As I've pointed out previously. Observance of the Sabbath as a means to satisfy the Old Covenant is cadaver worship. Christ slaughtered the Sabbath.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just as we belong to Christ and then become heirs to the promise, we also become obligated to be obedient to His law.Huh?
Gal 3:29 ???
Fortunately God's law isn't based off of situational ethics. At no point in time is it ever ok to do what the law states not to do.Let's keep in mind that ethics is situational (the specifics vary from person to person, age to age, and nation to nation). For example, suppose my family has an allergy to peanut butter. It would be immoral (and thus a violation of God's law of love) for me to feed it to them. However, suppose they consult a nutritionist who manages to cure them of that allergy. Now the situation has changed. It's no longer a violation of God's law.
And that is how it should be. So if God's voice hasn't spoken saying it's ok to violate His law, why insist that it is by declaring one single point out of the ten as no longer relevant?God's law cannot, therefore, should not be reduced to a set of rigid rules such as "Thou shalt not eat peanut butter." Such specifics are SITUATIONAL and only point to the real meaning of the law (love). If God's voice tells me to eat peanut butter, I'll eat it. If it tells me to abstain, I'll abstain. Whether or not the Bible says to eat peanut butter is totally irrelevant. Only God's voice can tell me what the law of love entails.
If it did we wouldn't be having this conversation.In a nutshell, I don't care if every page of the Bible says, "Honor the Sabbath."
And you say we try to put people in bondage... God in no ways was saying that we have to work six days out of the week and only rest the one. The six days are meant for us to take care of whatever business we need to take care of. Taking a vacation isn't a sin. Breaking the sabbath while on vacation however would be. There's nothing hypocritical about it.As you yourself said: SDAs tend to be hypocritical. They have no qualms about taking a 2-week vacation in the Bahamas. (What happened to working six days a week as the ten commandments decreed?). And in fact they only work five days instead of six. By so acting, they imply that ethics is situational. The specifics of how to apply the law can change at any moment (for instance the moment you are ready to take your 2-week vacation in the Bahamas).
The non-sabbatarian has no grounds to keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath. IF you were correct about the sabbath being done away with then we'd have no reason to worship on any day as there is no scripture validating Sunday worship. All you've done is ignored God's plain law and gathered together on a day that is no different then Monday.That's precisely the position of the non-Sabbatarian. We hold that ethics is situational, and that God's voice hasn't restricted us to the Saturday Sabbath given to Israel.
You're wrong again, because if it isn't changed then you have no justification for not honoring it. God's voice spoke some 4000 or so years ago upon a mountain in the midst of fire and thunder declaring His law. I don't know about you but that leaves a pretty good impression upon me.It's not abrogation. It's application. God's voice tells us how to apply it. God didn't abrogate some of His law. He's just as committed to all of it today as in Israel's day. And, as always, His voice (speaking through conscience), tells us how to apply it today. That's precisely why I don't see any need to honor a Saturday sabbath.
Listen to what you're saying. Jesus couldn't have broken the sabbath because as Paul says, Jesus was born under the law. Your position is that the sabbath was not done away with until Jesus died, thus if Jesus broke the sabbath before hand while it was still applicable he would have been a sinner. Get it?Funny how you SDAs like to cite verses where Jesus was drawing a conclusion precisely opposite of SDAism. "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath" means that the sabbath was supposed to serve man (be a blessing) instead of man being enslaved to a ritual. That's why jesus and His disciples broke it whenever it got in the way.
Nope, again you're wrong. You can only learn of God's will from the bible. I can know if I'm suppose to go to work tomorrow because I'm not suppose to be concerned with tomorrow until tomorrow comes. Thus, because I know the will of God is for me to prosper and be in good health, and that I can only prosper if I go to work, then that's what I'm going to do. That's all bible my friend.You can't follow the logic because you don't understand situational ethics. Read my lips. YOU CAN'T GET THE SPECIFIC'S OF GOD'S WILL FROM THE BIBLE. For example, the Bible can't tell you whether you should go to work tomorrow (a terrorist might be planning to bomb the building as with 911). Only God's voice has all that information.
But since you mentioned the garden, let's talk about it. SDAs claim that we should follow God's example seen in the garden. So what did God do?
