• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Is the fourth commandment done away with? (Moved)

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
"Not Subject to the Law of God?"
Part 1. The Christian View of the "Law"

The contemporary Christian mindset regarding what it calls "the Law," evolved from a Greek/Roman or "westernized" worldview and approach to studying the Bible. This was shaped by the early church fathers of the second to sixth centuries, and has been steadily reinforced since those times. When Christians hear or use the term "Law" in spiritual discussions, sermons, etc., they are thinking in a very "legal" sense, similar to how one would regard the laws we have in our secular society.
Three particular ideas found in Christianity regarding "the Law," pertinent to this discussion, are:

  1. Those under the Law of Moses were "under bondage," which ended with Jesus, who has set us free
  2. "No one could ever do everything the law requires" -- that's why we needed Jesus
  3. The law was "a curse" that Jesus came to do away with.
These three ideas may not be expressed in exactly the same words in every denomination, but the concepts are clear and present in the teachings of Protestant denominations and Catholicism.


For instance, Dr. Charles Ryrie's classic book on Christian theology makes it clear that "the Law" is terminated with Jesus:


"Another important benefit of the death of Christ was the inauguration of the faith-righteousness principle to replace the law-works principle. However, Paul's statement in Romans 10:4, that Christ is the end of the Law, might be understood as either signifying termination or purpose. In other words, either Christ terminated the Law, or the purpose of Christ's coming was to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17). However, the termination seems clearly to be the meaning in this context because of the contrast (beginning in Rom. 9:30) between the Law and God's righteousness. Paul's argument that follows is not that the Jew was incomplete and needed the coming of Christ to perfect his position before God, but that his position under the law-works principle was absolutely wrong because it sought to establish righteousness by human effort rather than by accepting God's gift of righteousness. Though it is true that our Lord fulfilled the Law, this passage is not teaching that, but rather that He terminated the Law and provided a new and living way to God. (1)


Another example showing the difference between what "the Law" and Jesus could do for us, may be found in the popular Christian book, When Skeptics Ask, byNorman L. Geisler:


While Moses set up the moral and social structures that guided the nation, the Law could not save anyone from the penalty of their sins, which is death. As Paul says, 'By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin' (Rom 3:20). The revelation which came through Jesus, though, was one in which the sins which the Law made known are forgiven, 'being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus' (v. 24). Christ's revelation builds on the foundation of Moses by solving the problem of which the Law made us aware. (2)


Beyond the inability of anyone to be saved by "the Law," Christianity also says that those who taught people to continue in "the Law," after coming to believe in the Messiah, were heretics.



Christian author William Barclay states the following in his Bible study series:
"In the New Testament itself we get glimpses of teachers who failed in their responsibility and became false teachers. There were teachers who tried to turn Christianity into another kind of Judaism and tried to introduce circumcision and the keeping of the law." (3)


The Christian view of "the Law" is also conveyed in "headings" found at the beginning of sections throughout Christian Bibles. These captions are placed there by the editors to help direct the reader as to what the next group of verses is concerned with.


For instance, at the beginning of the following sections in the "New Testament," of a popular New King James version of the Bible, (4) we find the following phrases:

  • Romans 7:1-6: "Freed from the Law"
  • Romans 14:1-13: "The Law of Liberty"
  • Galatians 3:10-14: "The Law Brings a Curse"
  • Galatians 5:7 -15: "Love Fulfills the Law"
Christianity's View of Judaism
Christianity distinguishes itself from Judaism (the "religion of Law") with the idea that the former is a religion of faith and love, whereas Judaism, is one of works. To quote William Barclay again;


"The Christian lives under the law of liberty, and it is by the law of liberty he will be judged. What he means is this. Unlike the Pharisee and the orthodox Jew, the Christian is not a man whose life is governed by the external pressure of a whole series of rules and regulations imposed on him from without. He is governed by the inner compulsion of love. He follows the right way, the way of love to God and love to men, not because any external law compels him to do so nor because any threat of punishment frightens him into doing so, but because the love of Christ within his heart makes him desire to do so." (5)


Christian Bible footnotes, commentary books and sermons from the pulpits have expressed this thought for centuries, maintaining that Christianity is God's true religion. For example, in a commentary appendix to one version of the King James Bible, regarding the book of Hebrews, it says:


"With carefully reasoned arguments the author showed that Christianity is superior to Judaism," ... "Christianity is the perfect religion."(6)


The same commentary regarding the book of Galatians states:


"Galatians has been called the Christian declaration of independence. It is Paul's answer to those who challenged his authority as an apostle and who urged Christians in Galatia to live according to the Law of Moses. Adoption of the Jewish Law by Gentile Christians would have made Christianity merely a sect within Judaism. Paul taught that bondage to the Law ended when Christ made all men free." (7)


Renowned Christian author, J. Vernon McGee, makes the following statement about the apostle Paul and the Jewish religion in his Bible commentary:


"Paul now calls the religion in which he was brought up the 'Jews' religion.' Paul was saved, not in Judaism, but from Judaism." (Emphasized words are McGee's) (8)


Christianity's View of the "New Testament's" Teachings on "the Law"

Christianity holds that those who come to "faith in Jesus," (Jew or Gentile) no longer need be concerned with "the Law" as they now have "liberty in their faith." Christianity gives most of the credit for this teaching to Paul, who is traditionally said to have taught against "the Law," and showed in his own life that "the Law" no longer had any practical meaning for him.
Frequently cited verses in supporting this are;
For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness for everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4)
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." (Galatians 3:10)
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree." (Galatians 3:13)
Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Colossians 2:14)
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)
Christianity's Relationship to the Jews
Christianity teaches that Jesus indeed came to the Jewish people, but they rejected him. The Jewish leadership (the Pharisees) were so "caught up in the Law," that they missed their own Messiah. The Church was created and given the job of spreading the Gospel of Jesus to the unsaved. (Matthew 16:18,19; Acts chapter 2)


The Church teaches that even thought the Jews failed in their calling, 2000 years ago, it has an obligation today to bring the Gospel to the Jewish people. Many Christian churches have created specific ministries, or launched campaigns, to evangelize the Jews.


