Sabbath?

[Frogster]

This is why. He thinks Galatians is best. He believes we are Judaizers and this is the conclusion of Galatians. Even if Galatians contradicts YHWH and Yahshua because


The Judaizers who “bewitched” the Galatians (3:1) were telling them that Paul’s apostleship and message were not trustworthy because he lacked official endorsement from Jerusalem. “We have our credentials from Peter!” they would say, as though the approval of men is proof that a preacher is sent of God. Paul begins his letter by affirming that his message and ministry came directly from Jesus Christ. (Note Paul’s use of “not neither” in vv. 1, 12, and 17.) He immediately spells out the Gospel that he preached.
Paul’s Gospel was centered in Christ—His death, burial, and resurrection—and not in Moses or the Law. It was a Gospel of grace that brought peace. It was a Gospel of liberty: “that He might deliver us” (v. 4). The Judaizers were bringing the churches into bondage through the Law (see 2:4; 3:13; 4:9). Christ’s death has delivered us from this present evil age and has given us a new standing in liberty (5:1ff). No wonder Paul adds, “To whom be glory for ever and ever!” (v. 5)
May we never be confused as to the content and intent of the Gospel. The Gospel is not “follow Christ and imitate His life” but “receive Christ by faith and allow Him to set you free.” There is no place in the Gospel for a salvation that is attained by keeping the Law.


Wiersbe, W. W. (1997). Wiersbe's expository outlines on the New Testament (516). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

So they take it even a step further and if you find anything in the Law or figure that the law was there for a reason and that is full of great information and you are willing to practice your Sabbath on the 7th day as per YHWH, are not willing to practice the pagan holidays of Christmas, and Easter but see the significance of practicing YHWH feast knowing that they have a deeper meaning and that the followers of the way did practice all of these it was not until the roman paganism with the advent of the universal church came along that it became wide spread to practice the day of the unconquerable sun, the day of Astarte and the day when the Son of the Sun is born. Then we must be not relying on Jesus' salvation and are enslaving ourselves to the Law. Because they are free to practice any pagan days or practices as long as their heart is in the right place because they are free to do what ever their spirit tells them because god wrote the law on their hearts. So if they feel good about praising god thru pagan ways instead of god's way it is ok even if god said it was not in the "OLD TESTAMENT" because we are "FREE" to do what ever we like of course as long as it is moral because the "spirit " would not let us feel good about doing something bad. So this is why this argument will go on forever.

Sure, they were attacking his apostleship, but the clear fact is, they were also doing what?

Trying to get them under law, to be Jewish too. You did not cover the whole story did ya?

Lookie here.


5;2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.


Started here.


2;4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—


Confirmed here.


15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2

 

[7steps]

I perfectly understand the word renewed. Jeremiah does not say or intend to say renewed. Paul was probably the most learned scholar concerning the Scriptures and he uses the word kainos in quoting Jeremiah. He does no use the word neos.

So I have no idea how you gather that Jeremiah is talking about a renewed covenant. Furthermore Jeremeiah states very plainly that the new covenant is not like the old one you try to renew. Jeremiah says the covenant is different not moved. Jeremiah also changes terms form covenant to law or My law. This to me shows further seperation. I do not think that Jeremiah is interchanging terms to mean the same thing.

Paul was probably the most learned scholar concerning the Scriptures

I would not necessarily say that. I would say he was more learned in the religious Judaism of the time in exactly what Yahshua was testifying against and is no wonder why he stated that it was slavery because the teachings of his time were slavery in disguise of Gods law.

 

[from scratch]

This is why. He thinks Galatians is best. He believes we are Judaizers and this is the conclusion of Galatians. Even if Galatians contradicts YHWH and Yahshua because


The Judaizers who “bewitched” the Galatians (3:1) were telling them that Paul’s apostleship and message were not trustworthy because he lacked official endorsement from Jerusalem. “We have our credentials from Peter!” they would say, as though the approval of men is proof that a preacher is sent of God. Paul begins his letter by affirming that his message and ministry came directly from Jesus Christ. (Note Paul’s use of “not neither” in vv. 1, 12, and 17.) He immediately spells out the Gospel that he preached.
Paul’s Gospel was centered in Christ—His death, burial, and resurrection—and not in Moses or the Law. It was a Gospel of grace that brought peace. It was a Gospel of liberty: “that He might deliver us” (v. 4). The Judaizers were bringing the churches into bondage through the Law (see 2:4; 3:13; 4:9). Christ’s death has delivered us from this present evil age and has given us a new standing in liberty (5:1ff). No wonder Paul adds, “To whom be glory for ever and ever!” (v. 5)
May we never be confused as to the content and intent of the Gospel. The Gospel is not “follow Christ and imitate His life” but “receive Christ by faith and allow Him to set you free.” There is no place in the Gospel for a salvation that is attained by keeping the Law.


