Is the fourth commandment done away with? (Moved)

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

RND:
"The putting off of a "man-made" religious system doesn't make void the law of God, it makes void that which is not of God."

GE:
That now was well-said indeed!
Live the Lord's Day!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Patty ofurniture:
"so yes im sorry to have to tell you that the ceremonial Law was wiped out man,sorry to be the bearer of bad news."

GE:
So glad to tell you that the Moral Law was wiped out man, in Christ, with Him, through Him, He Being God's Word of Law; Glad to be the bearer of the Good News! "He was brought back from the dead again!" Hb13:20.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

oFurniture:
"All you that insist thats its mandatory to observe a 7th Day Sabbath are typing away,copy n paste,typing away ad nauseam....
(it needn't be this way Friends)"

GE:
Nauseous of this?: "IF JESUS HAD GIVEN THEM REST ... THEREFORE; ... SEEING HE ENTERED IN INTO HIS OWN REST GOD ... THEREFORE THERE REMAINETH FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD KEEPING OF THE SABBATH DAY!"
Nauseous of it? Then by what shall you live o man? Somewhere I read of a pig I think it was who ate something from nauseousness. I would rather live of the Word of God, that "THUS CONCERNING THE SEVENTH DAY SPAKE: AND GOD THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS RESTED" -- "through the Son ... in these last days ... Whom He brought again from the dead" (13:20) "IN SABBATH'S-TIME" Mt28:1.

 

[heymikey80]

Are you suggesting that God approves of those that break His laws? BTW, which "law" are you referring to?

Are you suggesting some people don't break God's laws?

A "man-made" (Talmudic) legal system to be sure, but God's 'system" is a light yoke.

Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. Mat 11:30 For myyoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.

The putting off of a "man-made" religious system doesn't make void the law of God, it makes void that which is not of God.

Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses." ...[Peter stood up and said to them,] "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Ac 15:5, 10-11
​

 

[RND]

Are you suggesting some people don't break God's laws?

Nope, everyone has sinned and come short of the glory of God.

some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses." ...[Peter stood up and said to them,] "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Ac 15:5, 10-11

Is it ok for someone who is not circumcised to murder, steal, lie, or break any of the other Ten Commandments?

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

RND,

There is no division within the law (no ceremonial law, health law, moral law etc), but only the one indivisible fabric of the law. Thus Deut 4:2.

So your dividing up the law into convenient parcels, is itself transgression of the law. Thus you will be judged according to the law at Deut 4:2, and found guilty.

You may not pick and choose your own sub-law from the law.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Ge:

"IF JESUS HAD GIVEN THEM REST ... THEREFORE; ... SEEING HE ENTERED IN INTO HIS OWN REST GOD ... THEREFORE THERE REMAINETH FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD KEEPING OF THE SABBATH DAY!"
This might be what the Mickey Mouse bible says, but not the KJV.

The actual text tells us that those who have entered into the rest that is faith, have ceased from their own works in the same way that God ceased from His. Thus it tells us that God is Himself our Rest, and that no day of the week is ordained at all.

The rest spoken of is the rest from trying to please God, not the rest from physical work. It is the rest that faith comprises, not the rest that the Hawaian islands comprise.

So the day-of-the week rest which you espouse, is actually work, and therefore you transgress the Sabbath, for you transgress the rest that is faith, for "the law is not of faith".

So you catch yourself out. Just like the Jews.

Just as the periodic entering in to the inner sanctum by the levitical high priest constituted reminder of sins, so too your periodic keeping of the sabbath day once a week constitutes reminder that you have not ceased from your own works as God did from His, and thus reminder also that you transgress the Sabbath of God.


.

 

[RND]

Ge:

"IF JESUS HAD GIVEN THEM REST ... THEREFORE; ... SEEING HE ENTERED IN INTO HIS OWN REST GOD ... THEREFORE THERE REMAINETH FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD KEEPING OF THE SABBATH DAY!"
This might be what the Mickey Mouse bible says, but not the KJV.

Comments like this are truly unnecessary.

The actual text tells us that those who have entered into the rest that is faith, have ceased from their own works in the same way that God ceased from His. Thus it tells us that God is Himself our Rest, and that no day of the week is ordained at all.

To a certain extent that's true. To a certain extent it isn't. Man can't "keep" the Sabbath without Christ.

Hbr 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Rest - #4520 Sabbatimos

1) a keeping sabbath

NIV - There remains, then, a Sabbath‑rest for the people of God;

ESV - So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,

NASB - So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

RSV - So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God;

ASV - There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.

The rest spoken of is the rest from trying to please God, not the rest from physical work. It is the rest that faith comprises, not the rest that the Hawaian islands comprise.

Not according to those "Mickey Mouse" Bible versions I referred to.

So the day-of-the week rest which you espouse, is actually work, and therefore you transgress the Sabbath, for you transgress the rest that is faith, for "the law is not of faith".

So you catch yourself out. Just like the Jews.

Just as the periodic entering in to the inner sanctum by the levitical high priest constituted reminder of sins, so too your periodic keeping of the sabbath day once a week constitutes reminder that you have not ceased from your own works as God did from His, and thus reminder also that you transgress the Sabbath of God.