In recent years, denominations such as the Baptists, and Assemblies of God, have stated that they have not been as successful as they had wished in the area of Jewish evangelism, and have rededicated themselves to this effort. Some are now making efforts to take a more "Jewish approach" in their "witnessing," by training their people to use "Jewish terminology" when talking to Jews. (i.e., to say "Yeshua," rather than "Jesus," or "Messiah" rather than "Christ.")
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
"Not Subject to the Law of God?"
Part 2. The Hebrew View of the Law/Torah and Salvation
Terminology

We begin with what Christianity calls "the Law," but in Judaism is called the Torah -- the term given to the first five books of the Bible. This is also referred to by Christians as the "Pentateuch" (a Greek term). The term "Law," especially in the legal sense as the western mind understands it, is not an appropriate translation of the word "Torah." A correct translation of Torah is "instruction" or "revelation" -- as in "God's instruction," or "revelation from God." This is how the Torah is presented in Judaism.
The Torah is a revelation of the character of God as well as an insight of what is to come. The Torah is God's instruction on how those who place their trust in Him (Jew or gentile) are to live, so that "all will be well with them." (Deuteronomy 4:40) Verses such as Exodus 12:48-49, Leviticus 24:22 and Isaiah chapter 56, show that the Torah was not strictly for the Hebrews, but also for those Gentiles who wanted to be part of God's people. Although God chose to present His revelation through the Jewish people, it was not to be solely "their religion." They were to be a "light to the world," and bring this revelation to the Gentiles, as Yeshua reminded them in His sermon of Matthew chapter 5.


Though the Torah proper is the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), the term "Torah" can also include the rest of the Tenakh (commonly called the "Old Testament") and the books of the "New Testament," in that they are God's continued revelation/instruction. None of God's later revelation in the rest of the Tenakh (the Prophets & Writings) contradicts the Torah, and none of the "New Testament" contradicts the Torah, Prophets or Writings. God's word is one.


What Does the Tenakh say about the Torah, Forgiveness of Sin, and Salvation?

Unlike the movie, "Back to the Future," we will for the purpose of this study of the Torah, go "forward into the past." In the Gospel of John chapter 3, we have one of the foundational verses of "faith-based Christianity:"
"You must be born again."
Christians tout this as a preeminent "faith teaching of Jesus." Notice however, what the Messiah says to Nicodemus when the latter asks, "How can these things be?"

Yeshua replies to him: "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things?"

Nicodemus is criticized by the Messiah, who says that as a "teacher of Israel," he should have known about being "born again." Now how would Nicodemus know about this if it was a new teaching of Yeshua?
The answer is that"being born again"is not an original teaching from Yeshua and the launching point for some new Christian faith. Being born again was and is fundamental to Torah-based Judaism, as the message of the Torah has always been to have faith in God for salvation and not "work your way."


This can be seen in the book of Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 10:16 -- "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiffnecked no longer."
The term "stiffnecked" is equivalent to not having faith. God called the generation in the wilderness stiffnecked because they failed to trust (have faith) in Him. (See Exodus 32:9; 33:3,5; 34:9, Deut. 9:6,13; 2 Chron. 30:8; Acts 7:51)


Hebrews 3:7-4:2, commenting on these same stiffnecked people, said they received the Gospel but failed as they did not "mix it with faith," and "went astray in their hearts."
Deuteronomy 30:6 -- "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."
Here the word "live" is used in a spiritual sense and is equivalent to salvation.


The epistles show that "circumcision of the heart" is the equivalent of "being born again":
Romans 2:29 -- "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart ..."
Colossians 2:11 -- "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands ..."
God has always asked that we first recognize and trust in Him before trying to "do" anything for Him. To have faith/trust in Him is the "first commandment."
Exodus 20:2-3 & Deuteronomy 5:6-7 -- I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
Habakkuk 2:4 & Romans 1:17 -- "The righteous live by faith." (Paul quotes this "Old Testament" verse in Romans to make his point.)
Hebrews 11:6 -- "Without faith it is impossible to please Him." (This chapter then goes on to list those who "followed the Law," such as; Moses, David and Samuel)
Yeshua continues His discussion with Nicodemus, speaking of His ascending to heaven (John 3:12-13), thus linking the Torah, (as God spoke about it in Deuteronomy 30:11-14), with Himself (as Paul wrote in Romans 10:1-8). Yeshua concludes his discussion by pointing to the incident of the Children of Israel looking upon the bronze serpent and living (John 3:14) as a faith issue (Numbers 21:9) comparing that to faith in Himself.


God does not change. Salvation in Torah-based Judaism has always been by faith, both before Moses and after him, as well as before Yeshua and after Him. The Torah is God's revelation, as Yeshua is also God's revelation. Faith, Torah and Yeshua are inseparable. Salvation was always through faith, Messiah and Torah, as Yeshua is the lamb slain since the foundation of the world (Hebrews 4:3, 9:26; Rev. 13:8). Yeshua Himself said:
John 8:56 -- "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad."
Yeshua is the goal of the Torah (Romans 10:4, see the section below, "Making the Hebrew Connection: Torah and Messiah.") Yeshua is the Torah in the flesh -- the point of John 1:1.


