Clarifying the Debate "basics" on Sabbath and the TEN Commandments

[BobRyan]

For me - Heb 10:4-9 is pretty clear "takes AWAY the first to establish the second" where the "second" is the "ONCE FOR ALL TIME" sacrifice of Christ according to Heb 10.

You are free to explain how that is not "take away" in your mind

"Taken away" is clear, but what is being taken away?

You already answered it yourself. You said

Leaf473 said: ↑
No, I don't think God will bring back animal sacrifices. I think the scriptures as a whole teach against that.

That leaves "no room" for confusion when we read this in Heb 10

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

“You have not desired sacrifice and offering, But You have prepared a body for Me;
6 You have not taken pleasure in whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(It is written of Me in the scroll of the book) To do Your will, O God.’”​

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.

"What" is being taken away is not even remotely unclear/vague there - and even you appear to get "the point" when you say:

Leaf473 said: ↑
No, I don't think God will bring back animal sacrifices. I think the scriptures as a whole teach against that.

So how in the world can you circle back to "unclear" again?

After having some time to look at Hebrews with some good Bible study tools, I think the best interpretation of what is being take away is the law.

But if you think something different, Cool! If you think it means:
He takes away one set of laws from Genesis to Deuteronomy
in order to establish another set of laws from Genesis to Deuteronomy,

then I'm really interested in which specific laws be believe were taken away

That IS the problem . You are taking the entire law of God away as soon as it is proven that Heb 10:4-12 shows he took animal sacrifices away.

That is a dead end unless you have a way out of it.

I believe you misunderstood much of what I was saying.

Fine - How would you either not have "do not take God's name in vain" in "The LAW of God" or get it resolved some other way than "dead end"?

 

[Leaf473]

Which is not a problem so I start with a few easy examples...

Well, I believe I wasn't asking for examples, I believe I was asking for a complete list.

...and your response appears to be that you are confused about whether stopping animal sacrifices might also stop the binding obligation to "not take God's name in vain"
That is the first very very simple example of a step going along the road of coming up with a list and showing how a law is ended in the case of animal sacrifice and a law continues in the case of God's commandment to not take His name in vain.

You already agreed that the animal sacrifices end - and are no longer binding/applicable after the cross.

But then you argued that all of God's commands got deleted at the same time - including the command to not take God's name in vain.

Do you not see how that stops the bus right at the beginning of the road trip?

I don't see why it "stops the bus". I don't think my response would affect your ability to post a list. Do you actually have a list, and you're unwilling to post it?

When you start by deleting the command to not take God's name in vain as soon as you admit that the law for animal sacrifices has most certainly ended - how is "the list" going to help other than to point out "even more laws that you then delete" since we have already agreed that "animal sacrifices ended at the cross" to which you responded that all the entire law of God must have ended then as well.

I've asked many people of different versions of "law-keeping" if they have a list. To date, no one has produced a list. Most start with a few laws, then stop.

It would help to have a list of what people in your version of "law-keeping" believe to be the laws in effect today because it would make discussions about the law more efficient, imo. None of us want to be involved in an endless dispute about the law.

I think it would be fairly easy. One idea would be to take a public domain Bible translation and just delete every law from Genesis to Deuteronomy that isn't in effect today.

If I asked a Jewish person what the 613 laws are, they'd probably say they don't have them memorized, but the list is all over the internet, like
Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

You don't even have to start from scratch, if you're part of a group that has put together a list. Are you associated with the group whose website is Adventist.org? If so, do they have a list?

If a "law-keeper" can't produce a list, to me that raises the follow-up question, Why not? Has God made it hard to know?

But it's all up to you. If you want to stop our interaction at this point, that's OK with me and I'll say, "Peace be with you!"

 

[Leaf473]

Which is not a problem so I start with a few easy examples and your response appears to be that you are confused about whether stopping animal sacrifices might also stop the binding obligation to "not take God's name in vain"
That is the first very very simple example of a step going along the road of coming up with a list and showing how a law is ended in the case of animal sacrifice and a law continues in the case of God's commandment to not take His name in vain.

You already agreed that the animal sacrifices end - and are no longer binding/applicable after the cross.

But then you argued that all of God's commands got deleted at the same time - including the command to not take God's name in vain.

Do you not see how that stops the bus right at the beginning of the road trip?



When you start by deleting the command to not take God's name in vain as soon as you admit that the law for animal sacrifices has most certainly ended - how is "the list" going to help other than to point out "even more laws that you then delete" since we have already agreed that "animal sacrifices ended at the cross" to which you responded that all the entire law of God must have ended then as well.