(1) He worked six days
(2) He rested on the seventh.
SDAs take the easy way out. On the EASY part (the resting), they follow God's example. But on the hard part (working six days), they don't follow His example. And then they rebuke the rest of us for not following God's example! LOL.
As I've pointed out previously. Observance of the Sabbath as a means to satisfy the Old Covenant is cadaver worship. Christ slaughtered the Sabbath.
Sorry, I'd need to see the verse that says "And thus Christ has replaced the seventh day sabbath."
3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.
Why is not on tablets of stone? You do know that the tablets of stone are the ten commandments, right?
Sure, and Jesus fulfilled it. It passed away.You keep missing the point that the day itself is holy. It was made holy at creation and has remained that way.
And please with the whole the law was given to the gentiles thing. The promises for Abraham's seed wasn't given to the gentiles but we know it belongs to us through faith.
Meh, yes, it was given to the gentiles.
Galatians 3:29
29 And if you are Christs, then you are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise.
What wasn't given to the gentiles was the Jewish law.
The same commandments you say He gave to the gentiles He also gave to the Israelites back while they were in the wilderness. And as for your questions, Yes, yes and yes, but I'm sure we'll disagree. Feel free to start another thread on that so we can avoid derailing this one.
Actually no. The commandments given to Israel are what Paul calls the ministry of death and it includes all 613 commandments of the mosaic law. To the gentiles, Christ gave us 2 commandments.
Saving faith leads you to keep the law. That's why I don't see why we have such a problem here. You know what not to do because God has given us instructions. You're obedient because you love Him, just like others are disobedient because they don't.
Saving faith leads to loving God with all of our hearts, mind and soul and to love your neighbor as ourselves. It doesn't lead to obeying the 613 commandment Mosaic law.
The bible says how can two walk together unless they be agreed. It also says what fellowship does light have with darkness, and that a kingdom that is divided against itself cannot stand.
Take that for what it's worth.
So, why are you and the SDA attempting to judge your Christian brother by the ministry of death? Isn't that walking away rather than walking together.
The new covenant law is the old covenant law. Just like the ten commandments were part of the OC, they are part of the NC. Can you furnish scripture that shows that God established a set of laws for the Jews and a set of laws for the gentiles?
The new covenant law is NOT the old covenant law. The old covenant law included 613 commandments where the new covenant "law" contains two. As far as scripture, I have already posted plenty depicting the passing of the old covenant law which you are yet to address.
Here is more:
Galatians 3:23-25
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
It doesn;t get any clearer than that.
You're misunderstanding the text. James is clearly talking about the ten commandments as he uses two of those very commandments to illustrate his point. Do you not believe that Jesus was the very One in the OT that gave the Israelites their law? The law is His. The commandment to love your neighbor was given in Deuteronomy first.
James is quoting from the royal law which is Christ and the commandment that he quotes in verse 8 is to love your neighbor as yourself. Show me where this commandment was part of the 10 commandments. Also, the other 2 commandments that he quotes in verse 11 are the same ones given to us by Christ in the sermon on the mount. James is not referring to the 10 commandments.
The law is God's therefore it's one in the same, you can't sin against God if you haven't broken the law, and you can't break a law that doesn't exist anymore.
And yet, we are under grace, justified by grace through faith, therefore, we are not under the penalty of sin. I thought we had agreed to that. I am not under the law and neither are you.
How does it work that one can be lawless before they come to God and then remain lawless once they come to Him? I mean, the bible is very clear that lawlessness is sin, and yet people continue to herald the message that there is no law. Just a little confused
Just like the Jews, you are stuck on the law. The very thing that kept Israel in bondage. The ministry of the Spirit brings liberty because mercy triumphs over judgment. Man, get the load of your back. Christ has already paid the price.
Actually it does. So am I to take it that you don't keep the sabbath either tall?
Stryder, did you misunderstand the text about the fruit of the Spirit?Ok, well given your understanding of Paul's writings, if your wife decides to run off with another man you should help her pack her bags and wish her the best. Or if your someone breaks into your house and steals your TV, don't bother calling the police.
If you find your children have decided to follow after another god, don't rebuke them.