The reason most people don't see this when they read the "Old Testament," is because their understanding of, "what the Scriptures say," is affected by hundreds of years of theology formed by previous generations studying and interpreting the Hebrew Bible in a Hellenized (non-Hebrew) way. This "mindset" is not an easy thing to shake off (especially in the USA) as it is reinforced daily by family, friends, sermons, books, Christian TV programs, Christian holidays -- the entire culture we live in.



How and why the Bible has come to be interpreted in this fashion is discussed further in this document.


A Tenakh Example: How Was King David Saved?

In Hebrews chapter 11 -- the "Faith Hall of Fame" as some have called it, we find three interesting names from the Tenakh -- Moses, David and Samuel. The book of Hebrews says they were saved by faith, even though they were well known for following the Torah.


In writing Psalm 119, David can't say enough about following the Torah. But, according to Christian theology, there is a dilemma with regard to what he writes.


David writes the following about himself:
Psalm 119:22 -- "Take away from me reproach and contempt, for I have kept your testimonies."
Psalm 119:51 -- "... yet have I not declined in my interest or turned aside from your Law."
Psalm 119:56 -- "I have kept your precepts ..."
Psalm 119:102 -- "I have not turned aside from your ordinances ..."
Psalm 119:121 -- "I have done justice and righteousness ..."
Is this the same David that committed adultery with Bathsheba and had Uriah murdered? Not to mention a number of other documented violations of the Torah. According to Christian theology, David is clearly a liar. How can he claim to have followed "the Law," when we all know how he broke it in some terrible ways? To add to the "confusion," God Himself calls David, "a man after His own heart." (1 Samuel 13:14)


So is David a liar? Perhaps God is making an "exception" for him?
There is a hint of the answer found in Psalm 119 itself:
Psalm 119:159 -- "Consider how I love your precepts; revive me and give life to me, O Lord, according to your loving kindness."
The term "loving kindness" is hesed in Hebrew, and is the equivalent of the word grace in the "New Testament." David knew he was saved by God's grace -- NOT by keeping all the commandments perfectly, but rather by what he says at the beginning of the verse; "Consider how I love your precepts ..."

An interesting question to ask is, "Why does God save us?" The typical reply might be, "So we won't go to hell." That may be true, but it's an incomplete answer. In fact, God saves us so that we can perform the commandments (mitzvot) of His Torah in this lifetime. Our performing God's mitzvot is part of His desire to return us back into a correct relationship, the purpose and intent of mankind, as first seen in the Garden of Eden (Gan Eden).
(Taking it a step further, one could ask, why did Yeshua say, "we would always have the poor?" (Matthew 26:11) Part of the answer is so that we would be able to perform the mitzvot of charity!) (9)


Psalm 119 shows David asking to be saved so that he could then follow God's Torah. God judged David on his faith AND desire to follow the Torah, NOT on his ability to keep every point of it. No one has ever been "saved" by their ability to keep Torah, nor has that ever been an option for salvation.



The idea that Torah-based Judaism taught that anyone was ever saved by works is false. Throughout the ages there have indeed been those in Judaism who have taught incorrectly. The behavior of specific individuals or groups does not change what Torah-based Judaism has always taught.Even the error of the Jewish leaders at the time of Yeshua does not make Christianity, or any other religion correct. (Let God be true but every man be a liar -- Romans 3:4.) The only thing that is "right," is what God Himself established.


Faith and desire to follow His Torah are inseparable according to God.
Why is this so?

  1. God says what He wants from us ... to fear Him, walk in His ways, to love Him and to serve Him with all your heart and soul (Deuteronomy 10:12) -- "His ways" were given in the Torah.
  2. However, you cannot walk in His ways (follow the Torah) without faith (Hebrews 10:38)
Salvation "Under the Law"

Let us examine the aforementioned quote by Christian author, Norman Geisler:


While Moses set up the moral and social structures that guided the nation, the Law could not save anyone from the penalty of their sins, which is death. As Paul says, 'By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin' (Rom 3:20). The revelation which came through Jesus, though, was one in which the sins which the Law made known are forgiven, 'being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus' (v. 24). Christ's revelation builds on the foundation of Moses by solving the problem of which the Law made us aware.


Geisler's statement summarizes Christianity's view of the Torah, forgiveness of sin and salvation:

  1. There was no actual forgiveness and true salvation before Yeshua, when people were "under the Law," as all the Law could do was expose sin.
  2. Forgiveness came only when Jesus arrived on the scene.
Scripture has something different to say on the subject however, with God Himself making it clear that forgiveness was attainable long before Yeshua's death and resurrection:
Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now and let us reason together says the Lord, Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.
Strong's Concordance shows that there are more references to God forgiving sin in the book Leviticus, than in any other book in the Bible. Perhaps God wasn't serious all those times He told people that their sins were forgiven when they did what He told them to do, in faith?
An argument is made by some that the sacrifices in the "Old Testament" didn't really forgive sin, (even though the words of the Bible say they did). Rather, they merely provided a "covering" for people's sins. Unfortunately, there is nothing in Scripture that supports this idea, or indicates we should not believe what we read when God says their sins were forgiven. Attempts to prove otherwise always stem from pulling verses out of their context.


