Questions on the Sabbath...

[JonMiller]

So the Jews turned to a dictionary in our time to define God's law? I could have pulled Webster's definition and posted it. You don't think Jewish Rabbi's defined it very well for me? Maybe I should refer them to an English dictionary to define what is spiritual to them.

I am saying think abstractly. You have posted words. Words don't have meaning in themselves... what do things mean.

And since we are speaking english, english definitions are what are useful.

JM
(I don't know other languages, so we have to stay in english unfortunately)

 

[JonMiller]

What is the idea of law. The idea should exist independently of any verses. What is your idea of law.

This is what I meant by abstraction.

JM

 

[freeindeed2]

Explain?

Very simply put, they trust God.

Isn't it included with the commands that Christ said in the new testament? Given not as part of a covenant, but rather as a direction?

Well, Christ actually said that if we are even angry at our brother we are already guilty of murder.

Did he command 'Thou shalt not kill' in another place? I don't recall.

I think that was a central issue/problem of Israel.

Yes it was, thus a new and better covenant with better promises was made. God himself lives in all believers. The relationship changed based on the blood of Christ.

You are too stuck on covenants and a specific law to understand what law means.

Since it is God who made the covenants, I hardly think one can be 'stuck' on them. You seem a bit flippant about them, all the while preaching the old covenant.

Therefore you are left in the nonsensical position of saying that Christ didn't really mean it when He directed people to follow the law.

Christ was born under the law, had authority over it, and redeemed us from it. He is who we are joined to after dying to the law (Romans 6 & 7).

Or that Paul didn't really mean it when he commended the law and directed people to follow it.

Paul's the one who said we had to die to it and be joined with Christ. He's the one who said to 'cast off the bondwoman and her son' in reference to the law. He's the one who said we are 'not under the law, but under grace'. And on and on...

How is it that you attribute Paul to saying Christians are to go back under the law again, the 'yoke of bondage'? You can't do this without redefining or dividing Israel's law.

Or that other authors of the new testament didn't tell people to follow the law.

In Christ alone...

 

[freeindeed2]

What is the idea of law. The idea should exist independently of any verses. What is your idea of law.

This is what I meant by abstraction.

JM

It just sounds like you want to define the law God gave to Israel apart from Scripture. I'm not going to do that.

Or are you just wanting to talk about man-made laws, like Chinese law, or maybe Pakistani law? Laws in general, not law as it relates to God and spirituality?

 

[JonMiller]

Very simply put, they trust God.

Is faith just trust? I have a hard time talking about Angels or other beings as we don't have anything written by them or about them.

Well, Christ actually said that if we are even angry at our brother we are already guilty of murder.

Did he command 'Thou shalt not kill' in another place? I don't recall.

If it is distracting for you, we can ignore what Christ said for now.. and just focus on what Paul and all the other writer's said. They also said not to kill.

Since it is God who made the covenants, I hardly think one can be 'stuck' on them. You seem a bit flippant about them, all the while preaching the old covenant.

When have I ever taught the old covenant? You aren't listening to me because you can't understand me because you won't think about what the words I am saying mean. That is why I am asking for your definitinos of things because then I can try to talk using those.

Christ was born under the law, had authority over it, and redeemed us from it. He is who we are joined to after dying to the law (Romans 6 & 7).

I guess we will have to get to Christ later then. I just like including Him because He is sort of central. We can address the writer's after His death fisrt (and then show that He also taught the same thing).

Paul's the one who said we had to die to it and be joined with Christ. He's the one who said to 'cast off the bondwoman and her son' in reference to the law. He's the one who said we are 'not under the law, but under grace'. And on and on...

Oh, I agree. And if you think about what the law means, it all make sense. Otherwise you have to ignore parts of what he says like you do or the trad adventists.

How is it that you attribute Paul to saying Christians are to go back under the law again, the 'yoke of bondage'? You can't do this without redefining or dividing Israel's law.

