FREEDOM FROM SABBATH-KEEPING

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I was blind, but now I see. I gave you an answer to your supposedly got ya question and you didn't even bother to respond. Some come here to gratify their ego by asking trick questions and usually it doesn't take long to figure out what is happening. You see bugkiller and I both know that we are not under what you call the moral law. All the laws that God gave Israel, the old covenant, Israel broke over and over again until finally because they didn't live up to their side of that covenant it ended. The covenant was an "if" covenant. If you will God will. They didn't and the covenant you think we should be tied to ended at Calvary where the new covenant was ratified with the blood of our Savior.

Unless you want to write to yourself or someone else is taken in by you and I need to come to their rescue my posting to you ends as of now.

my "trick question" simply exposed the logical incoherency of the theological position that was posited. it has done that successfully which is why it was avoided for so long and then finally a reply was given, though insufficient.

if we are no longer under the moral law then we no longer have to abide by its rules, which means we can do all the things that law says we can't and not do the things that law says we have to. the problem is if we do that then, logically, it is not possible to adhere to the commands to love God and our neighbor. you and your pal have tried to separate the royal law from the moral law when this cannot be done. they go hand and hand.

I can't love God with all my being while putting other god's before Him, worshiping idols, taking His name in vein, and disregarding His Holy Day. I can't love my neighbor while disrespecting my parents, murdering, stealing, adultering, coveting, and baring false witness. all the other misdeeds in between that you mentioned before are actually mentioned in the moseic law(levitcus 19 and 20).

it will be your collective egos that will have you continue to hold to this erroneous position though it has been refuted. hopefully others will read through this and gain understanding in working through this issue.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I see as I always did according to my posts. Your desire is to prove I say one can sin if they do not obey the law. Problem is Rom 5:13 says sin was before the law and Gal 3:19 says sin was the reason for the law during a period of time.

I told you at least once there is no such thing as obedience by incidence.

i honestly don't understand your point here.

 

[Bob S]

To all who read these posts, morality is all adjectives dealing with our fellow man. Thus when we use the term moral law we are dealing with hundreds of moral issues. The 10 commandments had but 9 moral issues in it. The 10 commandments give us a mere glimpse and does not even deal with thou shall love God and your neighbor. Just for starters it doesn't tell us not to use violent speech, nothing about arrogance, egotism, fraud, pride, indecency, hypocrisy, incest and abortion. These are just a few of the moral adjectives.

The observance of days are classified as ceremonies. Read:
Numbers 9:2-4King James Version (KJV)
2 Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season.


3 In the fourteenth day of this month, at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it.


4 And Moses spake unto the children of Israel, that they should keep the passover.

Keeping days has nothing to do with morality. Again, morality has to do with how we treat out fellow man, God and of course ourselves.

 

[Bob S]

Double post.

 

[bugkiller]

my "trick question" simply exposed the logical incoherency of the theological position that was posited. it has done that successfully which is why it was avoided for so long and then finally a reply was given, though insufficient.

if we are no longer under the moral law then we no longer have to abide by its rules, which means we can do all the things that law says we can't and not do the things that law says we have to. the problem is if we do that then, logically, it is not possible to adhere to the commands to love God and our neighbor. you and your pal have tried to separate the royal law from the moral law when this cannot be done. they go hand and hand.

I can't love God with all my being while putting other god's before Him, worshiping idols, taking His name in vein, and disregarding His Holy Day. I can't love my neighbor while disrespecting my parents, murdering, stealing, adultering, coveting, and baring false witness. all the other misdeeds in between that you mentioned before are actually mentioned in the moseic law(levitcus 19 and 20).

it will be your collective egos that will have you continue to hold to this erroneous position though it has been refuted. hopefully others will read through this and gain understanding in working through this issue.

hehehehehehaw

Now you know exactly why I did not give the answer you wanted.

Only Israel is/was under the law per the Book of the Law. You say nay because you violate the rules of English around the word "you." You have a private dictionary and English rules no one else in the world possesses. IOW the words you use have a different meaning than those you speak to.

You have been exposed to the truth with quotes and references from the Scripture you simply throw out because they will not validate your ideas.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

i honestly don't understand your point here.

Point blank - The law did not create sin.

The other issue is the law was created to punish sin. We see new laws all the time because of people's wrong behavior. Sin has always come before any law punishing it.

bugkiller

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Now you know exactly why I did not give the answer you wanted.