For example:
Hebrews 10:4 -- "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin."
The problem here is that this verse is in the specific context of the Yom Kippur sacrifice - not the daily sacrificial system in general. Christianity does not understand the difference between the two and completely misses the point of the letter of Hebrews. (See the section below, "Christianity's Difficulty With the Law," for more about Yom Kippur and the book of Hebrews.)


Another Christian teaching is that until "Jesus' victory at the cross," we were totally powerless against sin. If that is true, why did God tell Cain, the son of Adam, that he could win out over sin:
Genesis 4:7 --"If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."
The fact that people could be considered righteous and blameless in God's sight, before Yeshua's death, is shown as early as Cain (above), through the Tenakh (i.e., David), right up to before Yeshua's birth, where in the "New Testament," Scripture says of the parents of "John the baptist":
Luke 1:6 -- "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
According to Christian doctrine, how could these people be considered righteous, "according to the Law," prior to "Jesus' work on the cross?"
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
"Not Subject to the Law of God?"
Part 2. The Hebrew View of the Law/Torah and Salvation
Terminology - continued

Why did God Give the Torah at Mount Sinai?

If salvation was always attainable by faith from the time of Adam, and the Torah (God's word), was also always in existence (John 1:1), then why did God give the Torah (as we have it in the Bible) to Moses at Mount Sinai?
The short answer is; Out of mercy.

First, recall the days of Noah. Man had become so sinful that God, after first removing the righteous (Torah-observant) people, such as Enoch and Methuselah, spared Noah and seven others to repopulate the earth. However, before He did this, out of mercy, He gave man 120 years to repent. (Genesis 6:1-8) They failed and the flood came. Note that Noah knew what animals were unclean (Genesis 7:2), even though this was well before Moses received the Torah which contained those instructions. Therefore, we know that God's revelation of the Torah, in some way, was given to man from the beginning.


Skip ahead ten generations to Abraham's time. God makes Abraham a promise to inherit certain lands that are presently occupied by evil people. However, God tells him that the time for their destruction has not yet arrived, as they have not reached the fullness of their wickedness (Genesis 15:16). God, out of mercy, gave those people another 400 years to turn from sin back to Him -- which they did not do.


Finally, move forward to the arrival of the Yeshua the Messiah. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son ..." (John 3:16)We all know the rest of that verse. Again, God acts out of mercy. Man has continually strayed from God. Ignorance of God's will, His Torah, is no excuse. That is why God, in the Torah he gave Moses, prescribed sacrifices for sins done in ignorance of the Torah.


God, in His mercy, hasn't destroyed the earth every other generation since Noah, or continually struck individuals with lightning bolts -- though some may have deserved it. Yeshua has been involved here, acting as a propitiation (an advocate or buffer) between God and man -- not only for believers, but also for the rest of the world. (1 John 2:2) Scripture tells us that the Lord's salvation was done at the foundation of the world. The idea of the Messiah's work being "done" thousands of years before His earthly crucifixion and resurrection, may be hard for some to grasp, however God does not work within the concept of time as we relate to it.


To summarize; the Torah at Sinai was given out of mercy and for several related purposes:

  • To give guidance, as man's sin was getting so bad
  • To "stir up" sin in man, in that given a "line to cross," human nature will be tempted to do so (Romans 7:7-11)
  • To make man realize how he falls short of God's holiness
  • To point man to God, whom he must trust for salvation, as trust in God is "Commandment #1"
The Torah was also given to show man how to live for God and with your neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). The fact that we have faith in Yeshua does not void what the Torah says about HOW to do this. Christianity teaches that we don't have to follow the Torah, as Jesus nullified its specifics by summarizing everything in the two commandments that He gave in this Matthew verse. Instead of following God's revelation (the Torah), Christianity says we now have "liberty from the Law." We now follow something called "the law of love" or "law of Christ." Christianity says we are now "led by the Spirit" and no longer subject to "the Law."


Did God Give His People an "Impossible Task?"

As previously outlined, Christianity, in one form or another, teaches that God gave Moses and His people a list of commandments they were to obey perfectly in order to be saved, but as sinful humans, they could not keep these. Therefore, there was no way to "follow the Law" until Jesus arrived to usher in the "era of grace"-- 1300 years later.


According to this theology, God told His people to do something He knew they could not do, with the stipulation that if they failed, they were damned.


Is God a sadist? Of course not. Yeshua Himself said that even we, being evil, treat our children fairly, and that God treats us better than any of us treat our own. Yet some form of this perverse idea is taught throughout Christianity's denominations.


Examine what God Himself said when He gave the Torah:
Deuteronomy 30:11-14 -- "For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it.' But the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it."
God Himself makes it clear -- He told His people that the Law was not too hard for them to follow.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
OK, then let me spell it out for you.
Are you suggesting that God approves of those that break His laws?
Is it not rather you that are now concluding, God approves of those who break His laws? Everyone breaks His laws. Yet God does not disapprove of everyone. Therefore God approves of those that break His laws.
And allowing something to occur, does that constitute permission?
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 view of most Christians is not that the law was completely abolished by this council.
Not really.
Yes, it did. It reached no further than four points of addition.

The unmentioned portion of this is that part of moral law already understood and agreed-on among Gentiles and Jewish people.
If the intent is not included, then the permission, what's that?
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 never said there weren't assumptions being made. But to include the Decalogue because it's in Moses, is to assume that the Decalogue is already in some sense not Moses. Because the Jerusalem Council was explicitly considering the question about keeping the Law of Moses. And it rejected that.
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?
No, because the Gentile perception of morality already aligned with the Jewish perception of morality on those points. There would be no urging on the Gentiles actions they were already familiar with.
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.
That's accurate -- but there remains a question: Why would Jerusalem Council specifically omit consideration of the very thing they had gathered to consider?
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Why would Jerusalem Council specifically omit consideration of the very thing they had gathered to consider?

