Is. 53: 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

It seems only you and the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking His Father's Commandment.

I'm going with the God inspired Holy Scriptures on this one. Jesus didn't break His Fathers Sabbath.

 

[trophy33]

Who accused Jesus breaking God's Sabbath? It was the same men who accused Jesus of having a devil, Yes? It was the same men who accused Jesus of being from Galilee, Yes? The same men who murdered Jesus, and stoned Stephen to death So why do you believe and promote the teaching of these children of the devil regarding God's Sabbath? Do you also preach to others that Jesus had a devil, or was from Galilee?

I ignore nothing concerning the Scriptures. It is because I don't ignore the Scriptures, that I understand that it was the devil, through its children the Pharisees, who accused Jesus of breaking His Father's Commandments.

And now it seems you are accusing Jesus of breaking His Father's Commandments.

Peter never accused Jesus of such a thing.

1 Pet. 2: 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Paul never accused Jesus of such a thing.

2 Cor. 5: 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Hebrews author didn't accuse Jesus of such a thing.

Heb. 4: 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Isaiah never accused Him of such a thing.

Is. 53: 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

It seems only you and the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking His Father's Commandment.

I'm going with the God inspired Holy Scriptures on this one. Jesus didn't break His Fathers Sabbath.

You are trying to talk about so many verses at once that you appear to be loosing focus.

In the verse you are reacting to, its not an accusation of anybody, its a commentary of the author of the Gospel.

Also, when Jesus was asked by Pharisees why His disciples do what is not allowed on Sabbath, Jesus did not argue in your unbiblical way, i.e. "they are not really breaking the Sabbath, just your man made rules", but in a totally different way, i.e. "I am the Lord over Sabbath", meaning they are not sinning, because they are with Him, who is more than Sabbath, than temple, priests etc.

 

[Studyman]

You are trying to talk about so many verses at once that you appear to be loosing focus.

Jesus said to live by Every Word of God. Not just those religious men use to justify their particular religious sect or business. This is not "losing fucus" in my view, but following the instructions of Jesus and Paul for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: As opposed to listening to random religions of this world who come in Christ's Name.

In the verse you are reacting to, its not an accusation of anybody, its a commentary of the author of the Gospel.

John 5: 18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

When a person considers "Every Word" of scripture, like Jesus and Paul instructed, they find a truth that you are missing.

Matt. 12: 1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

So the truth of scripture, when a man considers them all, is that the Hebrews author didn't accuse Jesus, but the Pharisees and you accuse Jesus of "breaking God's Commandments". And this by selective use of scripture.

It's the same with accusing Jesus of making Himself equal with God. You and the Pharisees promote this teaching, not the Jesus of the Bible, or the Hebrews Author.

John 14: 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

The problem is, in my view, that "many" who come in His Name don't really care about what the scriptures actually say. They are more interested in promoting their own religious philosophy, like the Pharisees did regarding God's Sabbaths.

Had the mainstream preachers of Jesus Time not Cherry-Picked Scriptures and "Omitting" important matters of the Law, like you are doing here, they would have known the Christ when HE came, like Zacharias and Simeon did.

Also, when Jesus was asked by Pharisees why His disciples do what is not allowed on Sabbath, Jesus did not argue in your unbiblical way, i.e. "they are not really breaking the Sabbath, just your man made rules",

But the Christ did say the Pharisees polluted God's Sabbath, when HE spoke from "where HE was before". I can post HIS OWN Words if you want to see them. He did tell the Pharisees they rejected God's Commandments by their own traditions and that they "taught for doctrines the commandments of Men not God, and that Isaiah was right about them. Just because HIS Words can't be used to promote religious men's rejection of God's Commandment, doesn't make the Words HE spoke void or useless.

but in a totally different way, i.e. "I am the Lord over Sabbath", meaning they are not sinning, because they are with Him, who is more than Sabbath, than temple, priests etc.

Jesus didn't say HE was Lord, "over the Sabbath". You injected your own religion into HIS Words to justify your own religion. He is Lord "Of the Sabbath". And of course HE is, HE created it for man.

This is certainly a popular religious view. That it's "OK" to Sin as long as you do it in Jesus Name, or as you put it, "with Him". The Christ "of the Bible" speaks to this through Isaiah before becoming a man in the person of Jesus.

Is. 43: 24 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.

This same Christ, up where HE was before, teaches His People that it is "Honoring Him" to consider God's Sabbath "Holy unto the Lord" (IS. 58:13)

I get how popular rejecting God's Sabbaths are in the religions of this world God placed me in and has been for a long time. But the Body of Christ never treated their redeemer this way. At least not the Christ of the Bible.

 

[trophy33]

Jesus said to live by Every Word of God. Not just those religious men use to justify their particular religious sect or business. This is not "losing fucus" in my view, but following the instructions of Jesus and Paul for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: As opposed to listening to random religions of this world who come in Christ's Name.



John 5: 18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

When a person considers "Every Word" of scripture, like Jesus and Paul instructed, they find a truth that you are missing.

