Sabbath?

Preecher said:

Romans 10:4 (KJV)
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Click to expand...

Christ, the ALPHA AND OMEGA, is the END of the Law, not the DESTROYER of the LAW.

Are you completely ignoring Matthew 5:16-20: He says very clearly that He did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill it. Hence, Christ is the END OF THE LAW, THE [ALPHA AND]OMEGA. It is FINISH. He has done what He set out to do.

nathanlandon1 said:

Christ, the ALPHA AND OMEGA, is the END of the Law, not the DESTROYER of the LAW.

Are you completely ignoring Matthew 5:16-20: He says very clearly that He did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill it. Hence, Christ is the END OF THE LAW, THE [ALPHA AND]OMEGA. It is FINISH. He has done what He set out to do.

Click to expand...

And He did fulfill it. It is finished.

Preecher said:

And He did fulfill it. It is finished.

Click to expand...

Most definitely it is finished, but the law is not null.

He did fulfill it. The Law was nailed to His cross.

Preecher said:

He did fulfill it. The Law was nailed to His cross.

Click to expand...

So, are you telling me that although Yahoshuah said in Matthew 5:17-18:

(17)Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

(18)For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Click to expand...

and although God, the Most High Himself, spoke with His mouth to his servant Moses in Exodus 20:8:

(8)Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy.

Click to expand...

you believe that humans do not have to follow the Sabbath because the law was nailed to the cross? Who is Yahoshuah? What is the Law: is it the Word of God, or the words of Men? Who was nailed to the cross?


Also, where does it say the LAW WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS in Col 2:14?


Are you saying that what Yahoshuah and The Almighty have spoken with their lips, you believe otherwise, because of what another man wrote (and may not even mean)?

Are you saying that because Yahoshuah fulfilled the law, that means we don't have to follow it?

Do you think humans have the authority to choose what law of the Almighty to follow, despite their imperfections?



These are not rhetorical questions. To me, you sound like you are picking and choosing what to follow, and you are aware of it. So I want clarification.

Just because we cannot execute the law perfectly does not mean we should not follow it, or choose what to follow. If a nation had that mentality, there would be a lot of criminals running around arguing that something that is wrong before is right now.


Yahoshuah fulfilled the law because He is the Word of God. He fulfilled all the words given by God, as well as the inspiration of the word/holy spirit, by becoming human and perfectly executing the Law. He literally vindicated His own perfection. But, life continues by His grace and sacrifice. Therefore, was everyone that came after Yahoshuah supposed to NOT do exactly what He did, or at least strive to do so?

Bearing our cross means a lot of things, but one meaning is to follow Christ and take the consequential affliction (spiritual or physical.)

"If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."

Click to expand...

Yahoshuah followed the Law - repeat - Yahoshuah followed the LAW to perfection. Therefore, the consequence was being nailed to a cross and taking the affliction (physically AND spiritually.) We have to [strive to] follow the LAW perfectly if we want to have the honor of calling ourselves Children of God, and Followers of Christ and images of the Most High. How can you follow Christ if you philosophically/consciously choose not to follow the parts or all of the LAW?

Christians have the New Covenant.

I don't even think Paul MEANT much of what his books say, but was just highly confused. Perhaps politics played a role - as in since his tour was funded by the Roman government, he couldn't talk about certain things as it would be bad for Roman P.R. I don't really know why his books have such a destructive, discording affect on believers, but it does. Some of the things he says are beautiful truths, but his syntax makes him confusing, contradictory, and borderline blasphemous. He leaves a myriad of opportunities for misinterpretation. The Church, in my opinion, is divided because of Paul's books, which take up about half of the "new covenant" bible section.

Preecher said:

Christians have the New Covenant.

Click to expand...

And, you didn't answer ANY of my questions I respectfully asked you.

If you do not want to answer, let me know. But don't respond to my PARAGRAPHS of writing with one sentence.

If you DO want to answer the questions I asked, I am patiently waiting.


However, if you don't want to answer the questions, we have nothing else to talk about. You can continue to respond to me if you want to, but I will not respond to you or replies by you.

nathanlandon1 said:

And, you didn't answer ANY of my questions I respectfully asked you.