That's just it, they didn't. All four things that are found in Acts 15 that the council urged should be dissuaded by the Gentiles are still thing found in the Law of Moses.

Fornication, idolatry, eating blood, and eating strangled meats. These are all prohibited in the Mosaic law.

As I have asked before and continue to ask (I'll never get a satisfactory answer from a professed Christian), If it was the intention of the Jerusalem Council to abolish the Law of Moses why did they command the Gentiles to observe certain Mosaic laws?

The Jerusalem Council set the guidelines as to what was to be taught to the new Gentile believers, not with the expectation that they law would be abolished but with the expectation that the Gentiles would come to a deeper knowledge of the Lord in the Torah.

When the Bereans were searching the scriptures daily they weren't reading the New Testament, they were reading the "Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Tenakh).

Paul certainly knew this:

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Paul was not referring to the New Testament when he wrote this, he was specifically referring to the law and the prophets.
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
"Not Subject to the Law of God?"
Part 3. What does the "New Testament" Teach About the Torah and Salvation?

Is the Law "a curse" that Yeshua came to do away with? Two frequently cited verses Christianity uses to support the idea that "the Law is a curse," are:
Galatians 3:10 -- For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them."
Galatians 3:13 -- Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"
Clearly, there is something called the curse of the Law. But is the Law itself a curse?

  • First, recall that God gave it so that "it would be well" with His people (Deuteronomy 4:40).
  • Paul wrote that the Law is holy, righteous and good (Romans 7:12).
  • Paul stated that the Law is spiritual (Romans 7:14).
  • Paul said that he himself delighted in the Law (Romans 7:22-25).
  • When accused that he might be teaching that the Law was done away, Paul took steps to prove otherwise (Acts 21:21-26).
On the surface there seems to be quite a contradiction. How can something God gave, which is holy, righteous and good, that Yeshua practiced and upheld (Matt 5:17-20), that "James" (Ya'acov/Jacob is his real name!) said was to be our standard (James 1:22-25), that Paul himself delighted in and also followed, be called a "curse" by Paul?


Part of the problem is a failure to understand and teach the dual nature of the Torah. God Himself alluded to this duality when He gave the Torah:
Deuteronomy 30:15-17a -- "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgements, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your hearts turn away so that you do not hear, you shall surely perish ..."
Notice in those verses that"faith" comes before, and is tied directly to, obedience. First, God says He commands His people to "love the Lord" (trust/faith), and then walk in His ways (obey Torah). Next, He says if their hearts turn away (lack of faith) they will perish. God's view of faith is not void of action on our part. It is not a matter of "just believing" in certain facts.


The most famous verse in Judaism is the Shema, found in Deuteronomy 6:4:
Shema Israel Adonai Elohenu Adonai echad.
"Hear oh Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.
"Shema," the first word of the verse, is usually translated "hear," but is a complex word that implies to, "'accept,' implying faith, commitment, and obedience." (10)


Hebrews 3:7-4:2, says Moses and the children of Israel were preached the Gospel in the Wilderness, but they perished. Were they condemned for "failing to follow every point of the Law?" No, It was due to lack of faith. The book of Hebrews says they did not "mix" what they knew to do (the Torah) with faith. Faith in God and following Torah are inseparable.


Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, writes about the purpose of the Torah. He compares it to a tutor to us before faith (11). Yet, he also talks about "the curse" of the Law. One seems "good" and the other "bad." How can this be?


The answer lies with the duality of the Torah and its multiplicity of purpose. One function of the Torah is to show man how sinful he is and that he stands condemned before a righteous God. This is not all the Torah does however! Only by trusting in God for salvation, AND agreeing to walk in His ways, can man escape judgment (1 John 2:4).


What is important to know here is that the Torah itself is not a curse, rather, the curse is but one part of the Torah.

The "curse of the law" AND its function of being "a tutor" (actually, a "guide" or "guardian," literally one who escorts you), apply to those who have not yet placed their faith in God. Christianity incorrectly teaches that when Paul spoke of the Law serving as a guardian before Yeshua, he was saying that it held the Jews, under the Law of Moses, in bondage until Yeshua came and died. (12) This is a biased misreading of the text, as God does not change. What Paul is saying is that in the life of every living person (yesterday and today), the Torah functions as such before they come to Messiah.


After anyone comes to trust in Yeshua, those two particular aspects of the Torah cease. (It being a "guardian" and a curse.) However, Torah's role as God's revelation of how we are to live for Him continues.

The Torah is a way of living for God, so all will be well with you, is the other side of the duality of the Law -- a blessing and guide for us to live, and a revelation of God to us, so that we can draw closer to Him.


The Torah lists 613 direct commandments. According to the Judaism of Yeshua (and today) 365 of these are considered "negative" commandments. You can call these the "thou shall not's." The purpose of these negative commandments is to; a) point out (even to arouse) sin, b) show man he is condemned by his sin, and, c) point him to God for salvation.



There are 248 "positive" commandments. The purpose of the positive commandments, is to show us the things God wants us to do AFTER coming to faith.


As believers, we are indeed "no longer under the Thou shall not's,"BUT ONLY in that they no longer condemn us, as we now trust God for salvation.By "not under the Law," it does not mean we can murder, steal, or break any of God's Torah. It is assumed we no longer do those things as we now trust in God and live for Him. Rather, it means we are no longer under the curse of those negative commandments.