Stryder, It says we are released. Now you don't really believe the whole law is in effect. Because you don't keep the whole law. The law was more than the 10 commandments.Again, either the law is all gone, or it's not. The fact there was a change holds true, but the law itself is not gone.
I find it interesting that you left that thread and won't talk to me there, because you say you don't want to argue...but here you are arguing.For you to have gone so deep into Hebrews in the other thread tall, I'm surprised you'd argue against this. Let me ask you something.
We agree that within the MHP there is the ark of the covenant. Why is the mercy seat on top of the ark? If the earthly was patterned after the heavenly, what do you think is inside of the ark?
You prove the point.That is why we are not under that system of failure.Exactly when did this slaughtering take place? Did He kill the rest of the commandments as well. I mean they are a bundled package you know.
But it's not a question of disobeying the law. It's a a question of applying it properly. Without situational ethics, law is self-contradictory and unintelligible. For example, would you go out and slaughter seven nations, given that one of the ten commandments says, 'Thou shall not murder.' ?Fortunately God's law isn't based off of situational ethics. At no point in time is it ever ok to do what the law states not to do.
Again, it's not violation. It's application. It's a question of how to apply it. Fifty times (literally) in the OT God says "Obey my voice." How many times does it say "obey my law?" Maybe twice? (Do a study on this - and verify it for yourself.). As a matter of fact the Hebrew word for obey literally means to hearken as unto a voice.And that is how it should be. So if God's voice hasn't spoken saying it's ok to violate His law, why insist that it is by declaring one single point out of the ten as no longer relevant?
Nope. You just don't get it. When Jesus said, "The son of man is Lord of the Sabbath," what this means is was, "I'm the only one who gets to dictate how to apply the sabbath law. MY voice decides. I am Lord of the Sabbath."If it did we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Baloney. It's totally hypocritical. Every time we complain that it was given to Israel, you guys say, "Follow God's example in the garden." But then you don't follow HIs example !!! (Except in the easy part !!!).And you say we try to put people in bondage... God in no ways was saying that we have to work six days out of the week and only rest the one. The six days are meant for us to take care of whatever business we need to take care of. Taking a vacation isn't a sin. Breaking the sabbath while on vacation however would be. There's nothing hypocritical about it.
Again, it's not a question of being done away. It's a question of application. Paul knew that God's voice would never again command His people to continue doing some of the outmoded aspects of the law (such as animal sacrifices). Thus, for all intents and purposes, Paul says that these aspects were nailed to the cross. But don't read him too superfically. NONE of the law is ever realy abrogated. God's law DOESN'T change. It's merely reapplied, situationally. In our current situation (post-Christ), there is not much point in doing animal sacrifices, as these were largely a foreshadow of Christ.The non-sabbatarian has no grounds to keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath. IF you were correct about the sabbath being done away with then we'd have no reason to worship on any day as there is no scripture validating Sunday worship. All you've done is ignored God's plain law and gathered together on a day that is no different then Monday.
The NT provides an example where Jesus had His disciples do work on Saturday. He is Lord of the Sabbath.God made Saturday a holy day. Those are the facts. Can you show one scripture that says Saturday is not holy and Sunday is? Can you find one scripture that says it's ok to desecrate the sabbath day?
(Sigh). Yourre not understanding my position. Its not a question of BREAKING the law. (I may have used that term, but my meaning was clear enouh). Its a question of how to APPLY the law. Be led by the Spirit.Listen to what you're saying. Jesus couldn't have broken the sabbath because as Paul says, Jesus was born under the law. Your position is that the sabbath was not done away with until Jesus died, thus if Jesus broke the sabbath before hand while it was still applicable he would have been a sinner. Get it?
Its clearn enough to me that sabbatarianism is precisely what He was refuting or, more generally, He was refuting legalism. The following two concepts are mutually exclusive.Jesus never broke the sabbath. What Jesus did was ignore the laws that man placed upon His day which turned it into a burden upon the people. It is, was, and ever will be a blessing for man. We will worship before Him on the sabbath day in heaven. Jesus never took a position against SDAism in regards to the sabbath.
