If you read more closely, you'll see that I often do include myself in statements about how we all act. I try to live by the premise that people are a problem, and I am one. I'm sure I fail at introspection like I think we all do.
I don't know if this will surprise you or not, but I'm still open to be convinced otherwise about some things I may seem convinced about now.
The problem is that I don't find any of the pro-Sabbath arguments compelling enough to start leaning towards them. I'll try to recap a few of them from this thread:
- You try to convince us that the 10C and the rest of the Mosaic Law are different.
- One problem with this view is that a reading of Exodus-Deuteronomy says otherwise.
- One problem is that the case laws give definition to the 10C and if they are no longer applicable then the 10C are undefined and we're left with man defining the 10C.
- For example; No adultery. OK, what about the rest of the sexual sins that fall under the heading of this one of the 10C?
- By separating the 10C as you do, you're removing the definitions and the penalties and leaving them up to men to define.
- There's a reason the Mosaic Law was a unit and not just the 10C.
- You in effect by arguing so staunchly for the 10C and it being its own law are defeating the 10C by putting into the hands of men all the elaboration of the 10C in what you separate as being the Law of Moses - Mosaic Law.
- You try to convince us that there are actually 2 covenants I assume coming out of Exodus. I have to assume because you won't identify them or name them or use names from Scripture for them. Why would you expect anyone to go along with such lack of detail and proof?
Yes, the Covenant of Abraham that God furthered on to the Children of Israel, which Covenant they Broke.
And the Covenant God made directly with Israel, "
because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." (Heb. 8)
Moses interceded on their behalf. If another Covenant wasn't needed, why did Moses have to "
and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin."(Ex. 32)
The reason why you and the Pharisees can't accept this truth, is not because it isn't true, but because the philosophies of the religious sects and businesses of this world you doth have adopted, could not stand if you accepted this truth.
- @Studyman has a view of this concept also. It seems more detailed than yours. For reasons @Doran has detailed and I have argued, we don't agree with the multiple covenants view and a priesthood covenant that can be separated from the Mosaic Covenant.
The separation between the Priesthood Covenant God gave Levi, and God's Statutes, Judgments Laws and Commandments Abraham and his Children were given, is clearly there. Abraham walked in one, but the other wasn't "added" until 430 years after him. This is simply biblical Fact. Jesus walked in the Righteousness of God found in the Law and Prophets but did not partake of the Levitical Priesthood "works of the law" when HE forgave sins. This too is Biblical Fact.
The mainstream preachers of Jesus Time couldn't accept the Separation, because their entire religion was founded on their version of the Priesthood "Works of the Law" for remission of sin (Justification). This is where their fame, wealth and power came from. The mainstream Preachers of this world I was placed in, can't accept this because their entire religion if founded on their philosophy that the Priesthood became obsolete, therefore the Laws, Judgments Statutes and Commandments of God they full well reject by their own traditions, must also become obsolete.
To accept this truth, you and the Pharisees would have to repent and be completely "renewed in the Spirit of your mind". You would be "Broken", humiliated. Ridiculed and belittled by the same people you paid to train you.
All based on what? The religious philosophy that the Laws, Statutes, Commandments and Judgments God gave Abraham to walk in, are not the same Laws, Statutes, Commandments and Judgments God gave Abraham's Children to walk in?
That the Law of Moses, "though shall Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul, and though shall love thy neighbor as thyself",
CANNOT be Separated from from the Priesthood Law "
then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering."
It's a fascinating study into the heart of humans, and proof positive why Jesus warned to "Take Heed" of the "many" who come in Christ's Name. Religious tradition and deception is a Yoke of Bondage on the necks of many men they cannot bear.
- @HIM seems to have a similar view and does more arguing from language than either of you. I don't think he's proven his case from language and the way I currently see it, he seems to be trying to substantiate the multiple covenants theory from the language of certain verses at the expense of other Scriptures. This never works since Scripture is a whole.
Anyone who studies the Holy Scriptures in honesty from the heart, knows there is a huge disconnect between the doctrines and philosophies and traditions of this world's religions, "Who come in Christ's Name", and the Holy Scriptures Jesus and Paul promoted "
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
Only a fool would try and convince folks otherwise.
What's interesting is that I know in my spirit that I have logic in my current thinking that needs to be worked out, logic that you have not pushed me to. It's similar to what I hear and read in others who have studied and written about biblical law. Something has just not completely come together yet among all that I've read re: Law. I've said this before, but one of my favorite statements in the opening of a book about biblical law was something to the effect of, No one fully understands biblical law. Then after acknowledging that the writer included himself in that statement, he wrote about 300-400 pages on biblical law.
IMO this whole issue of Biblical Law is one of the larger failures of the overall Church.
And yet, the overwhelming religious tradition of this world is to choose one of "many" differing religious schools and religious sects which existed in the World God placed us in, that you fully admit "Professes to know God" but are
Ignorant of God's Righteousness" and have gone about to establish their own righteousness, to teach you how to know God. Even paying them to teach you. Truly this is a logic that needs to be worked out.
What Paul advocated for, and Jesus as well, in my view, was that the man "Seeking the Kingdom of God and HIS Righteousness, as the Jesus of the Bible instructed, would not "Yield Themselves" servant to obey the traditions and philosophies of this world's religions who transgressed God's Commandments by their own religious traditions, rather, to "Yield ourselves" servants of Obey God and therefore become servants of "HIS" Righteousness.
Like Peter said, "We ought to obey God rather than man". If men can't see that Peter wasn't talking about the sacrificial "works" of a temporary Priesthood to provide for the forgiveness of sins, then he are not seeking to know God, but Seeking to justify a religious philosophy of men.