Put succinctly, this is what Paul is teaching throughout his letters:



Attempting to gain salvation by following the Torah on your own without faith, and inevitably failing at some point, is the "curse of the Law" -- not the Torah itself.

Reading the "New Testament" with this Hebrew understanding of where Paul was coming from, eliminates the conflicts caused by the (false) idea that he made contradictory statements about "the Law." Everywhere he went, Paul preached against the "popular" teaching that you could earn your salvation through legalistic observance of Torah. However, he never taught against Torah being a part of the life of any believer.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's just it, they didn't. All four things that are found in Acts 15 that the council urged should be dissuaded by the Gentiles are still thing found in the Law of Moses.

Fornication, idolatry, eating blood, and eating strangled meats. These are all prohibited in the Mosaic law.
Yet the instruction is to require "no more" of the Gentiles than this.
As I have asked before and continue to ask (I'll never get a satisfactory answer from a professed Christian), If it was the intention of the Jerusalem Council to abolish the Law of Moses why did they command the Gentiles to observe certain Mosaic laws?
Lemme get this straight -- you're not a professed Christian?

I don't consider that was the intention of the Jerusalem Council, so it's vacuous to ask me a question "if" something I don't believe happened.

I do consider that the intention of the Jerusalem Council was to impose "no greater burden" than what they imposed. I further point out that this intention was not always based on soteriological concerns.
The Jerusalem Council set the guidelines as to what was to be taught to the new Gentile believers, not with the expectation that they law would be abolished but with the expectation that the Gentiles would come to a deeper knowledge of the Lord in the Torah.
There would be no reason to assert "no greater burden" than this.

The Jerusalem Council realized that they needed to reach out and connect Jewish believer with Gentile believer. They dealt specifically with points of different practice between Gentile and Jew. This was no instruction to the Jerusalem Church or Jewish believers. There were moral concerns, yes, specifically those stereotyped concerns (often well-founded) for sexual morality and certain detestable eating practices, and also concerns of idolatry.
When the Bereans were searching the scriptures daily they weren't reading the New Testament, they were reading the "Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Tenakh).

Paul certainly knew this:

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Paul was not referring to the New Testament when he wrote this, he was specifically referring to the law and the prophets.
What the Bereans and Paul were checking out and affirming with the Old Testament was very different from Gentile lawkeeping.
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all Rom 4:13-16
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Yet the instruction is to require "no more" of the Gentiles than this.

So then because nothing else was being required of them they were free to marry their sisters? Eat unclean animals? Use the Lord's name in vain? These were "necessary things" that they needed to know and "to lay... no greater burden than these necessary things." That's not to say that no other instruction in the law or the commandments was taught to the new converts.

Nowadays, when a person realizes they have lived in opposition to God's will as expressed in His law, they have a way to have those sins covered through the blood of Jesus. If this is true now it was true then. The sinners that became converted in Paul's day were taught the same thing....they were in opposition to God's law and Jesus was there, through His blood, to cover their sin.

Nothing's changed.

Lemme get this straight -- you're not a professed Christian?

I don't consider that was the intention of the Jerusalem Council, so it's vacuous to ask me a question "if" something I don't believe happened.

I do consider that the intention of the Jerusalem Council was to impose "no greater burden" than what they imposed. I further point out that this intention was not always based on soteriological concerns.
The point you failed to address here is if it was the intention of the Council to do away with the Law of Moses why did they impose certain parts of it on newby Christians?

There would be no reason to assert "no greater burden" than this.

The Jerusalem Council realized that they needed to reach out and connect Jewish believer with Gentile believer. They dealt specifically with points of different practice between Gentile and Jew. This was no instruction to the Jerusalem Church or Jewish believers. There were moral concerns, yes, specifically those stereotyped concerns (often well-founded) for sexual morality and certain detestable eating practices, and also concerns of idolatry.
Then if this was the case, and it was, then there was no intention on the part of the Council to teach that the Law of Moses was no longer in effect.

What the Bereans and Paul were checking out and affirming with the Old Testament was very different from Gentile lawkeeping.
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all Rom 4:13-16
Not when you consider that the application that Paul is making in Romans 4 regarding Abraham and his righteousness, as displayed by Abraham, is not a product of the "law" but of faith.

"For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith"

It did not come by law:

For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

Gentiles that have the same faith as Abraham did receive the same promise as Abraham did.

For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

Abraham received these promises because he was obedient to God, he listened to God.

Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Abraham obeyed God by faith and because of that his faith was counted as righteousness.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So then because nothing else was being required of them they were free to marry their sisters?
No. I already answered that twice. Look it up. Quit obsessing on a question that's already answered.
That's not to say that no other instruction in the law or the commandments was taught to the new converts.
It would make zero sense to answer, "What do you think is essential?" and then tacitly imply, "Well, these other things are essential to you."

That's why it's not saying that. It's pointing out specific practices that set Christians apart, practices that everyone assembled agreed should set Christians apart, visibly.
The point you failed to address here is if it was the intention of the Council to do away with the Law of Moses why did they impose certain parts of it on newby Christians?
It's not restricted to newbies -- unless by newbies you mean all the Gentiles?
"If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." Acts 15:29
They considered these to be significant or important -- but not for salvation :)10-11), and not with implications for expanding to the entire Law of Moses :)28).
Then if this was the case, and it was, then there was no intention on the part of the Council to teach that the Law of Moses was no longer in effect.
Nobody said that. But then, wasn't the whole council convened over the assertion, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses." :5b . As we happen to be agreed over the circumcision of Gentiles, the question continues on to the latter assertion. That assertion is denied in the council as well -- it was not necessary to order them to keep the Law of Moses. And so the matter reduces to, "Just what did they constrain the Gentile Christians to do?"

