Questions for Sabbath practitioners

[daq]

How, exactly, does this resurrection account even remotely support the notion that any elements of teh Law, and in particular, the Sabbath, remain in force?

I suggest, if anything, the account suggests the opposite - Jesus is raised on the first day of the new week - a new round of creative activity has been initiated. Therefore, the markers of the "first round" should be reverently retired - God's plan is advancing.

So according to you, the contest over the proper interpretation of God's Word was irrelevant, and the Messiah really only came to render God's Word obsolete, and they actually killed him not for his Testimony but so that you could be without law and yet "saved"? And according to your theory God raised him from the dead for abolishing His Word?

I suspect that you also, like the OP, are unaware of who actually won the war over the interpretation of the Torah.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Jesus and apostles didnt follow sabbath.

The above are your words. Then we have God's Word that say.....

• Luke 4:16 [16] And he (Jesus) came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

• Acts of the Apostles 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures

We are best off to believe what the scriptures teach and God's Word is in disagreement with you here.

Take Care

 

[daq]

I hear what you're saying.
Taking a set of laws given to a community of bronze age people in the Middle East
and trying to keep them in 21st century North America leads to some challenges imo.

What about taking writings from the Middle East that are almost two thousand years old, which are expounding on those "bronze age" writings, and trying to live by them today?

It is not the mind of God that is the neanderthal, rather, it is the mind of the natural man, Romans 7:14.

It all depends on how you hear, (Luke 8:18).

 

[Leaf473]

It was given to the Hebrew not gentiles.

True! And even the Hebrews who want to keep it today run into a lot of twists and turns.

 

[Leaf473]

What about taking writings from the Middle East that are almost two thousand years old, which are expounding on those "bronze age" writings, and trying to live by them today?

It is not the mind of God that is the neanderthal, rather, it is the mind of the natural man, Romans 7:14.

It all depends on how you hear, (Luke 8:18).

Well... Jesus talked about buying a sword, Paul talked about how it is embarrassing when women talk in church and how it's not right for a woman to teach a man.

Do Christians buy swords today? Is it still embarrassing when women talk in church? Is it okay for a woman here on CF to teach a man?

Living by the scriptures is a great idea! Trying to keep the law exactly as it is written leads to some real challenges.

 

[daq]

Well... Jesus talked about buying a sword, Paul talked about how it is embarrassing when women talk in church and how it's not right for a woman to teach a man.

Do Christians buy swords today? Is it still embarrassing when women talk in church? Is it okay for a woman here on CF to teach a man?

Living by the scriptures is a great idea! Trying to keep the law exactly as it is written leads to some real challenges.

The one having an ear, let hear: the one having two ears, buy a sword. Chop, chop.

 

[Servant78]

The above are your words. Then we have God's Word that say.....

• Luke 4:16 [16] And he (Jesus) came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

• Acts of the Apostles 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures

We are best off to believe what the scriptures teach and God's Word is in disagreement with you here.

Take Care

The Hebrew rested their bodies on the desert at the 7th day for 40 years, nobody entered the promised land.

Thats why Peter said "Are you trying to test God by putting at the necks of the gentiles the Law that neither we or our ancestors were able to bear"? Acts 15:10

The Law is contained in 613 Mitzvot, take all or leave all.

As Paul said those who practice days let them practice those who don't let them not.

 

[ozso]

I practice the sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) by refraining from work. I do so as a matter of spiritual discipline. I've found what's been presented in threads like this, that scripture is quite plainly clear in supporting the majority Christian view regarding the sabbath. Whereas it seems to me Christian sabbitarians perform a lot of eisegesis in trying to get scripture to fit their doctrine.

 

[expos4ever]

Isaiah 8:20 shows the eternal nature of the law of God. Present tense is ever-present truth for the Christian. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, (it is) because (there is) no light in them." Even if you take out "it is" and "there is", you still have present tense. Isaiah defined "strawman" in the language of this very verse.

This "present tense is an ever-present truth" notion very much sounds like a "rule" manufactured because it is convenient for your argument.