No, I am saying that there is no diasgreement between Paul's statements. The issue comes down to yours (and Trad adventsts) definitions of the law, the covenant, and a lot of other stuff. None of you are thinking abstractly, and so you ignore one set of statements or another.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

It just sounds like you want to define the law God gave to Israel apart from Scripture. I'm not going to do that.

Or are you just wanting to talk about man-made laws, like Chinese law, or maybe Pakistani law? Laws in general, not law as it relates to God and spirituality?

God did not impart the Hebrew language to the Israelites, just like He didn't impart English to us. The Hebrews had lived in egypt, where they had ideas of law/etc. Trade went between egypt and babylon and all sorts of places, so the concepts of law would definitely be much more robust.

Additionally, the writers of the new testament lived with the knowledge of the greek philosophers and rome and all the ideas before them. They definitely had a quite developed set of definitions of associations for words.

The words written and chosen were done so because of the meaning that they held.

The Bible was not written as a mathematical treatise, where we create the variable $LAW$ which contains no connotations or associations and then define it within the treatise (and where it means no more or no less.. where I could say LAW = the set of included sets for example). Rather, it was written how we generally write things... where the words and expressions are attempting to explain broader ideas and the definitions/connotations/associations are all part of the meaning.

JM

 

[freeindeed2]

Is faith just trust? I have a hard time talking about Angels or other beings as we don't have anything written by them or about them.

Trust is a good and simple definition. Why would you want to make it difficult?

There's plenty written about angels in Scripture.

If it is distracting for you, we can ignore what Christ said for now.. and just focus on what Paul and all the other writer's said. They also said not to kill.

And? Of course they also said it.

Don't get condescending now...

When have I ever taught the old covenant? You aren't listening to me because you can't understand me because you won't think about what the words I am saying mean. That is why I am asking for your definitinos of things because then I can try to talk using those.

Are you under the 10 commandments?

I guess we will have to get to Christ later then. I just like including Him because He is sort of central. We can address the writer's after His death fisrt (and then show that He also taught the same thing).

There's that condescension coming out...

Not sure how you got that out of my statement:

"Christ was born under the law, had authority over it, and redeemed us from it. He is who we are joined to after dying to the law (Romans 6 & 7)."

Oh, I agree. And if you think about what the law means, it all make sense. Otherwise you have to ignore parts of what he says like you do or the trad adventists.

You're entitled to your opinion. What references to the law did Paul make that you feel I'm ignoring?

No, I am saying that there is no diasgreement between Paul's statements. The issue comes down to yours (and Trad adventsts) definitions of the law, the covenant, and a lot of other stuff. None of you are thinking abstractly, and so you ignore one set of statements or another.

Give an example.

 

[BGMCFAR]

Back to the origonal thread Gen.2: 2,3 It says God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it . And what day did Our Saavior keep and remember he was without sin so what are you going to keep There is a way that seems right to a man ,but leads to eternal damnation. I think I will keep the day Jesus kept.

 

[freeindeed2]

Back to the origonal thread Gen.2: 2,3 It says God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it . And what day did Our Saavior keep and remember he was without sin so what are you going to keep There is a way that seems right to a man ,but leads to eternal damnation. I think I will keep the day Jesus kept.

Can you provide ANY evidence that God continued to rest every 7th day thereafter (which would be day 14, 21, 28, 35, etc.). Can you demonstrate that he rested ANY day other than the day (SINGULAR) AFTER he had MADE EVERYTHING???

Thanks!

 

[sentipente]

The text does not say He rested. The text says He rested FROM His work of creation. Why do we continue to misinterpret such a simple text?

 

[BGMCFAR]

OH yes , But he sancified and blessed that day . Sancify Webesters To make it Holy and consecrate to entitle to reverence or respect . So God in his infinite wisdom gave us those of us who to observe a day of rest to worship Him.and to rest from our labores of life and were we not made in his image.