First, the council didn't tell the Gentiles, "You can run riot." They didn't. They assumed a level of common morality that existed throughout the Empire.

They added four precepts to it, because, "If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." :29

They also appointed Paul and Barnabas, Silas and Judas to explain this in person. We have some of Paul's expansion of this to the churches as well.
Not when you consider that the application that Paul is making in Romans 4 regarding Abraham and his righteousness, as displayed by Abraham, is not a product of the "law" but of faith.
Abraham did not have the Law to follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nilloc
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
No takers, no words of wisdom from the Bible scholars of the day?

The commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day was given to Moses: It is from the 4th covenant of the 6 covenants given throughout salvation history, and was for the children of Israel.

The 6th covenant, instituted by Christ, has no such commandment. Interstingly, before Christs covenant was established in His Blood, He left out the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath in this little give and take:

Matt 19: 16-22: And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but (Q)if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

The biblical Covenants are:

Adamic (the covenant God made with Adam),
Noahite (the covenant God made with Noah),
Abrahamic (the covenant God made with Abraham),
Mosaic (the covenant God made with Moses),
Davidic (the covenant God made with David),
and New (the covenant God in the person of Jesus made with the world)


Each successive covenant encompasses a larger and larger group of people: Two, then a family, then on and on up to the whole wolrld. This is Gods plan, from the very beginning, of bringing more and more of the world back into his family. Thats what a covenant is: An entrance into a family.

Each successive covenant has a different sign, such as Noah's rainbow, then on to circumcision, etc.

The Ten Commandments are part of the Fourth Covenant, with Moses: We are not bound by that covenant. We are bound by Christs commands, and Saturday Sabbath keeping isnt one of them. Show me where Jesus said to keep the Sabbath, then we'll talk.

.

.

.

 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day was given to Moses: It is from the 4th covenant of the 6 covenants given throughout salvation history, and was for the children of Israel.

The 6th covenant, instituted by Christ, has no such commandment. Interstingly, before Christs covenant was established in His Blood, He left out the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath in this little give and take:


The biblical Covenants are:

Adamic (the covenant God made with Adam),
Noahite (the covenant God made with Noah),
Abrahamic (the covenant God made with Abraham),
Mosaic (the covenant God made with Moses),
Davidic (the covenant God made with David),
and New (the covenant God in the person of Jesus made with the world)


Each successive covenant encompasses a larger and larger group of people: Two, then a family, then on and on up to the whole wolrld. This is Gods plan, from the very beginning, of bringing more and more of the world back into his family. Thats what a covenant is: An entrance into a family.

Each successive covenant has a different sign, such as Noah's rainbow, then on to circumcision, etc.

The Ten Commandments are part of the Fourth Covenant, with Moses: We are not bound by that covenant. We are bound by Christs commands, and Saturday Sabbath keeping isnt one of them. Show me where Jesus said to keep the Sabbath, then we'll talk.

.

.

.


Psalms 19:7 says:

The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.

If something is made perfect by God why would it need to be changed?

BTW, can you explain why Jesus left off coveting in the verses you quoted?

Also, Jesus didn't mention idolatry, using the Lord's name in vain, or loving other god. Was He giving approval of those things because He didn't mention them?
 
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Psalms 19:7 says:

The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.

If something is made perfect by God why would it need to be changed?


If the Mosaic Covenant was perfect, why did we need a Savior?

We needed a Savior because that covenant was NOT perfect.

The world needed a Savior and a NEW covenant for the Gentiles to be a part of.

The New Covenant in the Blood of Chrsit does not include Saturday Sabbath keeping. You cannot find a place in the NT that says otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Were those other questions I asked to difficult to answer?

If the Mosaic Covenant was perfect, why did we need a Savior?

Because man is a sinful creature. That is evident. The law wasn't designed to take away sin, it was designed to expose sin.

Hbr 10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

We needed a Savior because that covenant was NOT perfect.
No. We need a Savior because man is sinful. Born into sin. Part of man's DNA.

Do you even know what a covenant is or how one enters into a covenant?

The world needed a Savior and a NEW covenant for the Gentiles to be a part of.
The gentiles were part of the Old as well.

The New Covenant in the Blood of Chrsit does not include Saturday Sabbath keeping.
Sure it does. Nothing in the New Covenant wipes out the Sabbath.
You cannot find a place in the NT that says otherwise.
Sure you can. What you can't find is anything that says the Sabbath has been taken away.

Maybe you'll listen to your our church leadership:

Thomaston, Georgia May 22, 1934


Pope Pius XI Rome, Italy


Dear Sir:
Is the accusation true, that Protestant's accuse you of? They say you changed the seventh' day Sabbath to the, so called, Christian Sunday; identical with the first day of the week. If so, when did you make the change and by what authority?


Yours truly, (Signed) J. L. Day


(Reply)
THE CATHOLIC EXTENSION MAGAZINE (The largest Catholic Magazine published in USA) 180 Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Illinois (Under the blessing of Pope Pius XI)


Dear Sir:


Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
(1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.


(2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say this Church, instituted by Christ, to teach and guide men through life, has the right to change the Ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to the Sunday. We frankly say, "Yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday Abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages, and a thousand other laws."


(3) We also say that of all Protestants, the Seventh-day Adventist are the only group that reason correctly and are consistent with their teachings. It is always somewhat laughable to see the Protestant Churches, in pulpit and legislature, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in the Bible.