We can only learn of Gods will from the Bible? Ok, now youre being totally ridiculous. Frequently Gods voice spoke to men in the OT in situations where they couldnt find out His will from the Bible. Lets consider, for example, a carpenter named Joseph who, just like us, had to decide whether to go to work the next day in the usual manner. But the divine voice told him not to go:Nope, again you're wrong. You can only learn of God's will from the bible. I can know if I'm suppose to go to work tomorrow because I'm not suppose to be concerned with tomorrow until tomorrow comes. Thus, because I know the will of God is for me to prosper and be in good health, and that I can only prosper if I go to work, then that's what I'm going to do. That's all bible my friend.
Excellent. Good example. 40 days of non-sabbatarianism. Excellent example of situational ethics. Luke tells us that the Spirit led Him into the wilderness. This is what Paul means by, Be led by the Spirit. The Spirit, functioning as Gods voice, tells us how to apply the law.Not even, again as this was already addressed, working consists of doing what we need to do before the sabbath. Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days and nights before His ministry began. Was He in violation of His own law. Jesus went to a party at the beginning of His ministry. Again, was He in violation of the example that He Himself set forth?
Come again? System of failure?You prove the point.That is why we are not under that system of failure.
Break one,you break em all.
The ten commandments weren't meant to convert people but to convict them of sin. Only the Spirit can convert, which is why we are made an epistle of Christ by the Spirit. Trying to keep the ten of your own accord will simply drive you crazy because you can't do it. The Spirit working through you however can lead you to walk accordingly.3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.
Why is not on tablets of stone? You do know that the tablets of stone are the ten commandments, right?
Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial portion which is why we don't kill animals or go to a human priest anymore. If the ten were fulfilled in like manner then then we'd be free from any obligation to keep any of them.Sure, and Jesus fulfilled it. It passed away.
I don't see anything but a reference to the promise here, but it isn't spelled out. What they are told is that if they are Christ's then they become heirs to that promise which was made to Abraham, so wouldn't that mean that all the conditions to receive that promise would become theirs too?Meh, yes, it was given to the gentiles.
Galatians 3:29
29 And if you are Christs, then you are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise.
What wasn't given to the gentiles was the Jewish law.
And again, I don't recall God given instructions separate for the gentiles.
Christ actually gave those two commandments to the Jews first, then the Jews that preached Christ to the Gentiles gave them the same commandments. See how that works?Actually no. The commandments given to Israel are what Paul calls the ministry of death and it includes all 613 commandments of the mosaic law. To the gentiles, Christ gave us 2 commandments.
Hebrews tells us that with a change in the priesthood came a change in the law. A change in no way equals an eradication. You wouldn't know how to love God or your neighbor without the ten commandments. That's like saying that once you move on to algebra you can forget the fundamentals of arithmetic.Saving faith leads to loving God with all of our hearts, mind and soul and to love your neighbor as ourselves. It doesn't lead to obeying the 613 commandment Mosaic law.
First we aren't judging anyone. I'm not saying you're going to hell because I don't know your heart. All I'm doing is pointing out the error in regards to the sabbath day.So, why are you and the SDA attempting to judge your Christian brother by the ministry of death? Isn't that walking away rather than walking together.
Second, Can we agree that God is not a God of compromise, rather a God of strict justice and overwhelming love? There is an importance that is attached with the sabbath that many will never know and that some could know about. One compromise leads to another and to another and to another, until eventually you lose your identity which used to be in Christ.
If you doubt that just take a look at what happened to the COI in the OT. How many times to God rebuke them for straying away from the sabbath, and then plead with them to keep it holy? How many times did they slip into idol worship and all manner of abase living because they stopped keeping the commandments of God?
Satan's M.O hasn't changed, it's just adapted with the times. He's deceived people then and he is doing the same thing now. Instead of replacing God with idols of wood and stone and groves however, he replaces Him with success, and cars and houses and jobs that demand all of our time, or tv or video games, or what have you. Satan knows why we need this quality time with God which is why he is fighting so desperately against this day.
The new covenant law is NOT the old covenant law. The old covenant law included 613 commandments where the new covenant "law" contains two. As far as scripture, I have already posted plenty depicting the passing of the old covenant law which you are yet to address.
Here is more:
Galatians 3:23-25
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
It doesn;t get any clearer than that.