Wiersbe, W. W. (1997). Wiersbe's expository outlines on the New Testament (516). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

So they take it even a step further and if you find anything in the Law or figure that the law was there for a reason and that is full of great information and you are willing to practice your Sabbath on the 7th day as per YHWH, are not willing to practice the pagan holidays of Christmas, and Easter but see the significance of practicing YHWH feast knowing that they have a deeper meaning and that the followers of the way did practice all of these it was not until the roman paganism with the advent of the universal church came along that it became wide spread to practice the day of the unconquerable sun, the day of Astarte and the day when the Son of the Sun is born. Then we must be not relying on Jesus' salvation and are enslaving ourselves to the Law. Because they are free to practice any pagan days or practices as long as their heart is in the right place because they are free to do what ever their spirit tells them because god wrote the law on their hearts. So if they feel good about praising god thru pagan ways instead of god's way it is ok even if god said it was not in the "OLD TESTAMENT" because we are "FREE" to do what ever we like of course as long as it is moral because the "spirit " would not let us feel good about doing something bad. So this is why this argument will go on forever.

You started off very well and then changed mid stream. Uncle, what gives?

We are not practicing pagan ways by worshiping God on Sunday. I have no idea how you can say that it is not possible to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob on Sunday. We do not practice paganism by celebrating other holidays either. It may be true in many so called chirstians homes that God is not the center of these celebrations. But then who are you talking about? Christians or christians?

 

[Frogster]

What part of renewed don't you understand? It's the same as if I changed the engine of a regular car with an engine of a race car. It can be considered new not like the old, not like anything seen before, so it still comes from the old. I don't know what you don't get about that,. It seems pretty self explanatory to me. Renewed better than the old.

Then why does Romans and Galatians, show that it Abrahmic cov, is not of law, if it were renewed. Why didn't he want them to keep the "renewed" Sabbath?

Don't you want to talk about Abraham? He is in the Torah. Moses said he was justified waaaay before the law. Was Moses wrong?

 

[from scratch]

I would not necessarily say that. I would say he was more learned in the religious Judaism of the time in exactly what Yahshua was testifying against and is no wonder why he stated that it was slavery because the teachings of his time were slavery in disguise of Gods law.

I don't think that Paul referred to the Talmud or oral law in any of his writings. Can you show me an instance where he does this. Paul does refer to Greek traditions. When it comes to Jewish tratitions he seems to always refer to what I know as the OT.

 

[Frogster]

The scripture your posted does not support your statement. The text is not even referring to the weekly Sabbath day. If you start from verse 14 at least you would get a better understanding.

Then why should they not be judged?

obviously because the law that held it is over.

It was jewish law, not a gentile law anyway. Gnostic Jews were pushing it.

Why didn't Paul want the judaistic system, for the church? That had sabbath. No?


18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

 

[Frogster]

You must be off in lala land or something. This does not show how Frogster is misrepresenting or misquoting anything. I asked you a direct question. Should I not expect a direct answer relating to my question? Or should I understand you are an SDA who has no answer because they can not think for themselves?

 

[from scratch]

I would not necessarily say that. I would say he was more learned in the religious Judaism of the time in exactly what Yahshua was testifying against and is no wonder why he stated that it was slavery because the teachings of his time were slavery in disguise of Gods law.

You addressed other parts of my post you quoted but not this:

So I have no idea how you gather that Jeremiah is talking about a renewed covenant. Furthermore Jeremeiah states very plainly that the new covenant is not like the old one you try to renew. Jeremiah says the covenant is different not moved. Jeremiah also changes terms form covenant to law or My law. This to me shows further seperation. I do not think that Jeremiah is interchanging terms to mean the same thing.

Please respond to this, since you quote me.

 

[7steps]

Then why does Romans and Galatians, show that it Abrahmic cov, is not of law, if it were renewed. Why didn't he want them to keep the "renewed" Sabbath?

Don't you want to talk about Abraham? He is in the Torah. Moses said he was justified waaaay before the law. Was Moses wrong?

because I have no problem with moses being justified before God gave them the Law. You seem to have not read my previous post on the fact that we are all redeemed by the same, Yah's salvation which is shown in the Torah, Prophets and Psalms you are the one saying that I believe that we are justified by the law. I have never stated that. That does not mean we ignore the purpose of the law which you seem to think is evil and to enslave. So there is no argument about Abraham, Adam and Eve, Noah, David, Solomon, Peter or any other person. You are the one trying to create a straw man. It is one covenant and we have all been saved by the same one.