Consider this from the Old Testament:

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, 29 then the man who had sexual relations with her shall give the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife, because he has violated her; he is not allowed to divorce her all his day

If you are going to decide what remains the case based on tense only, why does this rule not apply now since it is a mix of present and future tenses?

Or consider this from Romans 3:

20 because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now .....

In verse 20, we have the present tense declaration that the law brings knowledge of sin. Yet the logic of the "but now" phrases leaves us no choice but to see verse 20 as in the past.

No one would use the words "but now" after saying something (X) and not be expected to be understood as suggesting that X is now in the rear-view mirror.

 

[Leaf473]

The one having an ear, let hear: the one having two ears, buy a sword. Chop, chop.

Exactly! I take the same approach to the law.

 

[daq]

Exactly! I take the same approach to the law.

Exodus 32:21-29 KJV
21 And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?
22 And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief.
23 For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
24 And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.
25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; ( for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies: )
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

Blessed be Levi for keeping (guarding) the covenant.

Deuteronomy 33:8-9 KJV
8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
9 Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.

Chop, chop.

 

[expos4ever]

The Law is contained in 613 Mitzvot, take all or leave all.

If I understand you, I heartily agree. We see people making arguments like the ceremonial elements of the law are retired but the moral ones aren't. However, these are categories that we impose on scripture - no where are such categories drawn in scripture itself. And in many cases, it is not at all clear what defines the boundary between a moral law and a ceremonial law. Besides, Paul generally refer to "the law", never drawing any categorical distinctions.

 

[expos4ever]

Where in the post you are quoting did I say Paul is writing about eating on the Sabbath? If I have never said that Paul is writing about eating on the Sabbath then what is your argument and what are you in disagreement about? Something I have never said?

Ok, no problem. I misunderstood you. My apologies.

If we are both in agreement and I have never said that Paul is writing about eating on the Sabbath then what is your argument?

I have agreed that you were not making claims about eating on the Sabbath. But you were still claiming that when Paul writes this:

One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind

...he is not referring to the Sabbath as one of these days. I believe that He is indeed referring to the Sabbath implicitly here, as I argue in my post.

 

[expos4ever]

God's 4th commandment was never in contentio

This is not at all clear. When Paul writes this:

One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind

...he might be, and I believe probably is, referring to the Sabbath implicitly. Why? Because the obvious truth is that Jews did indeed value the Sabbath over other days.

So the Sabbath certainly could be what Paul is referring to here. And the fact Paul refers to men valuing this "one day" certainly does not rule this out since, obviously, the fact that men value the Sabbath is a direct consequence of the fact that God venerated it.

I will address other elements of your post in later posts.

 

[expos4ever]

So according to you, the contest over the proper interpretation of God's Word was irrelevant,

What "contest"? You appear to be engaging in the "appeal to authority" fallacy, declaring that some unnamed party has decided the matter we are discussing and that should settle it. That is not how proper debating proceeds.

...and the Messiah really only came to render God's Word obsolete, and they actually killed him not for his Testimony but so that you could be without law and yet "saved"?

My position, which would be well known to all those who have been following these raging disputations in other threads, is that Jesus "completes" the mission of the Law and hence the Law can be honourably retired. To characterize such a view as "rendering the Law obsolete" is at least a tad misleading.

And attributing to me any idea that Jesus was killed "so that I could without law and yet saved" is obviously absurd - I have never written anything that would lead a reasonable person to draw such a conclusion.

..And according to your theory God raised him from the dead for abolishing His Word?

Textbook strawman.

I suspect that you also, like the OP, are unaware of who actually won the war over the interpretation of the Torah.

Who is this as yet unnamed entity who has "won" this war? And even if you come up with a "name", this would be textbook appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[Leaf473]

Exodus 32:21-29 KJV
21 And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?
22 And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief.
23 For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
24 And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.
25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; ( for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies: )
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

Blessed be Levi for keeping (guarding) the covenant.

Deuteronomy 33:8-9 KJV
8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
9 Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.