When did I say the OC law was the NC law? I said the ten commandments were part of the OC just like they are part of the NC. Tell me, if salvation is not by works, but faith in Christ, how were the COI saved?
James is quoting from the royal law which is Christ and the commandment that he quotes in verse 8 is to love your neighbor as yourself. Show me where this commandment was part of the 10 commandments. Also, the other 2 commandments that he quotes in verse 11 are the same ones given to us by Christ in the sermon on the mount. James is not referring to the 10 commandments.
The two are a summation of the ten. We've been over that already.
Leviticus 19:18Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
Without the ten, you wouldn't know how to keep the two.
We do agree on that. Trust me. I'm with you all the way. But not being under the law because of grace doesn't mean we are at liberty to do away with the law but rather we are empowered by the indwelling of the Spirit to keep the law. And when we stumble, God says "It's ok. Get back up and keep moving forward, for My grace is sufficient for you."And yet, we are under grace, justified by grace through faith, therefore, we are not under the penalty of sin. I thought we had agreed to that. I am not under the law and neither are you.
Just like the Jews, you are stuck on the law. The very thing that kept Israel in bondage. The ministry of the Spirit brings liberty because mercy triumphs over judgment. Man, get the load of your back. Christ has already paid the price.
I'm not stuck on the law, only the tenAnd trust me, I'm not in bondage nor am I carrying any load on my back. The law has shown me that I'm a sinner, and because of that I've fled to Christ and have given my burden to Him in exchange for His grace. Being at liberty doesn't me you get to do what you want, it means being free from sin and having your character transformed into the likeness of Christ.
Every supposed 'law keeper' should tell you that sitting in a pew on SATURDAY is completely MEANINGLESS apart from that which is IN THE HEART. Physical attendance does not matter ONE WHIT by any comparison. Since there is no way to 'accurately gauge' then what that really means to be 'in' compliance, the only other LOGICAL or reasonable place to 'look' is what ARE the 'real results of their attendance?
If you want to quick cut to the chase, please review what SDAers ACTUALLY DO from their own statements regarding these matters.
Here is what YOU WILL FIND:
The conveyance of SIN to their neighbors for NON-attendance.
The conveyance of CONDEMNATION to their neighbors for that SIN.
The conveyance of potential ETERNAL DEATH to their neighbors for that SIN.
and of course the COMPLETE exoneration of themselves, even if they were sitting in the pew thinking of not wanting to be there, all the day long.
There are many things that love does not do, but those things are NOT 'performances' under the LAW of 'do not,' but under the RULE of the SPIRIT which IS Love. Love is TRANCENDANT above EVERY LAW and is the FULFILLMENT of EVERY LAW.
SDA methodology can easily be seen from their own statements to convey SIN COUNTING, CONDEMNATION AND POTENTIAL OF ETERNAL DEATH.
IF you say ALL THOSE THINGS ARE LOVE, you are sadly mistaken.
No other gods? Please... NO one is absolute 100% correct about ANY of these 'legal' matters because THEY ARE HEART matters that NO MAN is fit to judge upon ANOTHER whatsoever.
A non SATURDAY PEW SITTER who loves their neighbors is FULFILLING THE LAW in every aspect including SABBATH WORSHIP. And the same ones sitting in the PEWS on Saturday CONDEMNING THAT PERSON "IN THE NAME OF GOD as 'they' see it" is going to have THEIR OWN DAMNATION to their neighbors reigned down upon them.
People who 'think' they practice LAW and use it to bring the CONDEMNATION of potential ETERNAL DEATH to their neighbors are IN FACT murderers IN THEIR HEARTS.
To bow to some myriad of constructs about 'physical performance requirements' about the LAW and to call THAT love to their neighbors is ridiculous idolatry, the SUBSTANCE of which is OPENLY REVEALED out of their own mouths to in reality be DEATH IN THEM to their neighbors reigning supreme.
You think one cannot COMMIT MURDER in their heart?
1 John 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer
One cannot HATE their neighbor or their brother ANY MORE than to sentence them to the potential of ETERNAL DEATH.
You think one who claims to LOVE GOD by "following the ten commandments" cannot be a LIAR in their heart?
