Sabbath?

Preecher said:

Here's a question for you all. Must we keep the 600 + OT commands to be saved? If you say no, then what are some of you squawking about?

Click to expand...

They are squaking about us not being memebers of their church and joining their misery. It does love company.

nathanlandon1 said:

Excuse me, but you were the one that initially stated Paul predates Moses, as per your own quote. I know for a fact Moses predates Paul because he is about 2000+ years OLDER than Paul.

I wont argue about the sabbath and the "old testament" because I can already tell you do not care; I will, however, have no choice but to respond to lies and implications thereof. You said Paul predated Moses. You say that following Paul is better than following God's word. People have quoted from the mouth of God what is expected of us, yet you argue with us like we are liars.

I have already said a multitude for the members and guest passing through. Frogster, I suggest you read the Word of God, and not the word of Paul. If you truly are Christian, I am sore for you. Please re-read the bible beginning with Genesis and focusing on the Law books.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I meant. PAUL QUOTES Moses, who said Abraham was righteouss, and that was before circumcision.
If you do not think Paul is inspired text, then why debate?

Just rip paul out of the bible..

7steps said:

For some reason you think that what I am saying excludes gentiles when I never said any of the sort I am a gentile born from above through Yahshua. And the way that you are misquoting Paul is by using sound bites (which you apparently would like me to use as well). There are no two covenants that is something Paul made up. There is a covenant and a renewal of that covenant. The Sabbath was there sense the first and second chapter of Genesis.
The way that I understand it and I don't claim to be perfect in understanding until it is written on my heart and mind. The plan of redemption never changed it has always been the same. The Jewish people were chosen by YHWH to be the ones who would show the world through their lives and conduct God's plan of redemption to act and reenact for all time God's plan. To be the witnesses of YHWH. To act God's play of redemption. Showing everyone through symbolism and metaphor how to be able to chose God. How YHWH was providing the way of salvation. So it was not a burden it was an honor. Once accepted God showed them what would happen if they followed and what would happen if they rejected it. Temporarily they have rejected that task (Matt 22:1-14) so YHWH is looking for someone to fill in the gap of being the representatives of God's plan but those representatives can't come in which ever way they want they need to come to do the task the way YHWH wants it done. Unfortunately that is not the Christians as a whole it is mainly the set apart assembly of Philadelphia mentioned by Yahshua in Revelations. And scripture backs this up as a whole not one snippet here and another there. If people were willing to see the metaphors represented in the Torah the Prophets and the Psalms and realize that each law had a metaphor behind it they would not make the same mistake that the Jewish people made. They forgot the spirit and love behind the Torah and made it into a whole religion bound by rules and regulations forgetting the covenant YHWH had made with them adding and confusing it with paganism , and the majority of christians have ignored it in the opposite way by not looking at it at all and making it into a religion and adding paganism. It is sad because now with 20-20 hindsight their is so much more to see, so much more meaning. So if people would change their perspective and realize that everyone is saved by YHWH unmerited favor not by following the letter of the Law (David was YHWH beloved not because he followed the Law perfectly, (he was during this period that Paul apparently calls the Mosaic Law) but because of his heart for YHWH and he was redeemed the same way all are through Yahshua, not by killing thousand of lambs a year. And that if one man mainly Paul if he was actually saying what people here are interpreting from his writings (which I have read and reread) was contradicting YHWH then your choice is to follow Paul's Jesus and his religion or YHWH's perfect plan or redemption represented in hundreds of ways in the Torah, Prophets and Psalms through those entrusted with the task. The beautiful pictures of the Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Seven Sevens, Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters. YHWH's feast that Paul apparently discarded.

4 “These are the appointed feasts of the YHWH, the holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at the time appointed for them. 5 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight, is YHWH's Passover.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Le 23:4–5). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

14 And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Le 23:14). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

And who are Yahudim (those related to Yah) today? I know I want to be know as one who is related to YHWH. So if that makes me a Jew wannabe then I am guilty. But don't confuse rabbinical Judaism and Messianic Judaism with Yahudim those that are related and are mainly identified with the set apart assembly of brotherly love.

Click to expand...

Snippets?
Where is ther one vesre about the Abrahamic cov, suporting law life, or nationalism?

In fact, everywhere SCRIPTURE speaks of Abraham, it was to show it was not About Moses, or any other carnal arguments. NO?