Chop, chop.

Numbers 25 Behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought to his brothers a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the Tent of Meeting. 7 When Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the middle of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand. 8 He went after the man of Israel into the pavilion, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her body. So the plague was stopped among the children of Israel. 9 Those who died by the plague were twenty-four thousand.

10 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 11 “Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I didn’t consume the children of Israel in my jealousy. 12 Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace. 13 It shall be to him, and to his offspring after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.

Chop, chop and poke, poke.

How does it look to you, do you see the everlasting priesthood of Phinehas's sons today?

 

[Leaf473]

This is not at all clear. When Paul writes this:

One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind

...he might be, and I believe probably is, referring to the Sabbath implicitly. Why? Because the obvious truth is that Jews did indeed value the Sabbath over other days.

So the Sabbath certainly could be what Paul is referring to here. And the fact Paul refers to men valuing this "one day" certainly does not rule this out since, obviously, the fact that men value the Sabbath is a direct consequence of the fact that God venerated it.

I will address other elements of your post in later posts.

The key for me is that Paul says "all days" in the passage.

 

[daq]

What "contest"? You appear to be engaging in the "appeal to authority" fallacy, declaring that some unnamed party has decided the matter we are discussing and that should settle it. That is not how proper debating proceeds.

My first response was to the OP. You asked a question about something I said in regards to the OP. I answered your question but now I suspect that you did not even understand my response to the OP because you likely did not pay enough attention to what was said in the OP. The OP even quotes from chabad.org, lol. Why is it that you side with the Pharisees and the Pharisaic natural minded interpretations of the Torah? They lost. Now do you understand?

My position, which would be well known to all those who have been following these raging disputations in other threads, is that Jesus "completes" the mission of the Law and hence the Law can be honourably retired. To characterize such a view as "rendering the Law obsolete" is at least a tad misleading.

And attributing to me any idea that Jesus was killed "so that I could without law and yet saved" is obviously absurd - I have never written anything that would lead a reasonable person to draw such a conclusion.


Textbook strawman.

So the Torah can be "honourably retired" according to your spin but you have never written anything like what you just said?

Who is this as yet unnamed entity who has "won" this war? And even if you come up with a "name", this would be textbook appeal to authority fallacy.

Still don't know who I spoke of even after I quoted the Matthew passage? It isn't rocket science: someone was raised from the dead in that passage and the Father sent His messenger to announce it.

Please post any passage of scripture that says the Messiah came to "honourably retire the Law".

Moreover, if "the mission" of the Torah has already been accomplished, so that it can be "honourably retired" by you, then why does Paul say that the Torah has become our tutor or schoolmaster unto Messiah?

When was the last time you tried to "honourably retire" your tutor or schoolmaster before you graduated from your schooling? How did that work out for you?

 

[expos4ever]

The OP even quotes from chabad.org, lol.

And why, pray tell, is this organization qualified to settle a dispute that has raged unabated for centuries?

You are aware of the "appeal to authority" fallacy, aren't you?

Why is it that you side with the Pharisees and the Pharisaic natural minded interpretations of the Torah?

Another strawman seasoned with a tad of ad hominem.

 

[daq]

Numbers 25 Behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought to his brothers a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the Tent of Meeting. 7 When Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the middle of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand. 8 He went after the man of Israel into the pavilion, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her body. So the plague was stopped among the children of Israel. 9 Those who died by the plague were twenty-four thousand.

10 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 11 “Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I didn’t consume the children of Israel in my jealousy. 12 Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace. 13 It shall be to him, and to his offspring after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.

Chop, chop and poke, poke.

How does it look to you, do you see the everlasting priesthood of Phinehas's sons today?

Lazarus is a Greek form of the name Eleazar.

However you mixed up the allegory/metaphor: poke, poke, would be much better suited for plucking out the eye that causes one to stumble, (that your eye be single, as the Master says), which is the like analogy with the ear/ears. One ear hears one thing: two ears are divided and the man becomes double-minded. Understand the Testimony of the Master and the understanding the Torah begins to unfold.