Matt. 12: 1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

So the truth of scripture, when a man considers them all, is that the Hebrews author didn't accuse Jesus, but the Pharisees and you accuse Jesus of "breaking God's Commandments". And this by selective use of scripture.

It's the same with accusing Jesus of making Himself equal with God. You and the Pharisees promote this teaching, not the Jesus of the Bible, or the Hebrews Author.

John 14: 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

The problem is, in my view, that "many" who come in His Name don't really care about what the scriptures actually say. They are more interested in promoting their own religious philosophy, like the Pharisees did regarding God's Sabbaths.

Had the mainstream preachers of Jesus Time not Cherry-Picked Scriptures and "Omitting" important matters of the Law, like you are doing here, they would have known the Christ when HE came, like Zacharias and Simeon did.



But the Christ did say the Pharisees polluted God's Sabbath, when HE spoke from "where HE was before". I can post HIS OWN Words if you want to see them. He did tell the Pharisees they rejected God's Commandments by their own traditions and that they "taught for doctrines the commandments of Men not God, and that Isaiah was right about them. Just because HIS Words can't be used to promote religious men's rejection of God's Commandment, doesn't make the Words HE spoke void or useless.



Jesus didn't say HE was Lord, "over the Sabbath". You injected your own religion into HIS Words to justify your own religion. He is Lord "Of the Sabbath". And of course HE is, HE created it for man.

This is certainly a popular religious view. That it's "OK" to Sin as long as you do it in Jesus Name, or as you put it, "with Him". The Christ "of the Bible" speaks to this through Isaiah before becoming a man in the person of Jesus.

Is. 43: 24 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.

This same Christ, up where HE was before, teaches His People that it is "Honoring Him" to consider God's Sabbath "Holy unto the Lord" (IS. 58:13)

I get how popular rejecting God's Sabbaths are in the religions of this world God placed me in and has been for a long time. But the Body of Christ never treated their redeemer this way. At least not the Christ of the Bible.

1. The author of the gospel (not "accusers" or Pharisees) said that Jesus had broken the sabbath:
Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
J 5:18

2. Regarding His disciples breaking the Sabbath with plucking and rubbing the grains in the field, Jesus did not argue your way ("they were not actually breaking the sabbath"), but in the way "as priests can break sabbath but still be sinless, so also my disciples can be sinless breaking it, because I am more than the temple". And in this context He also adds "Kyrios eimi kai tou sabbatou.", though the English "over" (or "of") is not literally there.

Do you agree that the Creator God is Lord over everything? That He is greater than the temple? Or do you think He (and His priests) must be subdued to memorial rules He gave to common people of the ancient Israel (not to priests or kings in the temple, though, as mentioned in Jesus's response)?

------

For a reminder, the place the point 2 is about:
...they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

Jesus replied, “Have you not read what [king] David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for them to eat, but only for the priests.

Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are innocent? But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.

If only you had known the meaning of ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Mt 12:2-8

 

[Studyman]

1. The author of the gospel (not "accusers" or Pharisees) said that Jesus had broken the sabbath:
Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
J 5:18

No, when you consider more than just ONE verse out of the entire Bible, it is clear that the Jesus "of the Bible" was not a Transgressor.

John 5:15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. 16 And therefore (Because of this) did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 18 Therefore (Because of this) the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

I understand how important it to some, to paint the Christ as a Transgressor. It was important for the mainstream preachers of Jesus Time, and it is certainly your agenda here. But to include John as an accuser of the Christ as well, this just isn't true. You could see this if you considered more than ONE verse out of the Bible.

What Jesus did was against the Pharisees Sabbath not God's.

2. Regarding His disciples breaking the Sabbath with plucking and rubbing the grains in the field,

It was never a sin, or "breaking God's Sabbath" for men to take a walk on God's Sabbath and eat a raspberry or ear of corn along the way. It is against the Pharisees Sabbath, not Gods. If you considered more than One verse in the bible, you could see this.

The Christ of the Bible tells those who will hear Him, that the Jews Polluted God's Sabbaths.

EZ. 20: 13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

Now these same Jews were accusing Jesus of having a Devil, of being from Galilee, and here, of breaking God's Sabbath.

And you are taking their side even though the Christ of the Bible tells you they are liars, and that they rejected God's Commandments by their own traditions, and that they were teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

It is you and the Pharisees who are accusing the Disciples here, not God's inspired Word.

Jesus did not argue your way ("they were not actually breaking the sabbath"), but in the way "as priests can break sabbath but still be sinless, so also my disciples can be sinless breaking it, because I am more than the temple". And in this context He also adds "Kyrios eimi kai tou sabbatou.", though the English "over" (or "of") is not literally there.

Jesus, God's Prophesied Messiah, was dealing with liars and hypocrites who were out to kill Him. I am dealing with a man who has been convinced that the Scriptures themselves cannot be trusted.

7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Jesus did say the Disciples didn't break God's Sabbath. And HE should know, given HE created it.

Do you agree that the Creator God is Lord over everything?