That can only be one man's opinion. How exactly do you know the hearts of so many Sabbatarians?

There are plenty of faith-based folks of many different denominations that keep the sabbath and rest from their works not by their own doing but His. Are you denying that faithful Christians that still believe in the Sabbath are all relying on their own works simply because they observe the Sabbath? What about the "pew pilots" that take up space in a Sunday church?

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

RND,


The rest spoken of is the rest from trying to please God, not the rest from physical work. It is the rest that faith comprises, not the rest that the Hawaian islands comprise.
Not according to those "Mickey Mouse" Bible versions I referred to.
Legalists will always gravitate to legalism. They need no pushing to go there.
The scripture states that the rest we have entered is the rest that is faith itself. I know this: I have rested. You haven't, but are still thinking to please God by stopping physical work on a day of the week. Thus you work, and thus you transgress God's Sabbath.





Just as the periodic entering in to the inner sanctum by the levitical high priest constituted reminder of sins, so too your periodic keeping of the sabbath day once a week constitutes reminder that you have not ceased from your own works as God did from His, and thus reminder also that you transgress the Sabbath of God.
That can only be one man's opinion.
No it is a fact that you have not ceased from your own works as God did from His.





And as I have also stated, you parcelling up of the law into ceremonial, health, etc, is itself transgression of the law of Deut 4:2. So you seek to keep the 4th commandment, but divide the law into parcels and thus render your sabbath-keeping of no account.




.

 

[RND]

RND,

There is no division within the law (no ceremonial law, health law, moral law etc), but only the one indivisible fabric of the law. Thus Deut 4:2.

So your dividing up the law into convenient parcels, is itself transgression of the law. Thus you will be judged according to the law at Deut 4:2, and found guilty.

You may not pick and choose your own sub-law from the law.

Pronouncing judgment on me RTE?

Actually Bible scholars for centuries have understood that there are indeed divisions of the law. Someone who ate pork was treated differently than someone who raped and murdered. Modern society is no different. It has civil laws, heath laws, criminal laws, etc. Did modern society think of these of it's own accord or do you think it might be using an example that was set forth?

Gods Law and Society

Maybe the above reference material will help.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

You know GTE you kinda remind me of the pharisees in a way. Pronounce judgment on the Sabbath keeper that observes the Sabbath by quoting a verse that says not to change the word, and yet, by your actions in not observing the Sabbath and accepting Catholic tradition you yourself make the law none effect by the keeping of man's traditions.

Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.

Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

 

[visionary]

Sabbath is only an issue when man enforces another time of worship that is not as the Lord requires. Everyone who worships the Lord, know Him, and obey Him whether it is popular or not. There obedience and aliegence is to God and Him alone do they serve. Everyone knows which is the biblical sabbath, and know that is the instructions written in stone and to be written in the heart. Let God write it. Open up your heart to receive Him fully without reservation and serve Him as He decreed. We can argue til the cows come home, but it will not change the Word of God one iota. God has not changed, will not change and when we arrive in His kingdom, we will all come and worship Him from one sabbath to the next.

Isaiah 66:23
And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

RND,

There is no division within the law (no ceremonial law, health law, moral law etc), but only the one indivisible fabric of the law. Thus Deut 4:2.
So your dividing up the law into convenient parcels, is itself transgression of the law. Thus you will be judged according to the law at Deut 4:2, and found guilty.
You may not pick and choose your own sub-law from the law.
Pronouncing judgment on me RTE?
Funny how legalist don’t like to be judged by the law. You are guilty as charged pursuant to the law of Deut 4:2.




Actually Bible scholars for centuries have understood that there are indeed divisions of the law.
Irrelevant. They obviously were also transgressors of Deut 4:2.




You simply have no case.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Everyone knows which is the biblical sabbath, and know that is the instructions written in stone and to be written in the heart. Let God write it.
Instructions in stone are for hearts of stone.

Jeremiah's writing of the law in the heart, uses "my laws" as a type for "Christ".

For the laws of the OT are already in written in the hearts of the non-believers as per Rom 2:15, so the Jeremiah's prophecy necessarily concerns the writing of something else.

The biblical sabbath is sabbatismos, not sabbaton. It speaks of the repose of Christianity, being that of faith, and not a day of the week.

 

[visionary]

And again I see...
Isaiah 66:23
And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
__________________

 

[RND]

RND,

There is no division within the law (no ceremonial law, health law, moral law etc), but only the one indivisible fabric of the law. Thus Deut 4:2.
So your dividing up the law into convenient parcels, is itself transgression of the law. Thus you will be judged according to the law at Deut 4:2, and found guilty.
You may not pick and choose your own sub-law from the law.
Pronouncing judgment on me RTE?
Funny how legalist don’t like to be judged by the law. You are guilty as charged pursuant to the law of Deut 4:2.

Of course I'm guilty! But then again, so are you!

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Hey the fact that you refuse to see the clea distinction of the law isn't an issue for me to worry about. If you want to pronounce judgment on me be my guest.