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise

Romans 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

7steps said:

Funny thing my whole post that you quoted had nothing to do with two covenants it had to do with one and the renewal of it and you still asked me to identify one. And out of all of that all you focus is on which one. This is why I did not want to engage before. Because it does not matter what is said it goes nowhere. But it is so addicting.
But by the way it is same one I said you were taken out of context before. It is the renewed covenant that has not totally been completed yet.

Click to expand...

Why is it, that in the covenantal battle of Galatians, did Paul use Abraham, to ward off the Moses pushers?

Could you just give me one verse out of Gal 3 or 4, or Romans 4 or 9, to show how that cov was about putting law on Gentiles, or, for that matter Jews?


Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

ImperialJohn said:

"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience." Hebrews 4:9-11 (New Testament!)


Note the words of Jesus himself in Luke and also Matthew below:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Matthew 5. (New Testament!)

Here Jesus is quite specifically saying that he has not come to do away with the law or the prophets and that the law shall stand until this present Earth and Universe disappear and all has been accomplished. All is a pretty big word and there can be no mistake about what the Messiah meant with this plain statement of fact. Heaven and Earth are still here! Jesus was saying he had come to fulfill the law, to fill them up or to make clear. If you read through the rest of this chapter Jesus makes very clear what the commandments are about, the true intent of the commandments not just the physical aspect of keeping the commandments but actually what it was all about and why it was so significant.

Jesus confirmed that the Law of Moses “The Old Testament and commandments” were to be observed and that he had not come to do away with them only to fulfil them.

Jesus was Jewish. The only book and law that Jesus was talking about was the Old Testament [the Tanakh] and the commandments as that is what they had in their hand at the time, the New Testament had not yet been written. Jesus followed the Law during his life all Ten Commandments Gods Law handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai for all nations to abide by and confirmed that nothing would disappear from the law. The New Testament is different because it is for individuals not nations and how they should live their lives as individuals in relation to each other. The Old Testament and New Testament are both 100% valid (the whole bible) and is what Christians should follow.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16

The above passage in 2 Timothy confirms that ALL scripture is inspired by God.

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20

This confirms that all scripture was not the prophets’ or mans’ own interpretation but it was direct from God.

God’s day of rest the Sabbath has never changed, it has always remained the same and occurred from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.


Sunday worship is not called for anywhere in the Bible. Sunday worship is Church doctrine not what Jesus said or practiced during his life. Christians are commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy (the biblical Sabbath of Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) as kept by Jesus and his disciples during their lifetimes, not any other day. Sunday worship is a false custom. Keeping the Sabbath holy is the true custom of Christ and his followers and is Gods Holy day of rest for all nations and all people who believe in him.

This is more of what Jesus said concerning the Tanakh [Old Testament] in Matthew 5:

"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19-21 (New Testament!)

What Jesus said was quite clear, that we must keep the Tanakh [Old Testament] and Ten Commandments, that he had not come to abolish them and that unless we obey and keep the Tanakh [Old Testament] and Commandments to a level equal to the priests and teachers of the Law "The Pharisees" then we would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He also confirmed that anyone who breaks the least of the Commandments and teaches others to do the same would be called "least" in the Kingdom of Heaven, and that's providing they get there in the first place. This was only if they broke the least of the Commandments! The fourth commandment is to Keep the Sabbath day holy (Friday Sunset to Saturday Sunset).

We know Jesus died for us, but some say that this all changed when he died.

"Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes." Luke 23:56 (New Testament!)

Here the women are preparing spices and perfume to put on Jesus body. Remember here that Jesus has died.

"But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment." Luke 23:56 (New Testament!)

You have to remember that the writer of this book wrote many years after Jesus died, but he is pointing out the Sabbath command right here. And these women who were taught by Jesus while he was alive, they have no new understanding about the Sabbath day. They're continuing to keep the Sabbath that they kept when Jesus was around, which is the biblical Sabbath, the 7th day Sabbath of Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. There is absolutely no change that we see here in your Bible.

You can even find more evidence in the Book of Acts which details the beginning of the New Testament Christian Church. Here in the Book of Acts you can get a look at what they were doing in that New Testament Church after Jesus' death.

"As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures" Acts 17:2 (New Testament!)