Looking over your post again, in this part here:

That is the first very very simple example of a step going along the road of coming up with a list...

Are you saying that you don't have a list handy, but you'd be willing to come up with one? Or are you saying that each individual has to come up with their own list?

 

[BobRyan]

Are you saying that you don't have a list handy, but you'd be willing to come up with one?

I am saying we do find them in scripture and the first super-easy example in my list is "do not take God's name in vain" which you now claim has ended because the laws for animal sacrifices have ended as we are told in Heb 10:4-11 -- and as you agreed in the case of those animal sacrifices.

I am saying that if the model you are using fails instantly at the first example in our list - we are stuck right where you are ending-it. Why do that???

I don't see why it "stops the bus".

Because you take the start of the list - the easiest example and 'immediately fail" by declaring the off-the-rails statement that ALL LAW is taken away - when animal sacrifices end - even "do not take God's name in vain" comes to a crashing halt in your break-the-bus approach.

What part of this was supposed to be hard to see?

Don't you have some sort of reason or logic you would like to contribute to your dead-end response? Why stop this process right out of the gate like that?

Why should we imagine that "honor your father and mother" would be treated by you with any more reason or logic than "do not take God's name in vain"?

How does this NOT remind us that it is now rock-solid-proven that when scholarship on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic agree on a few super easy Bible details - the remaining opposition tends to be off-the-rails in terms of lacking defensibility and flawed logic.?

 

[Leaf473]

For me - Heb 10:4-9 is pretty clear "takes AWAY the first to establish the second" where the "second" is the "ONCE FOR ALL TIME" sacrifice of Christ according to Heb 10.

You are free to explain how that is not "take away" in your mind



You already answered it yourself. You said



That leaves "no room" for confusion when we read this in Heb 10

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

“You have not desired sacrifice and offering, But You have prepared a body for Me;
6 You have not taken pleasure in whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(It is written of Me in the scroll of the book) To do Your will, O God.’”


8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.

"What" is being taken away is not even remotely unclear/vague there - and even you appear to get "the point" when you say:



So how in the world can you circle back to "unclear" again?



That IS the problem . You are taking the entire law of God away as soon as it is proven that Heb 10:4-12 shows he took animal sacrifices away.

That is a dead end unless you have a way out of it.

I don't see that what is taken away in Hebrews 10:9 is necessarily limited by the text to animal sacrifices only.

We're probably not going to agree on the interpretation of Hebrews 10. As I understand the guidelines here on CF, if an agreement can't be reached after a reasonable number of posts, it's time to let it go.

Is my agreeing with you about Hebrews 10 a prerequisite for you being able to post a list?

Fine - How would you either not have "do not take God's name in vain" in "The LAW of God" or get it resolved some other way than "dead end"?

As I understand that specific law, it isn't possible to break it today because God's name isn't available to humans.

How about posting what you believe could be a real-life example of how someone would break that law today?

 

[BobRyan]

I don't see that what is taken away in Hebrews 10:9 is necessarily limited by the text to animal sacrifices only.

The text SAYS - "Sacrifices and offerings" -- what other words would you like to insert in the text?

You have offered no other exegesis for the text than that.

 

[BobRyan]

Is my agreeing with you about Hebrews 10 a prerequisite for you being able to post a list?

1. Your statement that if animal sacrifices end as Heb 10:4-12 says - then all of God's Law ended turns your request into "a list of things you think have ended" -- which is odd.

2. Your "method" used to insert whatever you wish as you read a text that does no fit your preference is what is breaking the bus. It gives us an example that has no fix when even you admit the animal sacrifice were taken away and even you have no solution at all for your own wild leap out into thin air withe "well then do not take God's name in vain also ended if animal sacrifice ended".

3. I showed you how your own method would also destroy "honor your father and mother" that Paul quotes in Eph 6:1-2

At this point nothing seems to phase your approach here -- so then what do you suggest we do?
What makes sense to you?

As I understand that specific law, it isn't possible to break it today because God's name isn't available to humans.

1. Are you making that up or did a Bible verse tell you that it is not possible to take God's name in vain after the cross? Did the cross "delete God's name for mankind" in your thinking?

2. Heb 10 does not say "God's name is not available since animal sacrifices have ended" or "since the cross"

3. I also gave you the next command "honor your father and mother" and you are silent on that as well.

How about posting what you believe could be a real-life example of how someone would break that law today?

Unchanged from how it was taken in vain in all of scripture.