With best wishes, (Signed) Peter R. Tramer, Editor


Mr. James L. Day first heard the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church at an evangelistic meeting in Thomaston, Georgia in 1934. Upon hearing the sermon on the change of the Sabbath he was greatly perplexed and thought the way to find out for himself the truth of the matter was to write to the Pope.


This letter was written by Mr. Day personally, upon his own initiative, to Pope Pius XI, who was then the ruling Pope of the Catholic Church. He said he waited thirty days for a reply and then received this letter from the editor of THE CATHOLIC EXTENSION, which is printed under Mr. Day's letter. The Pope had sent Mr. Day's letter to Mr. Tramer, who was editor of the Question Box of this magazine, for reply. The answer was sent under the blessing of the pope.

 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Are you at least willing to listen to your own church?


Roman Catholic Confessions


James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.

"But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."


Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.

"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

"Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."

John Laux, A Course in Religion for CatholicHigh Schools and Academies (1 936), vol. 1, P. 51.

"Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days."

Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67.


"Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?

"Answer. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.'


James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter.


"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes . Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!

"Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"


The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."


Catholic Virginian
Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth."


"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the[Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The New Covenant in the Blood of Chrsit does not include Saturday Sabbath keeping. You cannot find a place in the NT that says otherwise.
Sure you can.

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Do you even know what a covenant is or how one enters into a covenant?

Yes, and I already explained it in detail: A covenant in Hebrew culture was the entrance into a family - an exchange of persons, the giving of one to another. In our case, it is the entrance into the Family of God.

Hebrews would often bring outsiders into their family - or tribe - and this was done by establishing a "covenant", and was accompanied by swearing an oath and sharing a sacred meal to seal the bond. (Interestingly, the Latin word for "oath" is "sacramentum" - our sacraments are oaths: The Eucharist being the sacred meal in Christs covenant.) So, the "New Covenant" which Christ established is the means by which we enter into the Family of God

There are six covenants. The biblical Covenants are:

Adamic (the covenant God made with Adam),
Noahite (the covenant God made with Noah),
Abrahamic (the covenant God made with Abraham),
Mosaic (the covenant God made with Moses),
Davidic (the covenant God made with David),
and New (the covenant God in the person of Jesus made with the world)

Each successive covenant encompasses a larger and larger group of people: Two, then a family, then on and on up to the whole world. This is Gods plan, from the very beginning, of bringing more and more of the world back into his family. Thats what a covenant is: An entrance into a family.

Sabbath worship is part of the fourth covenant, not our covenant. You SDA's need to get out of the fourth covenant and join the rest of Christianity in Christ's Covenant.
 
Upvote 0

cyberlizard

the electric lizard returns
Jul 5, 2007
6,268
569
56
chesterfield, UK
Visit site
✟32,565.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
i say that you cannot argue a case from silence. Just becuase the NT does not say to keep it, it doesn't say not to either.

Each man does his own thing according to his conscience, that said. For the Sunday observers, let's see them prove the case beyond all shadow of doubt that the seventh day sabbath is done away with.

Conclusively.


Steve
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Where? Chapter and verse please.

Pro 3:1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:

Pro 7:2 Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye.

Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Translation: Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but {what matters is} the keeping of the commandments of God.

1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


A covenant in Hebrew culture was the entrance into a family - an exchange of persons, the giving of one to another. In our case, it is the entrance into the Family of God.

Hebrews would often bring outsiders into their family - or tribe - and this was done by establishing a "covenant", and was accompanied by swearing an oath and sharing a sacred meal to seal the bond.

Sabbath worship is part of the fourth covenant, not our covenant. You SDA's need to get out of the fourth covenant and join the rest of Christianity in Christ's Covenant.

Are you saying you're not part of the Family of God? If you aren't responsible for keeping the Commandments of God, because there are part of the "fourth" covenant, then you could say murder is OK. Was Hitler in the clear for killing all them Jews? What about all the Catholic popes that put millions to death during the Inquisition? Are they off the hook?

Also, would you care to comment on this verses:

Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words:

Also, I notice you didn't address those Catholic quotes regarding the sabbath that I left for you. Are those quotes wrong? Taken out of context?
 
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
i say that you cannot argue a case from silence. Just becuase the NT does not say to keep it, it doesn't say not to either.....

In a sense, it does. The Ten Commndments and the Levitical regulations are clearly part of the Mosaic Covenant.

The New Covenant which Christ established clearly does not include Saturday Sabbath keeping. So, it is the SDA's who are inserting a legalistic requirement into Christ's covenant which Christ himself never mentions or requires

..
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟31,272.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In a sense, it does. The Ten Commndments and the Levitical regulations are clearly part of the Mosaic Covenant.

The New Covenant which Christ established clearly does not include Saturday Sabbath keeping. So, it is the SDA's who are inserting a legalistic requirement into Christ's covenant which Christ himself never mentions or requires

..

The New Covenant also doesn't say anything about men marrying their sister's or has any specific provisions against sex with children. Since it is silent on these points does it allow those things?
 
Upvote 0

katholikos

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2008
3,631
439
United States
✟6,027.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The New Covenant also doesn't say anything about men marrying their sister's or has any specific provisions against sex with children. Since it is silent on these points does it allow those things?

Bad argument. Silence doesn't give you the right to impose legalistic requirements where none are required. It would be just as wrong if we were to impose "marrying sisters" or "sex with children" as a requirement for the covenant. Basically that is what you have done: You have made something up because it suits your opinion.
 
Upvote 0