You can argue about this and say that Paul was going into the synagogue here and just dealing with Jewish people and of course the Jews were continuing to keep the Sabbath day, but what this shows is the link between the Sabbath at the beginning of time, the Sabbath at the time of Moses, the Sabbath at the time of Jesus and the Sabbath here in the New Testament time of the Church, and Paul one of the Apostles is continuing to go into the Synagogue on the Sabbath and preach about G-d and about the Scriptures. There doesn't appear to be any break in the Sabbath in the Bible!

You can argue anything you want about history and things that occurred later, but here I am looking at scripture because I am living by the Word of G-d. I believe that this is what followers of Jesus should do, is live by G-ds Word, and the record in the Word of God is that there was no change in the Sabbath. You will see this throughout your Bible from beginning to End, the Sabbath is what the Sabbath is. It continues on and on and one throughout the pages of your Bible without any major change occurring.

"Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks." Acts 18:4 (New Testament!)

The interesting thing about this is that there are some Greeks on the scene here. Paul was in Greece at this time and there may have been Jewish synagogues in Greece, but why were these Greeks going to a Jewish synagogue? Why were they not in a church or something else worshipping G-d, worshipping Christ? It seems like the Greeks are following the Jewish lead here in the keeping of the Sabbath day and going and worshipping G-d on that same day! And Paul was now there in Greece, and he says in black and white that everything is exactly the same as it has been before. He is still keeping the Sabbath Day. He is observing it and also teaching and preaching on the Sabbath Day, the Biblical Sabbath Day.

The Early Christian Church continued to keep the Biblical Sabath. But slowly over time when you get into the later part of the first century of Christianity you find some Christians moving away from the Sabbath to a Sunday observance. Some of the reasoning behind it had to do with the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem when the Romans came down hard on them. Many of the Christians who were also observing the Sabbath and holy days were also being persecuted because they worshipped in a similar manner to the Jews of that time. And some of them began to move away from the Sabbath because they were not crazy about being persecuted. Most of these people were in the Western Church. The Eastern Church continued to observe Sabbath for a lot longer than those in the Western part of the Kingdom. So when you get into the hundreds plus A.D. you start to see a movement more and more away from G-ds Holy day the Sabbath. But did G-d ever ask you to move away from this Sabbath day? Did Jesus ever say to move away from his Sabbath day? No! Absolutely not. Man said lets move away from the Sabbath and go to Sunday. Then in 325 A.D. Emperor Constantine made it a law that Sunday was the day of worship. Constantine never had any authority though to change the day of worship from G-ds Holy Day the Sabbath to a Sunday.

Throughout history there have been followers of Christ and Christians who have continued to keep the correct day the Sabbath day and there continues to be today.

Below I am quoting to you from Isaiah 66. You might not be convinced by me quoting from the Old Testament but you must realise that when the Apostles and writers of the New Testament were quoting the scriptures the only thing they were quoting from was the Old Testament.

"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD." Isaiah 66

Understand the context here, the context of that is the End Times! This is the Kingdom of G-d being set up, and he says that people are going to worship him on his Sabbath Day! What Sabbath is that? It's the Biblical Sabbath of Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, there is absolutely no doubt about it. You see this at the beginning of your bible instituted at creation, you see it with Moses, you see it with Jesus, you see it with the Apostles, we also see it in the future Kingdom! The Sabbath matters. It is the specific day that G-d wants us to observe his rest. So why not do it?

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but why didn't Paul want the Galatians under Sabbath?

While you are here, do you have one verse to support that the Abrahamic cov, that was for gentiles also, ANNOUNCED TO A GENTILE, HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH LIVING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE MOSAIC COV?

Romans 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

tHANKS.

PROPHECYKID said:

We let the bible tell us. A text that has been much quoted here tells us. Colossians 2: 14.

