So confused on the Sabbath...

[holo]

And see you got it wrong..you should have listen to what Christ said.

Did Jesus say the mosaic law was given to anybody else than Israel?

Then curse God, steal from your neighbors, comitt adultry, kill a few people sas your mom and dad and tell a few lies while professing to follow Christ.

Why would I want to do that? Seriously, what reason should I have for doing something like that?

I see "Christian" using God's name in vain almost everyday. How about adultry? Why not? God tells us it is wrong and I believe him. What about lieing is it wrong? Why do you think it is wrong? Are their any civil laws against lieing to your neighbor? What's wrong with it? Its wrong because God says it is wrong. How about coveting what's wrong with just wanting the things your neighbor has? Are there civil laws against it? No. But God says it is sin and I believe Him.

I'm not sure I'm getting you right? Is the reason you don't cheat on your wife, that God says it's wrong?

 

[ThreeAM]

You cited this verse:

Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.


There are many aspects of the Israeli law that God said were to be done perpetually, most of which sabbatarians do NOT practice. Tell me the reason(s) you don't practice them, and I'll tell you the reason(s) I don't practice your Saturday- Sabbath.

You are correct. The Hebrew word for perpetual doesn't translate exactly into our word perpetual.

Now how about through out your generations forever?

 

[ThreeAM]

Did Jesus say the mosaic law was given to anybody else than Israel?

In the New Testament? I don't believe so.

Is Israel Abraham's seed?

NKJV Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Are you Christ's then you are part of Israel aren't you.

Why would I want to do that? Seriously, what reason should I have for doing something like that?

Well you shouldn't for many reason the first one is God doesn't want you to sin.

I'm not sure I'm getting you right? Is the reason you don't cheat on your wife, that God says it's wrong?

Lot's of people do it TURE Christians shouldn't but if adultry isn't sin why should Christians be worried about it at all? I wouldn't do it any way because my wife knows how to shoot.

What no comments about lieing and covetting? Why be concerned with them?

 

[ThreeAM]

I forgot to mention, I don't for a moment believe that this passage is referring to spiritual Israel. I think it's referring to national Israel.

Then you would be wrong. Do you think all the children of Israel that were bitten by serpents and died in the wilderness were truely HOLY? Why did Christ strike down HOLY people then?

Who is truely santified [made holy] by God other than Spritual Israel. Christ denied the pharisees as Abraham's children yet they were clearly Abraham's seed.

 

[holo]

In the New Testament? I don't believe so.

Is Israel Abraham's seed?

NKJV Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Then I'd like to change my question to: was the mosaic law given to Abraham? My point is obvious, of course

Well you shouldn't for many reason the first one is God doesn't want you to sin.

Perhaps you misunderstood. What are the reasons I would want to do something like that in the first place? I mean, back when I was a sinner, with the nature of the old Adam, I didn't really have the choice - I was a sinner and couldn't help but to sin. It was my nature. But now I'm born again.

Lot's of people do it TURE Christians shouldn't but if adultry isn't sin why should Christians be worried about it at all? I wouldn't do it any way because my wife knows how to shoot.

Hah! I believe you about your wife (I'm blessed with that kind of woman myself).

But to explain my view: Since I'm not under the law, I can't break it. Neither can I live up to it. The entire concept of being under the law, and the implications of the law regarding sin, is basically foreign to me. I'm not under it, therefore I neither live by it nor will be judged according to it. I'm dead to the law and belong to Jesus. So, I don't navigate by what's sin or not sin anymore, but rather by what's beneficial. Instead of trying to keep a law, I'm free to allow Christ to express himself through me. Does that make sense?

What no comments about lieing and covetting? Why be concerned with them?

Personally, I'm not too concerned with those sins in my own life anymore, because the more I focus on Jesus and other good things, the less my eyes and thoughts wander off to unhealthy things. But the reason I don't lie isn't because the law calls it sin, but rather that I wouldn't want to, and don't need to.

I actually find it sort of disturbing when christians cite the law as their main/only reason for not stealing and such - don't they know they're dead to sin, crucified with Christ and raised up with him? Don't they know they are born of God and cannot sin? Are they just living out their mistaken identity as sinners?

(I know I used to, before I realized God had made me righteous).

 

[ThreeAM]

If you think that Sabbath worship will continue in heaven, you are probably mistaken. There will be no night in heaven (Rev 22?) and hence no seven-day sequence. It will be a perpetual day, which brings up a good point - I'll get to it in a moment.