1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar
Legal on the OUTSIDE by physical performance measures means NOTHING. Out of their OWN MOUTHS they condemn their neighbors PROVING the lawlessness of DEATH to neighbors REIGNS in their hearts.
enjoy!
squint
Ya see, I believe that Paul used the term law interchangeably, kinda like I do. If we're not under the law (ten commandments) than that means we're not under it. Period. I can steal or cheat on my wife and all is well right?Stryder, it is not enough to assert that it does. It does not say we are free from the penalty. It says we are released form the law. It uses a parable of marriage.
We are dead to the law and joined to another.
Now are you going to explain why that doesn't match your view?
Let's look at what Galatians says as well on the topic:
19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions,having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
The law was added UNTIL the seed would come. That indicates an ending time.
And under the law here is speaking of the direction of the law, as it was a TUTOR, and we are no longer under its direction.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
It does not just say under the penalty of the law but under CUSTODY of the law.
It was a tutor to lead us to Christ.
We are no longer under that tutor's CUSTODY.
And this is speaking of the whole law, including the ten commandments.
Sorry. My mind is like that. I tend to forget alot of things but not purposefully. So I guess you could point me to the thread, or give me a yes or no to refresh my memory.As to my views on Sabbath you apparently forgot the exchange we had in another GT thread. I posted 111 posts on the subject, much of which you were there for and responded to.
Nope. Against such, there is no law. It doesn't say "For these there is no law" So in other words there is nothing against doing those things listed as the fruits, or works, or the Spirit.Stryder, did you misunderstand the text about the fruit of the Spirit?
Hebrews says that with a change of the priesthood came a change of the law. I never contended that all of the law was in effect. Just as we know the laws around sexual purity still stand, I know the ten commandments still stand.Stryder, It says we are released. Now you don't really believe the whole law is in effect. Because you don't keep the whole law. The law was more than the 10 commandments.
Never said the whole thing did. As far as more consistent, well I can't say either way as I don't know what all they teach.If you think the whole law is to be kept you need to join the Messianics, who are at least more consistent than the Adventists.
Nope. I'm not arguing. I felt myself getting upset in the other thread and thought it best to back out.I find it interesting that you left that thread and won't talk to me there, because you say you don't want to argue...but here you are arguing.
But to answer your question, the stone tablets are not the center anymore:
2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.
2Co 3:11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
The old ministry of death carved in letters of stone has had its time. And tis glory has no glory now at all. It has been surpassed by what is PERMANENT. That is the ministry of the Spirit.
Stryder06,
By the way, God didnt rest on Saturday. He was simply laying down a general principle of resting one day out of the week. In the day of Moses, the divine voice told Israel how God wanted Israel to apply that principle. For Israel, it was generally Saturday. For me, it could be any day that the divine voice stipulates. Or, if situational ethics so demands, in some cases He might have me working seven days a week and, in other cases, zero days a week (viz. vacations).
To suggest that God rested on Saturday contradicts the sabbatarian paradigm. Allow me to explain. What was God resting from? The act of creating. If He created the world in seven 24-hour periods, then rested on Saturday, what did He do on the next 24-hour day after that rest? More creating? Or more resting from the act of creating? Here the sabbatarians would have to reply, More resting.
This results in the following paradigm. God works six days (24-hour periods), and then rests from that act of creation for the next 6000 years, He rests 365 days a year. That doesn't make sense.
What this shows is that the Genesis timescale is not 24-hour periods. I found this out for myself while researching another issue many years ago, namely the age of the earth. I found that the scientific evidence for an old earth (4 billion years old) was overwhelming. Therefore Genesis cant be talking about 24 hour periods.
A 24-hour day is created by the suns radiance upon a rotating earth. According to Genesis 1, however, the sun wasnt set in place until the fourth of the seven days. Therefore Moses wasnt talking about 24-hour days. So what was he talking about?
Genesis defines a day as a period of darkness followed by a period of light. Thats all. It says nothing about 24 hours:
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters....And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Where did the light come from? Not from the sun, as it wasnt in place until the fourth day. I turn your attention now to the light in Moses face. We know that Gods light is physical, because Moses used a physical veil over his face to restrain the light too bright for Israels eyes. (An immaterial light would have passed right through the physical veil unimpeded).