Only Israel is/was under the law per the Book of the Law. You say nay because you violate the rules of English around the word "you." You have a private dictionary and English rules no one else in the world possesses. IOW the words you use have a different meaning than those you speak to.

You have been exposed to the truth with quotes and references from the Scripture you simply throw out because they will not validate your ideas.

bugkiller

I don't even know what you're even addressing at this point so I can't respond

Point blank - The law did not create sin.

I don't recall ever making such a statement

?????

 

[bugkiller]

I don't even know what you're even addressing at this point so I can't respond

Really?

I don't recall ever making such a statement

?????

You did not make such a statement. Neither did I accuse you of such. Your position is based on the half sentence posted often in this section of the forum from I Jn.

bugkiller

 

[FireDragon76]

If Sunday worship is based on Acts 20, why do you go to church on Sunday morning? Paul wasn't preaching on a Sunday morning. He was preaching on a Saturday night, and left early Sunday morning at daybreak, according to Acts 20

Preaching is not necessarily worship.

Sunday worship was not invented by the Pope. It's the traditional day of worship going back to the earliest times, according to the historical record we have.

 

[bugkiller]

I don't even know what you're even addressing at this point so I can't respond



I don't recall ever making such a statement

?????

For those whoa re unable to carry on a conversation there is the back button. You have no excuse.

bugkiller

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

If Sunday worship is based on Acts 20, why do you go to church on Sunday morning? Paul wasn't preaching on a Sunday morning. He was preaching on a Saturday night, and left early Sunday morning at daybreak, according to Acts 20

unless the first day of the week wasn't the first day of the week this simply can't be true. the "next day" would have to have been a monday.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

For those whoa re unable to carry on a conversation there is the back button. You have no excuse.

bugkiller

both of your posts made accusations about my position that i never put forth, which is why i have no way(or reason) to respond to them.

 

[bugkiller]

You clearly ignored the context of Acts 20 proving that this is a 1 time occurrence. @SAAN proved plainly that It in no way suggests a recurring weekly gathering on the first day of the week. Besides, when you look closer into Acts 20, you see that it actually occcured at night(after sunset) , and Paul left the next morning.

If Sunday worship is based on Acts 20, why do you go to church on Sunday morning? Paul wasn't preaching on a Sunday morning. He was preaching on a Saturday night, and left early Sunday morning at daybreak, according to Acts 20

Why do you need to confuse the time issue? Our Saturday night was the beginning of their Sunday (first day of the week). It is so you can say we believe a lie.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

both of your posts made accusations about my position that i never put forth, which is why i have no way(or reason) to respond to them.

Sorry you take it that way. I was merely trying to show my understanding of what you said by implication.

It seems to me you want/demand we can only talk about your verse/question. We are not allowed to ask a question or give a counter. Neither is discussion or debate.

So can you show compliance with Jn 13:34 is a violation of the law or keeping the law?

I am all ears.

bugkiller

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

So can you show compliance with Jn 13:34 is a violation of the law or keeping the law?

no, and I never said such a thing.

my point is you can't violate the second table of the law(cmds. 6-10) which deals with our love for neighbor and comply with john 13:34. the two can't be separated.

 

[bugkiller]

no, and I never said such a thing.

my point is you can't violate the second table of the law(cmds. 6-10) which deals with our love for neighbor and comply with john 13:34. the two can't be separated.

You are saying that one is obligated to a defunct covenant to keep from sinning. The deal with the NC is an individual is born again and therefore has a changed heart (will) and does not practice sin. I suppose you would like to get into side issues about the behavior of many Christians. I will not go there with you. There is no such thing as obedience by incidence. Being in compliance with Jn 13:34 means behavior is incidental to and not because of obligation to the law.

bugkiller

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

To all who read these posts, morality is all adjectives dealing with our fellow man. Thus when we use the term moral law we are dealing with hundreds of moral issues. The 10 commandments had but 9 moral issues in it. The 10 commandments give us a mere glimpse and does not even deal with thou shall love God and your neighbor. Just for starters it doesn't tell us not to use violent speech, nothing about arrogance, egotism, fraud, pride, indecency, hypocrisy, incest and abortion. These are just a few of the moral adjectives.

The observance of days are classified as ceremonies. Read:
Numbers 9:2-4King James Version (KJV)
2 Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season.


3 In the fourteenth day of this month, at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it.


4 And Moses spake unto the children of Israel, that they should keep the passover.

Keeping days has nothing to do with morality. Again, morality has to do with how we treat out fellow man, God and of course ourselves.