Using God's name in an oath or curse
Using God's name in common ordinary secular context
Using God's name as a form of stuttering in prayer "Lord God" repeated massively every other word.
Using the phrase "Lord God Almighty" - in any form that appears frivolous or lessens reverence --

"They blaspheme the fair name by which you are called"

There never has been and never will be - "no such thing as not being ABLE " to commit such a sin.

 

[Leaf473]

I am saying we do find them in scripture and the first super-easy example in my list is "do not take God's name in vain" which you now claim has ended because the laws for animal sacrifices have ended as we are told in Heb 10:4-11 -- and as you agreed in the case of those animal sacrifices.

I am saying that if the model you are using fails instantly at the first example in our list - we are stuck right where you are ending-it. Why do that???

It's not our list, it's your list. Are you only willing to share all of God's Active laws with people who agree with you?

Because you take the start of the list - the easiest example and 'immediately fail" by declaring the off-the-rails statement that ALL LAW is taken away - when animal sacrifices end - even "do not take God's name in vain" comes to a crashing halt in your break-the-bus approach.

What part of this was supposed to be hard to see?

Don't you have some sort of reason or logic you would like to contribute to your dead-end response? Why stop this process right out of the gate like that?

Why should we imagine that "honor your father and mother" would be treated by you with any more reason or logic than "do not take God's name in vain"?

How does this NOT remind us that it is now rock-solid-proven that when scholarship on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic agree on a few super easy Bible details - the remaining opposition tends to be off-the-rails in terms of lacking defensibility and flawed logic.?

I don't understand how my agreeing or disagreeing with you stops your process.

 

[Leaf473]

The text SAYS - "Sacrifices and offerings" -- what other words would you like to insert in the text?

You have offered no other exegesis for the text than that.

I don't want to insert words into the text.
I have already explained my reasoning. We're probably not going to agree on Hebrews 10.

 

[Leaf473]

1. Your statement that if animal sacrifices end as Heb 10:4-12 says - then all of God's Law ended turns your request into "a list of things you think have ended" -- which is odd.

The request for a list was what I asked for when I first posted on this thread. I believe you had said at one point that you wanted to focus on what laws had ended. That's fine. I'm asking for either a list of what has ended or what has not ended.

2. Your "method" used to insert whatever you wish as you read a text that does no fit your preference is what is breaking the bus. It gives us an example that has no fix when even you admit the animal sacrifice were taken away and even you have no solution at all for your own wild leap out into thin air withe "well then do not take God's name in vain also ended if animal sacrifice ended".

I don't understand why any response of mine is preventing you from posting something.

3. I showed you how your own method would also destroy "honor your father and mother" that Paul quotes in Eph 6:1-2

At this point nothing seems to phase your approach here -- so then what do you suggest we do?
What makes sense to you?

If you have a list of what you believe to be God's Active laws from Genesis to Deuteronomy, please post it.

1. Are you making that up or did a Bible verse tell you that it is not possible to take God's name in vain after the cross? Did the cross "delete God's name for mankind" in your thinking?

Acts 4 There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that is given among men (available to humans), by which we must be saved!”

Yet Joel tells us that whoever calls on the name of "YHWH" will be saved. If the divine name is available to humans today, then Peter is wrong, there are two names that can save us.

2. Heb 10 does not say "God's name is not available since animal sacrifices have ended" or "since the cross"

3. I also gave you the next command "honor your father and mother" and you are silent on that as well.

Honoring your father and mother is definitely a good idea today. It fits with fulfilling the law of Christ. but I wouldn't do it just because it's in the law. That would commit me to keeping the entire law, imo. Just like ritual circumcision then requires that man to keep the entire law, if I remember Galatians right.

I like the idea that @SabbathBlessings brought up, that of the principles of the law. The law is a great source of wisdom. So we keep the principle of Lev 27:30, not what is actually written.

But if you want to keep some of the laws exactly as written, do you have a list of which ones those are?

Unchanged from how it was taken in vain in all of scripture.

Using God's name in an oath or curse
Using God's name in common ordinary secular context
Using God's name as a form of stuttering in prayer "Lord God" repeated massively every other word.
Using the phrase "Lord God Almighty" - in any form that appears frivolous or lessens reverence --

"They blaspheme the fair name by which you are called"

There never has been and never will be - "no such thing as not being ABLE " to commit such a sin.

I think a person would have to know what God's name is before they could speak it. They knew what it was in the OT.

"Lord God Almighty" isn't the name that is used in the second commandment. So, do you say we should go with what is written, or the principle of the commandment?