 

[Frogster]

I would not necessarily say that. I would say he was more learned in the religious Judaism of the time in exactly what Yahshua was testifying against and is no wonder why he stated that it was slavery because the teachings of his time were slavery in disguise of Gods law.

Oh, so you validate his preconversion view, but not his post?

He said slavery after his conversion.

 

[7steps]

I don't think that Paul referred to the Talmud or oral law in any of his writings. Can you show me an instance where he does this. Paul does refer to Greek traditions. When it comes to Jewish tratitions he seems to always refer to what I know as the OT.

Neither did Jesus quote the Oral traditions but that is what he was dealing with. Their interpretation of the Law not the actual Torah, Prophets and Psalms. Show me where Jesus stated that Torah, Prophets and Psalms was done away with. Where does he state that the Torah, Prophets and Psalms Where evil and to enslave?

 

[7steps]

Oh, so you validate his preconversion view, but not his post?

He said slavery after his conversion.

What?

 

[Frogster]

because I have no problem with moses being justified before God gave them the Law. You seem to have not read my previous post on the fact that we are all redeemed by the same, Yah's salvation which is shown in the Torah, Prophets and Psalms you are the one saying that I believe that we are justified by the law. I have never stated that. That does not mean we ignore the purpose of the law which you seem to think is evil and to enslave. So there is no argument about Abraham, Adam and Eve, Noah, David, Solomon, Peter or any other person. You are the one trying to create a straw man. It is one covenant and we have all been saved by the same one.

If it were the same cov, then why did Paul use Abe, to show they were not to be under the mosaic cov?

Give me one verse to show that, the NT has alot, you must have one verse?

No strawman, you just can't answer, no offense, so now you want to go 40 pages of arguing about Hebrew words.

God bless, frogster

 

[from scratch]

because I have no problem with moses being justified before God gave them the Law. You seem to have not read my previous post on the fact that we are all redeemed by the same, Yah's salvation which is shown in the Torah, Prophets and Psalms you are the one saying that I believe that we are justified by the law. I have never stated that. That does not mean we ignore the purpose of the law which you seem to think is evil and to enslave. So there is no argument about Abraham, Adam and Eve, Noah, David, Solomon, Peter or any other person. You are the one trying to create a straw man. It is one covenant and we have all been saved by the same one.

I don't think so. If we are not redeemded/saved by the law why do you push it? For justification (prove one is righteous)? Why we are justified by Jesus' blood shed on the cross. We have no need to prove anything. Is Frogster claiming something not stated in scripture? I don't think so.

It is not all the same covenant. Jeremiah speaks of a new and different covenant and Jesus (God, Himself) states the or a new (kainos) covenant/testament is in existence. Jesus does not support a renewed (neos) covenant. So how do you support a single covenant?

 

[Frogster]

What?

You just validated preconversion views, of your pal Paul, but not post conversion views. He said the law was salvery, (post) and so did peter, and james (post) did not want to burden the gentiles with the "renewed" cov.

 

[Frogster]

Hebrews 8:13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Greek for obsolete.., palaioo 3822

Definition:
1) to make ancient or old
1a) to become old, to be worn out
1b) of things worn out by time and use
2) to declare a thing to be old and so about to be abrogated

 

[from scratch]

Neither did Jesus quote the Oral traditions but that is what he was dealing with. Their interpretation of the Law not the actual Torah, Prophets and Psalms. Show me where Jesus stated that Torah, Prophets and Psalms was done away with. Where does he state that the Torah, Prophets and Psalms Where evil and to enslave?

You are looking/asking for a quote like this: The law is history only you are now free to sin as much as you like. by Jesus. You are saying there is no validity to Paul's writings or maybe the parts you don't like or understand. I see this as unblief and sin according to Rom 14:23 - And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[7steps]

You addressed other parts of my post you quoted but not this:

So I have no idea how you gather that Jeremiah is talking about a renewed covenant. Furthermore Jeremeiah states very plainly that the new covenant is not like the old one you try to renew. Jeremiah says the covenant is different not moved. Jeremiah also changes terms form covenant to law or My law. This to me shows further seperation. I do not think that Jeremiah is interchanging terms to mean the same thing.

Please respond to this, since you quote me.

I did.

 

[from scratch]

I did.

Where ? give me the post number or a short cut link.

Including a quote with no comment is not a response.

 

[7steps]

Where ? give me the post number or a short cut link.

Including a quote with no comment is not a response.

#388