Actually Bible scholars for centuries have understood that there are indeed divisions of the law.
Irrelevant. They obviously were also transgressors of Deut 4:2.

No, it's only irrelevant to you. The fact that for centuries there has always been a clear distinction between the various Mosaic laws by most Bible scholars would only be irrelevant to someone denying obvious truth.

You simply have no case.

Fortunately you're not my judge so I have nothing to worry about!

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Originally Posted by A Brother In Christ

gal 2:21

law was made for the unrighteous man.. 1 tim 1:9


we are to rest every day ...in our position in Christ
​

Which law?

Moses Law that God gave him...
Government law....

 

[heymikey80]

Are you suggesting that God approves of those that break His laws?

Are you suggesting some people don't break God's laws?

Nope, everyone has sinned and come short of the glory of God.

So by your prior question are you suggesting God disapproves of everyone?

Is it ok for someone who is not circumcised to murder, steal, lie, or break any of the other Ten Commandments?

First: y'ever look up the etymology of the Greek "forgive"?
Second: focus on the text. What question was the Council answering? What was the nature of their answer?
Third: What do you mean by "ok"?

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11
​

 

[RND]

So by your prior question are you suggesting God disapproves of everyone?

God disapproves of sin.

First: y'ever look up the etymology of the Greek "forgive"?

Yes.

Second: focus on the text. What question was the Council answering?

Whether one had to be circumcised to be saved. But it's a lengthy stretch to conclude, as most Christians do, that the Council at Jerusalem was "abolishing" the Mosaic law or the Moral law for that matter. They require observance of four section of the Mosaic law. Fornication, idolatry, eating blood and eating strangled meats. To this day these are things that a Christian should not engage in.

What was the nature of their answer?

The nature of the answer was that "circumcision" is not a sign of being saved or one's ability to accept Christ.

Third: What do you mean by "ok"?

Permissible.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11

I guess women who practice homosexuality are exempt!?

 

[heymikey80]

God disapproves of sin.

You didn't answer the question. In your view, since you've stated everyone sins, and you asked me if God disapproves of people who do sin -- do you therefore conclude God disapproves of everyone?

I don't. Do you?

Yes.

Then you know that it means to let it occur.

Whether one had to be circumcised to be saved. But it's a lengthy stretch to conclude, as most Christians do, that the Council at Jerusalem was "abolishing" the Mosaic law or the Moral law for that matter. They require observance of four section of the Mosaic law. Fornication, idolatry, eating blood and eating strangled meats. To this day these are things that a Christian should not engage in.

The nature of Peter's response was quite different from simply circumcision. There was not an "unbearable" aspect to circumcision.

And the observance determined by Jerusalem Council stated "no more than this". It already assumed the common equity of other practices Moses commanded, the Council didn't need to review anything that was clearly already commonly understood between Gentile and Jewish practice.

This conclusion is not a majority opinion of "most Christians" that the Council at Jerusalem was "abolishing Mosaic Law". In fact it's quite in line with Paul's statements of the function of the Law, and the establishment of the Law.

The nature of the answer was that "circumcision" is not a sign of being saved or one's ability to accept Christ.

The nature of the answer from Jerusalem Council reached further than this.

Permissible.

for ...?

I guess women who practice homosexuality are exempt!?

Why would anyone be willing to allow anything that any one passage might not mention?! Other passages mention homosexuality of all kinds.

 

[RND]

You didn't answer the question. In your view, since you've stated everyone sins, and you asked me if God disapproves of people who do sin -- do you therefore conclude God disapproves of everyone?

I don't. Do you?

Sure I did. God disapproves of sin. That's not to say He disapproves of the people that sin. I didn't think I needed to spell that out for you. BTW, see the answer below regarding false assumptions.

Then you know that it means to let it occur.

Yes.

The nature of Peter's response was quite different from simply circumcision. There was not an "unbearable" aspect to circumcision.

And the observance determined by Jerusalem Council stated "no more than this". It already assumed the common equity of other practices Moses commanded, the Council didn't need to review anything that was clearly already commonly understood between Gentile and Jewish practice.

This conclusion is not a majority opinion of "most Christians" that the Council at Jerusalem was "abolishing Mosaic Law". In fact it's quite in line with Paul's statements of the function of the Law, and the establishment of the Law.

Certainly your view is not the view held by the majority of Christians who believe that the law was completely abolished by this council. It was not as you correctly pointed out.

The nature of the answer from Jerusalem Council reached further than this.

Not really.

for ...?

OK.

Why would anyone be willing to allow anything that any one passage might not mention?! Other passages mention homosexuality of all kinds.

Bingo! That's the point!

Just because Acts 15 doesn't mention murder, robbery, lying or the sabbath observance doesn't mean that those were being abolished. Thanks for finally coming to understand that point.

I hear it all the time from Christians that argue that, "See, the council in Acts 15 didn't mention Christians had to keep the Sabbath." Right, they didn't. They didn't mention murder, robbery, etc. either. Does that mean those things are permissible?

So by the very logic you're capable of using when someone points out that certain verses don't mention female homosexuality that doesn't mean that type of behavior is still permissible.