We learn from that, that the handwriting of ordinances were blotted out. We learn that this handwriting of ordinances contain shadows of things to come but the body is of Christ. Hebrews 10:1 tells us what about in the law were the shadows of Christ.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

We find this theme echoed throughout the chapters of Hebrews 8, 9 and 10. Those chapters speak about the aspects of the old covenant which was made better, and which were shadows of Jesus in the New Covenant. We find old testament priestly ministry, animal sacrifices, ordinances, meat and drink offerings and everything connected to that system of sacrifices. All of the laws which were apart of this system are now useless since this system has been replaced. What we do not see reference made to as a shadow of Christ is God's 10 commandments. Ironically, that is what everyone places the most focus on. There is one reference made to the law in Hebrews 8 and 10 as being apart of the New Covenant. It was first spoken of in Jeremiah.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

God is internalizing the law here. The reason why no one would have to teach the law is because when God places the law in the heart it doesn't need to be learnt. A law written on stone needs to be taught but in the heart it doesn't. So hebrews tells us that the laws concerning ordinances and ceremonies are no longer valid in the New Covenant because the Old Covenant system of sacrifices is done away. But in the New Covenant God wants to place his moral law in our hearts.

Click to expand...

The Sabbath was not a moral law.

PROPHECYKID said:

For example, a law which tells you what type of animal sacrifice to offer for a particular sin is not a moral law, it doesn't tell you what is right or wrong. That law tells you what you must do to get that sin forgiven. The sin itself would have been defined by another law.

Click to expand...

It was one judiastic system, read gal 5:3, besides the law was based off the priesthood, that is no more.

The people did not say..

"SOME of what the Lord said, we will do".

You say God is writing it..hmmm, I understand, but if it was the same ot laws, why didn't Paul say..?


"Ok guys, keep the Sabbath under new cov rules now"

PROPHECYKID said:

We let the bible tell us. A text that has been much quoted here tells us. Colossians 2: 14.

We learn from that, that the handwriting of ordinances were blotted out. We learn that this handwriting of ordinances contain shadows of things to come but the body is of Christ. Hebrews 10:1 tells us what about in the law were the shadows of Christ.

Click to expand...

What was against us or contrary to us? Ceremonies and celebrations? Somebody used the term funny earlier in the thread. I just know you loathe celebrating. The festivals, new moon and sabbaths are celebrations.

Why would aquiring forgiveness be against us? Yeppers no one wants forgiveness. Folks love demand to be accused justly or not. They love going around telling people that they themselves are guilty. Please exclude me from the club.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

We find this theme echoed throughout the chapters of Hebrews 8, 9 and 10. Those chapters speak about the aspects of the old covenant which was made better, and which were shadows of Jesus in the New Covenant. We find old testament priestly ministry, animal sacrifices, ordinances, meat and drink offerings and everything connected to that system of sacrifices. All of the laws which were apart of this system are now useless since this system has been replaced. What we do not see reference made to as a shadow of Christ is God's 10 commandments. Ironically, that is what everyone places the most focus on. There is one reference made to the law in Hebrews 8 and 10 as being apart of the New Covenant. It was first spoken of in Jeremiah.

Click to expand...

You said 'was made better' and I read: But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. I do not read that the old covenant was made better. I read that the new covenant was established on something other than law called promises.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

God is internalizing the law here. The reason why no one would have to teach the law is because when God places the law in the heart it doesn't need to be learnt. A law written on stone needs to be taught but in the heart it doesn't. So hebrews tells us that the laws concerning ordinances and ceremonies are no longer valid in the New Covenant because the Old Covenant system of sacrifices is done away. But in the New Covenant God wants to place his moral law in our hearts.

Click to expand...

Since the law doesn't need to be learnt, why are you teaching it? You said God puts it in our hearts. Are you God? I guess that the law is still on stone for you. Obeying God is natural for my spiritual man. It is becoming more natural for my flesh/carnal mind too. You have been shown scriptures like Rom 8:1, 2; Gal 5:16-24. Walking in the spirit is not obeying written laws on stone. We are no longer in the stone age.

God is not internalizing the covenant made with their fathers. You use law here instead of the ten commandments. It has a different connotation. The ten commandments is the covenant. So to say that God is internalizing the ten commandments would be a better and more turthful statement. But God does not say that He is writting the ten commandments (covenant) on the heart. He says My law. They simply are not the same or God would have said ten commandments. God furthermore did not say part of the law as you contend when using the word law with your meaning.

ImperialJohn said:

That's a pretty remarkable statement considering Paul was Jewish and preached to both Jew and Gentile including Gentile Greeks that kept Sabbath just as the Jews did and worshipped G-d in synagogues on the Sabbath.

"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience." Hebrews 4:9-11 (New Testament!)