Paul hints as much in 2Cor 4 after discussing the light in Moses face, he goes on to suggest that this was the same Light of Genesis when God said, Let there be light.
His face was shining brighter than the sun (Rev 1:15). What happened in Genesis, then, is God shined His face into the galaxy six times (and quenched it six times), resulting in six galactic days and six galactic nights. This physical Light from His face (the light that illuminates the heavenly city Rev 22:5). This physical Light provided photosynthesis to the earths plants, as needed, until the sun was put in place on the fourth Galactic Day. The six Galactic Days spanned the 4 billion years of the earths history.
The seventh Galactic Daylight is eternal (thats why Genesis doesnt record a nightfall after the seventh daylight). God rests ONLY on the seventh day. He rests ONE day out of His week. Whereas the Sabbatarian paradigm of 24-hour periods implies that He has been resting 365 days a year since creation. Is that the example they want us to follow? They want us to rest 365 says a year?
The upshot is as follows. God didnt rest on Saturday (a 24-hour period). Hence, we cannot follow His example in a STRICT sense. We can only follow it in a loose sense, as directed by the divine voice. The voice tells us how to apply the principle of resting one day out of the week.
He never stopped working. Jesus said the Father has been working up to this very day. However, he rested FROM THE ACT OF CREATING. The question is, how many days a week does He rest from the act of creating? 365 days a year? Sorry, the 24-hour paradigm doesn't make sense.Two things. First, God rested from His work of creating the earth on the seventh day. What He did after that is unknown to us, just like what He was doing before.
I'm simply extrapolating the obvious. If Genesis is 24 hour periods, as the sabbatarian asserts, do they also believe He started creating again on the eighth day? He is still working - but He is not creating. He's still resting with respect to the act of creation. So the sabbatarian paradidgm (24 hour periods) extrapolates to 365 days a year of resting from the act of creating. My paradigm extrapolates to ONE day of rest out of His week. Miy paradigm is biblical, therefore, but yours is not.You're asserting beliefs that we don't hold ourselves and then subscribing them to us. Please don't do that.
Agreed. Precisely my point. The term rest in Genesis 1 means "with respect to the act of creating." The indication in Genesis is only one day of this rest. Therefore it cannot be 24 hour periods.Secondly, God said that He created the earth in six days and rested the seventh day and made it holy. I agree that God didn't rest in the sense that He just stopped doing everything, because all things exist and are sustained by Him, so if He stops, everything else does too. So yes I believe the "rest" was from creation. He did what He wanted to do and at the end of it all said "This is good."
Who's denying a literal six day creation? Not me. Genesis doesn't define a day as 24 hours. It defines a day as a period of darkness followed by a period of light. Even in our own universe, days are not always 24 hours. It depends on the size of the planet and its rate of rotation with respect to the sun. Only on earth are days necessarily 24 hours (if the sun is in place). Scientifically, you can't limit a day to 24 hours - nor can you so limit it biblically. Moses tells what a day is - a period of darkness followed by a period of light - that's the literal meaning.And lastly, no matter how you try to explain it, I will always believe in a literal six day creation, because that's what the bible says.
Yes, He rested on the seventh daylight, just like I said. Clearly it wasn't 24 hour periods, as there was no sun in place until the fourth daylight.It's what God said with His own mouth. I don't have to explain it, or even understand it. I believe it through faith. He six days and on the seventh He rested. I'll say six days, and on the seventh He rested.
your argument that a particular group does or doesn't do things to your liking or your imputation of a wrong to a group doesn't answer the idea that love is a principle more defined in the ten commandments and even more expounded upon by the words of jesus.
you say the outside doesn't measure anything important- granted
but let God be the judge of a mans heart and realize that james says faith with out works is dead also- you say you have faith but I will show you my faith by what I do.
Is killing your fellow man a sin?Is not honoring the sabbath a sin?
No. It's not a question of legalism to begin with. Legalism has to do with trying to earn one's salvation. The Sabbath is one of the 10C's that point out our sins.Weren't the Pharisees admonished for this type of legalism?