If you do not want to answer, let me know. But don't respond to my PARAGRAPHS of writing with one sentence.

If you DO want to answer the questions I asked, I am patiently waiting.


However, if you don't want to answer the questions, we have nothing else to talk about. You can continue to respond to me if you want to, but I will not respond to you or replies by you.

Click to expand...

So, why then, do we have a New Covenant if we are bound to the OT?

Preecher said:

So, why then, do we have a New Covenant if we are bound to the OT?

Click to expand...

No, you can either answer my questions, NOT answer my questions AND say that, or we can part ways.

I do not enjoy arguing SCRIPTURE with CHRISTIANS, especially when the issue is CLEARLY STATED IN THE BIBLE.



Please, answer my questions, or tell me you do not want to answer them. But, if you respond again without even referencing the questions I asked you, these will be the last words I say to you.

nathanlandon1 said:

I don't even think Paul MEANT much of what his books say, but was just highly confused.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 14:37-38 (KJV)
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

nathanlandon1 said:

No, you can either answer my questions, NOT answer my questions AND say that, or we can part ways.

I do not enjoy arguing SCRIPTURE with CHRISTIANS, especially when the issue is CLEARLY STATED IN THE BIBLE.

Please, answer my questions, or tell me you do not want to answer them. But, if you respond again without even referencing the questions I asked you, these will be the last words I say to you.

Click to expand...

Which Covenant are you under? If you don't know then I guess there is nothing we can discuss. I'm under grace, the New Covenant.

nathanlandon1 said:

Do you believe that although Yahoshuah said in Matthew 5:17-18:

(17)Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

(18)For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
​

and although God, the Most High Himself, spoke with His mouth to his servant Moses in Exodus 20:8:

(8)Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy.
​

you believe that humans do not have to follow the Sabbath because the law was nailed to the cross, or because Paul said that we are not under the law, or [insert reason here]?

Who is Yahoshuah? What is the Law: is it the Word of God, or the words of Men? Who was nailed to the cross?


Where does it say the "LAW WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS?"


Do you believe that what Yahoshuah and The Almighty have spoken with their lips, you believe otherwise, because of what another man wrote (and may not even mean)?

Do you believe that because Yahoshuah fulfilled the law, that means we don't have to follow it?

Do you believe humans have the authority to choose what law of the Almighty to follow, despite their imperfections?



These are not rhetorical questions... I want clarification.

[snip]

Click to expand...

For this thread, if anyone responds to engage with me concerning this topic, and you do not agree with me or my position, I welcome the discussion.

However, to receive a response from me, you must answer all the bold and underlined questions above. If you want to answer all of them, feel free. This is not just because I want to see who I am dealing with, but to also figure out where exactly the disagreement is between us. Perhaps we can get to a resolution quicker than 47 pages.

If you DO agree with what I am saying, and you want to converse with me, feel free to answer those questions if you want to. However, you don't have to do that to receive a response from me.


Only once is needed, even as a preceding and separate post. I will remember who you are. There are six issues/questions, four are bold. Here are my answers:


1. NO
(2). Word of God, Savior, God in the flesh; Word of God; Yahoshua, the Word of God
(3). I do not know
4. NO
5. NO
6. NO


It can be very simple or very detailed. Thanking all who care to converse with me in advanced. I will not be offended if you choose not to .

Peace.

Preecher said:

Ah, but we have a New Covenant, not according to the old.

Luke 22:20 (KJV)
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Why do we have a New Covenant if we are bound to the old? The New is much better.

Click to expand...

Yes the NC is better than the old, but not because it has different or no laws but because it has better promises.

Jesus made His attitude toward God’s Law plain in the “Sermon on the Mount.”
Jesus made three emphatic declarations about The Law.

1.) In Mat. 5:17 Jesus said “Do not (even) think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. The word “fulfill” in this verse means
“to make full, to fill, to fill up, to fill to the full, or to render full i.e. to complete” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2002. Strong’s # 4137)

2.) In Mat. 5:18 Jesus said “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” The word “fulfilled” in this verse means “to become, to come into existence, or to come to pass” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Strong’s #1096.