Absolutely, but HE is not a Hypocrite, or a respecter of persons, nor as a man did HE Transgress the Commandments God He commanded others to walk in.

That He is greater than the temple?

A man-made shrine of worship made of wood and stone means nothing. Of course, the Christ is greater than the temple.

Or do you think He (and His priests) must be subdued to memorial rules He gave to common people of the ancient Israel (not to priests or kings in the temple, though, as mentioned in Jesus's response)?

Jesus didn't consider the 10 commandments "Memorial Rules". You do, but Jesus said God's Sabbath was made for man.

For a reminder, the place the point 2 is about:
...they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

Jesus replied, “Have you not read what [king] David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for them to eat, but only for the priests.

It's the perfect story to expose the Hypocrisy of the mainstream preachers of HIS Time. David went to the Priest of God for help, as he should. The Priest asked him questions, and chose to feed him, which is his job. Would the Pharisees not done the same, just as they would not have allowed one of their own sheep to suffer in a pit he fell into on the sabbath?

Your point is to make God's Laws, including His Sabbath irrelevant, because the religion you adopted teach God's Laws are irrelevant. It was never against God's Law to help a brother in need on God's Sabbath, or to take a walk, or to pick an apple to eat on that walk.

"Many" of Today's mainstream preachers, who come in Christ's Name, promote a Jesus who came to abolish God's Sabbaths. But the Jesus "of the Bible" didn't come to do any such thing. He came to expose the hypocrites and their doctrines of men.

He said God's Sabbath "was made for man". You have hitched your wagon to the Pharisees on this one, which I believe is a mistake.

Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are innocent? But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.

If only you had known the meaning of ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Mt 12:2-8

Yes, neither Jesus nor His Disciples were guilty of "Breaking God's Sabbath", And the Christ should know, given HE is the spirit who created it for man.

 

[trophy33]

No, when you consider more than just ONE verse out of the entire Bible, it is clear that the Jesus "of the Bible" was not a Transgressor.

John 5:15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. 16 And therefore (Because of this) did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 18 Therefore (Because of this) the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

I understand how important it to some, to paint the Christ as a Transgressor. It was important for the mainstream preachers of Jesus Time, and it is certainly your agenda here. But to include John as an accuser of the Christ as well, this just isn't true. You could see this if you considered more than ONE verse out of the Bible.

What Jesus did was against the Pharisees Sabbath not God's.



It was never a sin, or "breaking God's Sabbath" for men to take a walk on God's Sabbath and eat a raspberry or ear of corn along the way. It is against the Pharisees Sabbath, not Gods. If you considered more than One verse in the bible, you could see this.

The Christ of the Bible tells those who will hear Him, that the Jews Polluted God's Sabbaths.

EZ. 20: 13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

Now these same Jews were accusing Jesus of having a Devil, of being from Galilee, and here, of breaking God's Sabbath even if the Mosaic Law was still active.

And you are taking their side even though the Christ of the Bible tells you they are liars, and that they rejected God's Commandments by their own traditions, and that they were teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

It is you and the Pharisees who are accusing the Disciples here, not God's inspired Word.



Jesus, God's Prophesied Messiah, was dealing with liars and hypocrites who were out to kill Him. I am dealing with a man who has been convinced that the Scriptures themselves cannot be trusted.

7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Jesus did say the Disciples didn't break God's Sabbath. And HE should know, given HE created it.



Absolutely, but HE is not a Hypocrite, or a respecter of persons, nor as a man did HE Transgress the Commandments God He commanded others to walk in.


A man-made shrine of worship made of wood and stone means nothing. Of course, the Christ is greater than the temple.



Jesus didn't consider the 10 commandments "Memorial Rules". You do, but Jesus said God's Sabbath was made for man.


It's the perfect story to expose the Hypocrisy of the mainstream preachers of HIS Time. David went to the Priest of God for help, as he should. The Priest asked him questions, and chose to feed him, which is his job. Would the Pharisees not done the same, just as they would not have allowed one of their own sheep to suffer in a pit he fell into on the sabbath?

Your point is to make God's Laws, including His Sabbath irrelevant, because the religion you adopted teach God's Laws are irrelevant. It was never against God's Law to help a brother in need on God's Sabbath, or to take a walk, or to pick an apple to eat on that walk.

"Many" of Today's mainstream preachers, who come in Christ's Name, promote a Jesus who came to abolish God's Sabbaths. But the Jesus "of the Bible" didn't come to do any such thing. He came to expose the hypocrites and their doctrines of men.

He said God's Sabbath "was made for man". You have hitched your wagon to the Pharisees on this one, which I believe is a mistake.



Yes, neither Jesus nor His Disciples were guilty of "Breaking God's Sabbath", And the Christ should know, given HE is the spirit who created it for man.

As priests were innocent when they were breaking Sabbath in the temple, so also Jesus and His people are innocent, because Jesus is more than temple.

Thats the point of the story. Keep it simple.

Our bodies are the temple know and we are priests and kings. We cannot be guilty of breaking the Sabbath, even if the Mosaic law applied to as (but does not, anyway).