 

[BobRyan]

The request for a list was what I asked for when I first posted on this thread. I believe you had said at one point that you wanted to focus on what laws had ended. That's fine.

I pointed out that 1 Cor 7:19 proves some are not applicable (and it names one in that verse) while the "Commandments of God" are still in full force... I then gave the Bible example of one that is now "Taken away" Heb 10:4-12 and that was stated in the text as "animal sacrifices and offerings". Even you admitted is taken away.

Then I pointed to one or two that are still here - like "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 and "honor your father and mother" Ex 20:12 and Eph 6:1-2.

Pretty easy examples in both categories.

But that is when you said your preference is to think of all of God's law ended as soon as you see that animal sacrifices ended. Which is rather odd - no text says that.

I'm asking for either a list of what has ended or what has not ended.

I have you two simple examples from scripture and you started to create new ideas about all of God's Law ending when animal sacrifices end.

I don't understand why any response of mine is preventing you from posting something.

Because you just claimed that in your own mind you 'deleted everything' in the Law of God when you see that animal sacrifices are ended as your response to the first two examples of the list of laws that remain and the 3 examples of Laws that end.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Are you making that up or did a Bible verse tell you that it is not possible to take God's name in vain after the cross? Did the cross "delete God's name for mankind" in your thinking?

Acts 4 There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that is given among men (available to humans), by which we must be saved!”

A great example of text that does not say "God's name has been deleted" and does not say "it is no longer possible for sinners to take God's name in vain".

Yet Joel tells us that whoever calls on the name of "YHWH" will be saved.

And Hebrews 8 reminds us that Christ is the YHWH of the OT speaking at Sinai.

If the divine name is available to humans today, then Peter is wrong, there are two names that can save us.

Hebrew names were not being used by the Greek readers who read Peter's letter.

Honoring your father and mother is definitely a good idea today.

That is not what God's Word says in Eph 6:1-2

Eph 6: 1. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: "

Paul does not say "a good idea"
Paul reminds the reader that in that Unit of Ten - still binding on all - the 5th commandment is "The FIRST commandment WITH a promise" which is a direct reference to the written form of the TEN.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

I wouldn't do it just because it's in the law.

You are welcome to be at war with Paul's statement in Eph 6 - you have free will. I am sticking with the Word of God

 

[Leaf473]

I pointed out that 1 Cor 7:19 proves some are not applicable (and it names one in that verse) while the "Commandments of God" are still in full force... I then gave the Bible example of one that is now "Taken away" Heb 10:4-12 and that was stated in the text as "animal sacrifices and offerings". Even you admitted is taken away.

Then I pointed to one or two that are still here - like "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 and "honor your father and mother" Ex 20:12 and Eph 6:1-2.

Pretty easy examples in both categories.

But that is when you said your preference is to think of all of God's law ended as soon as you see that animal sacrifices ended. Which is rather odd - no text says that.

No need for your perceptions of what I believe to stop you from posting your list, imo.

I have you two simple examples from scripture and you started to create new ideas about all of God's Law ending when animal sacrifices end.

Again, no need for for your perceptions of what I believe to stop you from posting your list, again imo.

Because you just claimed that in your own mind you 'deleted everything' in the Law of God when you see that animal sacrifices are ended as your response to the first two examples of the list of laws that remain and the 3 examples of Laws that end.

I don't understand how anything I could write would stop you from writing something you wanted to write.

If, however, you didn't want to post your list, then you could use that as a reason, sure.

 

[Leaf473]

A great example of text that does not say "God's name has been deleted" and does not say "it is no longer possible for sinners to take God's name in vain".

That's correct. The text is, however, part of the reasoning I was presenting.

And Hebrews 8 reminds us that Christ is the YHWH of the OT speaking at Sinai.

The title "Christ" and the name represented by "YHWH" are not the same name.

Hebrew names were not being used by the Greek readers who read Peter's letter.

Do you mean Peter's speech in Luke's letter (what we call "Acts")?

Do you mean Greek readers didn't give their kids Hebrew names? Or that Greek readers couldn't read Hebrew? Something else?

In any case, I think a person has to know what a name is before they can use it in vain.

If you know what God's name is, please write it out phonetically.

You may be interested in this article:
JEHOVAH - JewishEncyclopedia.com


Now, if you want to go with the principle of the second commandment, then the principle of disrespecting God's reputation and character is what the commandment is all about, imo. And I say Amen to that, as I do to the principles of all the laws.