"The Sabbath was MADE for man and not man for the sabbath." (Mark 2:27)

Why are there not just six days in a week? Because after the six days of creation work, God MADE another day, the seventh day. Now if God wanted to rest after His work of creating this earth, He could have done so without giving us another day. So why did He give us another day? Take another look at what Jesus said above. He MADE the sabbath day for man! Do you see this clear connection? Jesus said that the sabbath was made and He was pointing us back to the creation week where we can see the sabbath being made.

Was the seventh day sabbath made for the Jews, as the majority of professing Christians claim? There is so much we can get from that simple quote of Jesus above in Mark. Not only does it point us back to creation and the institution of the seventh day sabbath then, but Jesus also confirms that the sabbath was made for who? MAN, ie. ALL of mankind. Now why doesn't Jesus say that the sabbath was made for the Jews? Well, how many Jews were there at creation? None! There was MAN and WOMAN, Adam and Eve. So was the sabbath day made for the Jews? Of course not. It was MADE during creation week by God, for EVERYONE!

John



Source: Mark Wells (2010) The Bible Sabbath - What Day is the Sabbath?

Click to expand...

So? There were God fearers in the synagogues. What does the Sabbath have to do with the Abramic cov?

The same synagogue leaders, opened up Paul's back 5 times, so lets havs a little hsitoric precedent please.

ImperialJohn said:

How can the following of G-d's commandments be sinful?

Click to expand...

No, but they arouse sin, and... 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

from scratch said:

OK so what about it is not completed? Jesus (God) said it was MK 14:24 - And he said unto them, This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Click to expand...

Frogster said:

Why is it, that in the covenantal battle of Galatians, did Paul use Abraham, to ward off the Moses pushers?

Could you just give me one verse out of Gal 3 or 4, or Romans 4 or 9, to show how that cov was about putting law on Gentiles, or, for that matter Jews?


Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Click to expand...

Paul if he was actually saying what people here are interpreting from his writings (which I have read and reread) was contradicting YHWH then your choice is to follow Paul's Jesus and his religion or YHWH's perfect plan or redemption represented in hundreds of ways in the Torah, Prophets and Psalms through those entrusted with the task. The beautiful pictures of the Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Seven Sevens, Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters. YHWH's feast that Paul apparently discarded.

We are never going to agree. Especially since you come form the belief that Galatians is best and I come from the view that Galatians is the worst most anti scripture and Torah book written when read as most Galatians loving, and Paul loving Christians do. Where Paul if he is the author of Galatians at all grossly misuses scripture. I mean if you would just cross reference a little and look at it with out the Galatians is best glasses you would realize that Gal 3:10 is a total misuse of scripture. He uses a snippet a sound bite of scripture.

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Deut 27;26 Take the scripture in context and you see that he is saying if we do not follow them we are cursed and if we do we are blessed take that with the whole of Psalms 19 and the other passages that I have quoted here and you realize what was the author of Galatians thinking. Comparing the law to a taskmaster Gal 3:25 the arrogance when God inspired the Psalmist to paint a beautiful word picture. Your dividing a law or the covenant because that is what you learned from Galatians but it is not divided. The same covenant that he made with Abraham was continued with moses and is being renewed and fulfilled to this day. And in Gal 4:21

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.


The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ga 4:21–31). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

I mean he took this scripture and allegorically twisted it around to find something that was there that was not being presented at all. Took Hagar to represent the law that would have been Isaac and Hagar and her child had no part in the covenant. Might as well made up his own story instead of taking scripture to seem like he is in authority.


So it seems like neither of us is going to look at it from the same point of view. I believe that Galatians if written by Paul at all is against scripture and the rest of what is attributed to Paul is no more than a good commentary on scripture at that. So there is no point in continuing to quote each other because we will never agree.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ga 3:10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

7steps said:

Paul if he was actually saying what people here are interpreting from his writings (which I have read and reread) was contradicting YHWH then your choice is to follow Paul's Jesus and his religion or YHWH's perfect plan or redemption represented in hundreds of ways in the Torah, Prophets and Psalms through those entrusted with the task. The beautiful pictures of the Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Seven Sevens, Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters. YHWH's feast that Paul apparently discarded.

Click to expand...

Well really, if you want to debate, and yet just say Paul is not inspired, why go on? Just rip out books, and sure, live in the Torah.

But you forget, he who wrote the Torah, said Abraham believed unto righteousness. People ignore that verse, yet are pro Torah.