Re: <<Keeping days has nothing to do with morality.>>
Whether still valid or no longer valid, the keeping of days in the Bible had absolutely no meaning had their ceremonies like the days itself not everything to do with 'morality' or 'moralness' or 'morals' or whatever, which is just another word for faith in the Messiah PROMISED IN those "holy" or 'moral' or <ceremonial> days and their offerings and sacrifices and whatever stuff for that matter.

Hebrews says God "found fault with THEM" the people -- not with the things they observed so FAITHLESSLY. Hebrews 3:19; 4:6 e.g., they entered not into the "Rest of God", "because of UNBELIEF".

'Morality', has to do with how we go about with honesty, integrity and lowliness of heart before GOD and truth. If we have no regard for God and his Written Word, we won't have respect or regard for our fellowmen or for God's Living Word in the Person of Jesus Christ.

And this certain disrespect or lack of 'morality' so characteristic of hypocrisy is seen most boldly displayed in the whitewashed religiosity of Christianity.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You are saying that one is obligated to a defunct covenant to keep from sinning. The deal with the NC is an individual is born again and therefore has a changed heart (will) and does not practice sin. I suppose you would like to get into side issues about the behavior of many Christians. I will not go there with you. There is no such thing as obedience by incidence. Being in compliance with Jn 13:34 means behavior is incidental to and not because of obligation to the law.

bugkiller

Which does not say the results must not comply with the principles of Law.

No righteousness is regarded someone's own; "the Righteousness WHICH IS OF GOD" is "reckoned" / "accounted" / "credited" the individual by grace through the Righteousness of Jesus Christ which is the Righteousness of God.

So, <<Being in compliance with Jn 13:34 mean(ing) behavior is incidental to and not because of obligation to the law>> <compliance> exactly the same as <obligation> remains <compliance> or <obligation> to God's Will and never will be supposed to be anything but God's Will.

The pitch-key to which <obligation> and <compliance> to the Will and the Law of God is tuned in, is JESUS CHRIST IN PERSON THE WORD AND WILL OF GOD in the heart and in the life of everyone, as in the whole Body, of Christ's Own.

There is NO OTHER WAY "therefore a Sabbath Day-of-rest remains valid for the People of God" than the SINGLE reality of the actuality that "JESUS GAVE THEM REST -- HE HAVING ENTERED INTO HIS OWN REST AS GOD IN HIS OWN" HE HAVING RESURRECTED FROM THE DEAD "ON THE SABBATH DAY-OF-REST IN FULLNESS".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The law did not create sin.

The other issue is the law was created to punish sin. We see new laws all the time because of people's wrong behavior. Sin has always come before any law punishing it.

Yes, and no law existed before sin was punished. The Law (of Moses) doesn't punish sins. GOD punishes sins -- for the same reason today as at the beginning, because sin is sin because it is against GOD and nothing else in the last analysis.

So, you must change God in order to change sins and the definitions of sins called "Law" -- God and not Moses gives in the Bible. You must trade in God for your own god to get what you want. And you must burn the Bible.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

All the laws that God gave Israel, the old covenant, Israel broke over and over again until finally because they didn't live up to their side of that covenant it ended.

This for me is the essential error the basis of all <old> and <new>, <covenant> rhetoric. God did NOT <<g(i)ve Israel the old covenant>> or <<all the laws that>> allegedly are <<the old covenant>>. But Israel swore and promised -- thus closed covenant, which <<they didn't live up to>> but from the word go <<broke over and over again until finally>> God rejected THEM and ended their false presumptuous 'covenant-relationship' with Himself. God never ever <<ended>> his Covenant which Israel never ever had a <<side of>>. God's Covenant was sovereign and unilateral ~ DIVINE!

The <Laws> of Moses are not God's only ever, 'Covenant'. God entered into The Eternal Covenant by the Word of His Oath in the Full Fellowship of the Trinity in the Eternal Council of His Grace, before the world was; before man was; before sin was; before death was; before Law was. Before Israel was. Before rebellion while Peace only ruled and harmony was the order and love the Essence of the Being of God.

I find it a blasphemous thought the mere idea God entered into covenant that got old or from its inception was old. Old means subject to death, and subject to death means sin and sinful. God cannot be connected to death or sin. But God's Covenant is like He is The Eternal, The Only Immortal, The Only FAITHFULL to the only "People of God" : "Christ's Inheritance in the saints". God never divorced his Bride his only Church He ever had, Jesus called, the "True Believers".