That is not what God's Word says in Eph 6:1-2

Eph 6: 1. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: "

Paul does not say "a good idea"
Paul reminds the reader that in that Unit of Ten - still binding on all - the 5th commandment is "The FIRST commandment WITH a promise" which is a direct reference to the written form of the TEN.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"



You are welcome to be at war with Paul's statement in Eph 6 - you have free will. I am sticking with the Word of God

I'm not at war with anything in the scriptures.
Paul gives an instruction, Obey your parents. He supports it by appealing to the principle in Honor your father and mother.

 

[BobRyan]

Yet Joel tells us that whoever calls on the name of "YHWH" will be saved.

And Hebrews 8 reminds us that Christ is the YHWH of the OT speaking at Sinai.

The title "Christ" and the name represented by "YHWH" are not the same name.

This is where you are missing the point entirely - read Heb 8:6-12 and you will see that Paul is telling the reader that Christ is the one speaking at Sinai...


6 But now He(Christ) has obtained a more excellent ministry, to the extent that He(Christ) is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

A New Covenant
7 For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second. 8 For in finding fault with the people, He(Christ) says,

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I(Christ) will bring about a new covenant
With the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
9 Not like the covenant which I(Christ) made with their fathers
On the day I(Christ)took them by the hand
To bring them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My(Christ) covenant,
And I(Christ) did not care about them, says the Lord(Christ).
10 For this is the covenant which I(Christ) will make with the house of Israel
After those days, declares the Lord(Christ):
I(Christ) will put My(Chris) laws into their minds,
And write them on their hearts.
And I(Christ) will be their God(Christ),
And they shall be My(Christ) people.

 

[BABerean2]

And Hebrews 8 reminds us that Christ is the YHWH of the OT speaking at Sinai.

Joh 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.


How many different sets of commandments are found in the verse above?


.

 

[Leaf473]

And Hebrews 8 reminds us that Christ is the YHWH of the OT speaking at Sinai.



This is where you are missing the point entirely - read Heb 8:6-12 and you will see that Paul is telling the reader that Christ is the one speaking at Sinai...


6 But now He(Christ) has obtained a more excellent ministry, to the extent that He(Christ) is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

A New Covenant
7 For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second. 8 For in finding fault with the people, He(Christ) says,

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I(Christ) will bring about a new covenant
With the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
9 Not like the covenant which I(Christ) made with their fathers
On the day I(Christ)took them by the hand
To bring them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My(Christ) covenant,
And I(Christ) did not care about them, says the Lord(Christ).
10 For this is the covenant which I(Christ) will make with the house of Israel
After those days, declares the Lord(Christ):
I(Christ) will put My(Chris) laws into their minds,
And write them on their hearts.
And I(Christ) will be their God(Christ),
And they shall be My(Christ) people.

Yes, we basically agree there.

And by saying that the second commandment is about treating the title "Christ" with respect, we are saying that it is the principle of the commandment that we follow, not what is actually written, the letter.

Peace, my man... good to hear from you again.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, we basically agree there.

And by saying that the second commandment is about treating the title "Christ" with respect, we are saying that it is the principle of the commandment that we follow, not what is actually written, the letter.

Peace, my man... good to hear from you again.

What is actually written in the letter must be obeyed and the spirit of the Law - as Christ points out in Matt 5 includes it - and goes even beyond it.

The spirit of the Law is never in contradiction to the Word of God. Jesus points this out in Mark 7:6-13 to those Jews that were trying to do an end-run around the actual letter of the Law regarding the 5th commandment. As if "breaking the commandment" was a funny kind of "not breaking it"

 

[Leaf473]

What is actually written in the letter must be obeyed and the spirit of the Law - as Christ points out in Matt 5 includes it - and goes even beyond it.

The spirit of the Law is never in contradiction to the Word of God. Jesus points this out in Mark 7:6-13 to those Jews that were trying to do an end-run around the actual letter of the Law regarding the 5th commandment. As if "breaking the commandment" was a funny kind of "not breaking it"

Well, when I asked you for an example of how one would break the second commandment today, I believe you replied with an example of breaking the principle of the commandment.

If you would like to post an example of how someone today would break the actual letters, please do so.

Do you keep the letters of Leviticus 27:30?

 

[BobRyan]

Well, when I asked you for an example of how one would break the second commandment today, I believe you replied with an example of breaking the principle of the commandment.

I did not reply with "breaking the commandment itself but somehow keeping the spirit of it".

And neither does Christ in Matt 5.

That is a key detail.