We are never going to agree. Especially since you come form the belief that Galatians is best and I come from the view that Galatians is the worst most anti scripture and Torah book written when read as most Galatians loving, and Paul loving Christians do. Where Paul if he is the author of Galatians at all grossly misuses scripture. I mean if you would just cross reference a little and look at it with out the Galatians is best glasses you would realize that Gal 3:10 is a total misuse of scripture. He uses a snippet a sound bite of scripture.

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Deut 27;26 Take the scripture in context and you see that he is saying if we do not follow them we are cursed and if we do we are blessed take that with the whole of Psalms 19 and the other passages that I have quoted here and you realize what was the author of Galatians thinking.

Click to expand...

Lol, they broke em, that is also why they had to be atoned for, why else?

Deut 28:15 “But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.

Moses said it.

Here, the writer of Hebrews too.

Heb 2:2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,

Comparing the law to a taskmaster Gal 3:25 the arrogance when God inspired the Psalmist to paint a beautiful word picture.

Click to expand...

Sorry, a pedagogue was a brutal taskmaster, all your doing is just saying you do not think it is inspired..

Your dividing a law or the covenant because that is what you learned from Galatians but it is not divided. The same covenant that he made with Abraham was continued with moses and is being renewed and fulfilled to this day.

Click to expand...

Sorry, history shows the facts, 430 years later bro. When did he receive the Gospel? 12:3, justified in 15:6, cut 14 YEARS LATER. Again though, if your whole theme is to just say paul is wrongg, and not refute Paul, this is just a waste of time. Go ahead, confront paul on his own terms, and prove hin wrong. Pretend you think it is inspired. The Judaizers faced the same dilema.

And in Gal 4:21

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Click to expand...

So? Yes, he compared, the covs, one is bondage, heck, even peter said it was a yoke he could not bear, nor the fathers, and even james did not want to BURDEN the gentiles with it, in Acts 15,

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ga 4:21–31). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

I mean he took this scripture and allegorically twisted it around to find something that was there that was not being presented at all. Took Hagar to represent the law that would have been Isaac and Hagar and her child had no part in the covenant. Might as well made up his own story instead of taking scripture to seem like he is in authority.

Click to expand...

Alot of rabbi's used allegeories too. So?

So it seems like neither of us is going to look at it from the same point of view. I believe that Galatians if written by Paul at all is against scripture and the rest of what is attributed to Paul is no more than a good commentary on scripture at that. So there is no point in continuing to quote each other because we will never agree.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ga 3:10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Click to expand...

HOWEVER, the thing I notice, is that you can not give one NT verse, to disprove the fact, that nowhere does Paul use Abraham to promote law or nationalism. Why? Because it is not there.

Peter said the Jews were in the Abe cov,and he said all nations in Acts 3.

So chuck out Peter too, for saying the law was a burden.

7 steps..

In other words, tell ya what..

Lets talk about Abraham, I will use Moses and Paul, so really, just pretend I am Paul, then we can get past the fact that you do not think Paul is inspired, lets debate the covenants and Abraham. Deal?

lets start..

I say the law came centuries after the promise, what say ye?

Forget Paul, lets go by facts.

Frogster said:

7 steps..

In other words, tell ya what..

Lets talk about Abraham, I will use Moses and Paul, so really, just pretend I am Paul, then we can get past the fact that you do not think Paul is inspired, lets debate the covenants and Abraham. Deal?

lets start..

I say the law came centuries after the promise, what say ye?

Forget Paul, lets go by facts.

Click to expand...

What you are asking others have done successful here before. Showing you that it is the same covenant. Not two. You do not understand the law at all. You do not know what the law is about , what it means and what the significance is. I have tried explaining it to you but you continue to stay stuck on points that have already been answered by others.

7steps said:

What you are asking others have done successful here before. Showing you that it is the same covenant. Not two. You do not understand the law at all. You do not know what the law is about , what it means and what the significance is. I have tried explaining it to you but you continue to stay stuck on points that have already been answered by others.

Click to expand...