Ya see, I believe that Paul used the term law interchangeably, kinda like I do. If we're not under the law (ten commandments) than that means we're not under it. Period. I can steal or cheat on my wife and all is well right?
EXACTLY.Nope. Against such, there is no law. It doesn't say "For these there is no law" So in other words there is nothing against doing those things listed as the fruits, or works, or the Spirit.
The whole of the law was given to the Israelites in a particular context.Hebrews says that with a change of the priesthood came a change of the law. I never contended that all of the law was in effect. Just as we know the laws around sexual purity still stand, I know the ten commandments still stand.
They teach keeping the whole mosaic law....well....unless it involves a temple which they don't have, but that is for another time to discuss.Never said the whole thing did. As far as more consistent, well I can't say either way as I don't know what all they teach.
That is fine, come back when you calm down. We can still discuss Daniel 8.Nope. I'm not arguing. I felt myself getting upset in the other thread and thought it best to back out.
Those who are Christ's are led by the Spirit.What exactly is the ministry of the Spirit? How does the law work for some and not for others? Do those who are not Christ's have a law and then when they come to Christ suddenly they are without one? How does that work?
He rested from His act of creating the earth. In other words He was simply done. The 24-hour paradigm does make since.He never stopped working. Jesus said the Father has been working up to this very day. However, he rested FROM THE ACT OF CREATING. The question is, how many days a week does He rest from the act of creating? 365 days a year? Sorry, the 24-hour paradigm doesn't make sense.
How couldn't it be? Just like the weekly cycle continues for us, it continued then. After saturday came it went to sunday, then monday, than tuesday and so on.He rests ONE day from the act of creating. Therefore, it cannot be 24 hour periods.
My response isn't evasive. It's factual. Do you know what God did before then or after?You're response is evasive. It's trying to avoid the question, "How many days a week does God rest from the act of creating?"
Come again? God was creating, He formed the earth and then stopped when He was done. Whether He went on creating other things isn't told to us. His resting was Him setting a framework for us. Six days then rest the seventh, rinse and repeat. It's really not that deep.Let's put the question another way. If God is still creating, where then the rest? That question MERITS an answer. My paradigm provides a coherent solution. The sabbatarian position doesn't address the issue and therefore shouldn't be accepted.
You're not extrapolating, you're creating. This isn't how we think nor can you say this is what we really believe because it isn't. God created the earth in six days and rested the seventh. The subject is plain and doesn't need to be overcomplicated as you are doing to it.I'm simply extrapolating the obvious. If Genesis is 24 hour periods, as the sabbatarian asserts, do they also believe He started creating again on the eighth day? He is still working - but He is not creating. He's still resting with respect to the act of creation. So the sabbatarian paradidgm (24 hour periods) extrapolates to 365 days a year of resting from the act of creating. My paradigm extrapolates to ONE day of rest out of His week. Miy paradigm is biblical, therefore, but yours is not.
I'm sorry but you really are confusing me here.Agreed. Precisely my point. The term rest in Genesis 1 means "with respect to the act of creating." The indication in Genesis is only one day of this rest. Therefore it cannot be 24 hour periods.
True, and we just so happen to be on a planet which consists of a 24 hour period. I wonder who made it that way?Who's denying a literal six day creation? Not me. Genesis doesn't define a day as 24 hours. It defines a day as a period of darkness followed by a period of light. Even in our own universe, days are not always 24 hours. It depends on the size of the planet and its rate of rotation with respect to the sun.
You're not proving anything here. We call the light day and the darkness night because that's what it is. Daytime followed by nighttime, or the other way around depending on how you want to look at it.Only on earth are days necessarily 24 hours (if the sun is in place). Scientifically, you can't limit a day to 24 hours - nor can you so limit it biblically. Moses tells what a day is - a period of darkness followed by a period of light - that's the literal meaning.
"He called the light 'Day', and He called the darkness 'Night'."
Why would he have to? If I tell you I have two dollars, do I have to spell it out for you that I posses two one dollar bills?Moses said it, not me. I'm just going by what Moses said. He said nothing about 24 hours.
[/quote]Yes, He rested on the seventh daylight, just like I said. Clearly it wasn't 24 hour periods, as there was no sun in place until the fourth daylight.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?