3.) In Mat. 5:19 Jesus said “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, (and you all know who you are) shall be called least (by those) in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

In Gal. 5:19-21 We read 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Jesus came to teach the full intent of The Law, the spirit of The Law. After saying that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees to inter the Kingdom in Mat. 5:20-22 He began to teach that just not committing murder was not good enough. Jesus taught that even hating was the same thing. Then in verses 27-28 He teaches the same thing about adultery and lust. In doing this Jesus was fulfilling a prophecy in Isa. 42:21 where He was prophesied to “exalt” or “magnify” The Law and make it honorable.

Jesus was giving us the true intent of the law, not what the teachers of His day had distorted it into. By the way the teachers of today still do the same thing.

This in no way means that we can earn salvation. We can’t do anything in our short, pathetic, weak, lives to earn salvation. We have nothing in this life that is worth eternal life.
Only God’s grace and mercy can cause Him to give us eternal life. But God has made it more that plain that He will not give eternal life to anyone He can not trust or rule.

RibI said:

Yes the NC is better than the old, but not because it has different or no laws but because it has better promises.

Click to expand...

That is exactly the point. It is exactly what Hebrews says. For those who doesn't know grace was not something which came into play in the New Testament but it was there since the Old Testament. As hebrews says, it was never possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. It means that grace was always there. So for the guy who says that I am under grace which is the new covenant please read the book of Hebrews. For the same guy who also thinks that the Old covenant is the Old Testament you need to go back to the drawing board. I guess people use any excuse to disobey God's law.

PROPHECYKID said:

That is exactly the point. It is exactly what Hebrews says. For those who doesn't know grace was not something which came into play in the New Testament but it was there since the Old Testament. As hebrews says, it was never possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. It means that grace was always there. So for the guy who says that I am under grace which is the new covenant please read the book of Hebrews. For the same guy who also thinks that the Old covenant is the Old Testament you need to go back to the drawing board. I guess people use any excuse to disobey God's law.

Click to expand...

well..sure, there was grace since the beginning of time, but the old cov was not grace in it's truest sense, not covenantal grace.

17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Can I give you friendly advice?

It is not really a high level of debate, when you say, "they want an excuse", kind if thing, really bro, lets keep it scriptural, like I do, when I say that Abrahamic cov, was used to show how we are not in the Mosaic cov.

See the difference? One is objective, one is personal.

RibI said:

Yes the NC is better than the old, but not because it has different or no laws but because it has better promises.

Click to expand...

Glad you mentioned cov.

What do gentiles, who are in Abraham, have to do with a cov for the jews, that was abolished in his flesh, 2000 years ago?

Why did paul clearly..clearly..make a distinction?

He even said he was in the Abramic cov too, while he fought the mosaic cov, that had the sabbath, for the churches.


28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise


31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

nathanlandon1 said:

For this thread, if anyone responds to engage with me concerning this topic, and you do not agree with me or my position, I welcome the discussion.

However, to receive a response from me, you must answer all the bold and underlined questions above. If you want to answer all of them, feel free. This is not just because I want to see who I am dealing with, but to also figure out where exactly the disagreement is between us. Perhaps we can get to a resolution quicker than 47 pages.

If you DO agree with what I am saying, and you want to converse with me, feel free to answer those questions if you want to. However, you don't have to do that to receive a response from me.


Only once is needed, even as a preceding and separate post. I will remember who you are. There are six issues/questions, four are bold. Here are my answers:


1. NO
(2). Word of God, Savior, God in the flesh; Word of God; Yahoshua, the Word of God
(3). I do not know
4. NO
5. NO
6. NO


It can be very simple or very detailed. Thanking all who care to converse with me in advanced. I will not be offended if you choose not to .

Peace.

Click to expand...

I will..I will...

All he was saying was he was not destroying the Old testament of their day, the law and prophets, and some things are yet to come, but he fulfilled moses, and the psalms etc. So?


44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

nathanlandon1 said:

Christ, the ALPHA AND OMEGA, is the END of the Law, not the DESTROYER of the LAW.

Are you completely ignoring Matthew 5:16-20: He says very clearly that He did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill it. Hence, Christ is the END OF THE LAW, THE [ALPHA AND]OMEGA. It is FINISH. He has done what He set out to do.

Click to expand...

15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,