Look at the simply reality of the situation. Frogster is here debating against the law but if a baby Christian were to ask him if killing is wrong he would say yes. Lying he would say yes. Stealing he would say yes. Frogster would not try not to kill or steal or lie because he knows it is wrong. The whole purpose of the law is to give the knowledge of sin. How did Frogster know that he shouldn't take God's name in vain? It is because of the law whether directly or indirectly. He has the knowledge of sin through the law and that cannot change. If God removes the written law, what happens to the knowledge of sin? It can never pass away because the law continues in the heart. The argument really is all about the Sabbath. Remove the Sabbath from the 10 commandments and there would be no problem. The other 9 Frogster will never willingly brake and feel good about what he did. Frogster if I am wrong please correct me. 7steps the law remains. The knowledge of sin which comes by the law remains.

PROPHECYKID said:

It is one sided to think about what we must do to be saved. The other side to consider, is what we must do because of the fact that Jesus has saved us. After Jesus died to save me for my sins would I have other God's or make graven images? Would I take his name in vain? Because of my gratitude and love for God I will do what pleases him. It is a shame that some people believe that God actually is unhappy when we try to keep his commandments. God's commandments are holy, just and good and the man operating by the flesh would not be subject to his law and cannot please him.

Click to expand...

Very interesting post. I thought you said you stopped posting here.Just can't stop can you? Why?

Saved and redeemed are interchangable terms. So what are you saved/redeemd from? I am redeemed - delivered form the law. Rom 7:6.

What other gods are you suggesting those who don't observe the sabbath are serving?

Subject to God's law yes, The ten commandments NO! Jer 31:31-34 verified in Mk 14:24 by Jesus (God).

from scratch said:

Very interesting post. I thought you said you stopped posting here.Just can't stop can you? Why?

Saved and redeemed are interchangable terms. So what are you saved/redeemd from? I am redeemed - delivered form the law. Rom 7:6.

What other gods are you suggesting those who don't observe the sabbath are serving?

Subject to God's law yes, The ten commandments NO! Jer 31:31-34 verified in Mk 14:24 by Jesus (God).

Click to expand...

This has been your tactic from day one. I don't know if it is intentional but it is annoying. You always seem to get stuff from my posts that is not there and was never intended. If you don't believe the 10 commandments is God's law then suit yourself.

PROPHECYKID said:

Well morality is about right and wrong. Morality tells us about what sin is. The law which gives the knowledge of sin is the 10 commandments. The Moral law is the one which tells us about right and wrong alone. There were laws built upon the moral law. For instance, if a woman is caught in adultery she should be stoned. This is not a moral law but it says what will happen if you violate the moral law. Because Israel was both a spiritual and civil nation they needed civil laws as well. Laws to say what happens when do wrong and what punishment you will face. Those are like out civil laws today. Such laws are only valid for Israel at that time. When Israel began to have kings, some of these laws already began to be changed, added to or removed by those kings. In out day and age we have civil laws of our different states where we live. The civil laws of Israel back then would not apply to us today but the moral law would because right and wrong does not change. Penalties change.

Click to expand...

Well maybe I read you wrong. I read above that you say adultery is wrong for a woman. Is this not a moral issue as well as gender issue the way you state it? The 4th is amoral like the 3 preceeding it. In the sense you define moral violation of any of the commandments would be immoral. This is backing into something that does not exist. Like sneaking in the back door and saying you came in the front door.

PROPHECYKID said:

None of God's laws are wrong. I am showing you about what the law speaks of. Some laws tells you what is right or wrong. "Thou shalt not commit adultery", lets you know that adultery is a sin. It tells you that adultery is wrong. The law which states that if a woman is caught in adultery, she should be stoned, doesn't tell you adultery is wrong. It is a law which builds upon previous knowlege that adultery is wrong. This law then tells what must be done when you have violated the law which states that adultery is wrong. Adultery will always be wrong but the immediate penalty for sin can change. Stoning as an act of penalty cannot be valid because the civil arm of the law does not uphold it. In Moses day he has to deal with both religious and civil laws because he was acting as their political and spiritual leader. Since Israel decided to get their own Kings, those kings would influence civil laws which we abide by. However, because of God's Moral law which tells us what is right and wrong, we know that adultery is a sin regardless of the civil powers of our day.

Click to expand...

So what I think you are saying is that the laws of Moses are what was nailed to the cross. If this is tru then the law that says what punishment one recieves for adultery no longer exists. If that is correct the ten commandments have no value. One can not be punished for disobedience. Why then do the SDA folks here say so often that we are anomos. One can't be punished for wrong doing.