Sabbatarianism depends on a seven-day paradigm, obviously, and they also say it is based on God's example at creation, we are to follow His example. He worked six days and rested on - Saturday? Buzz! Wrong Answer! I will soon argue that God did NOT rest on Saturday. Why is this important? Although I agree that God wants us to folow His example(s) in many areas of life, always there are two ways to follow someone's example, either verbatim or analogically. For instance, we should follow Christ's example of self-sacrifice - verbatim? Must we be crucified? No, we follow His example analogically, we sacrifice our time, money, and labor. And each individual does it in a differnt way, as the Spirit leads. This stands in manifest contradiction to the assumption that we MUST follow God's example (work six days and rest on Saturday) verbatim. (I do not deny that He told Israel something to that effect, what I deny is the assumption that this applies to every individual).

But the admonition to following God's example (work six days, rest on Saturday) breaks down even more once we realize that God did NOT rest on Saturday. And why do I say that? For two reasons. First, according to Hebrews God rested from the act of creating. He is still resting from that act. If the seven-day week of Genesis was 7 24-hour periods ending in Saturday, this means that God is NOW resting seven days a week (resting from the act of creating, at least). And, therefore, if we are to follow God's example VERBATIM (as sabbatarian's insist), we should now be resting seven days a week, as He does.

Moses did tell Israel to follow God's example, which makes sense only if God does NOT entail His resting seven days a week. How do we resolve this? Does He, in the example He sets for us, rest seven days, or not? NOT. The scientific evidence is pretty overwhelmingly indicates that the earth is 4 billion years old, and that the events of Genesis could NOT have taken place in 7 24-hour periods. Moses did not say it was 24-hour periods. He said it was seven days. A day he defines as a period of light followed by a period of darkness. He doesn't specify how long that he is. Problem is, there was no sun at that time, so he couldn't have been talking about 24 hour days. Paul tells in 2Cor 4, that it was the Light of Christ's face (providing photosynthesis to the plants, for example) that shined (for millions of years) until the sun was put into place. In my view, he shined into all the Galaxy (I call it the Seven Galactic DAys) interspersed with Seven Galactic Nights, and even during the Nights, He secretly provided a bit of light to the earth to take care of the plants. We are still in God's seventh (Galactic) day of rest, Hebrews says we enter into God's rest. God does not rest seven days a week. On HIS calendar, He is only resting on the seventh day, which is an eternal day, it has NOTHING to do with Saturday. Since God did not rest on Saturday, we can never follow His example verbatim, we can only follow it analogically, that is, in a variety of non-literal ways. For example, if I rest on Wedenesday, I have rested one day of the week, as He did, I have followed His example analogically.

As a matter of fact, the language of the Decalogue is more flexible than sabbatarians care to admit. Suppose I said to you, as my employee, "Two days this week I want you to stock shelves, and the third day I want you to cashier." Your first question would be, "WHICH two days did you have in mind?" You see, that kind of language isn't day-specific. The Decalogue did the same thing, "Six days this week you shall work, and the seventh you shall rest." It doesn't tell us which day is in view, precisely because God intended to be flexible, contrary to the Saturday-legalism of sabbatarians.

God didn't rest on Saturday. He rested on the 7th day which spands from Sundown friday to sundown saturday.

So you trust the words of scientists [men] more than you trust God's word. Well there is your problem right there. Try reading a 100 year old science book sometimes.

Carbon 14 depends on a constant state of carbon 14 absorption by the earth for millions of years. Are you going on record now saying you know that ASSUMPTION is correct?

It is my opinion that Carbon 14 absoption has not been constant since the begining of the world.

As far a radioactive dating of inorganics who is to say God didn't make lead in all of its states or possibly God used old material to form into the earth.

 

[JAL]

Is Israel Abraham's seed?
NKJV Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Are you Christ's then you are part of Israel aren't you.

You have made several posts to this effect. I disagree. You are right to distinguish two different types of offspring of Abraham, namely his natural offspring (such as ethnic Israel) and his spiritual offspring (believers such as us). You say that being a believer makes me part of "spiritual Israel" - I disagree. It makes me part of Abraham's spiritual seed. According to Gal 3, all beleivers are a covenantal people, namely we are Abrham's spiritual offspring, under the Abrahamic covenant. I do not agree that we are part of a covenantal group called "spiritual Israel" and frankly doubt that Scripture covenantally defines such a group. If you want to call the believers of Israel as "spiritual Israel" if that makes you happy, fine, but don't go off building a whole theology on top of YOUR categories.

 

[JAL]

So you trust the words of scientists [men] more than you trust God's word. Well there is your problem right there. Try reading a 100 year old science book sometimes.

Umm...no. My epistemology in this regard is simple. In any area where God's DIVINE Word (His voice, as distinct from His WRITTEN word, which is very difficult to interpret exegetically) hasn't spoken to me clearly, I take into consideration ALL the evidence when forming an opinion - scientific, biblical, historical, psychological, philosophical, etc - and I realize that I have to reconcile ALL the data. And I have to be logically consistent. Suppose for instance that I believe, as they tell me, that man was able to travel to the moon partly in virtue of light-data used to calculate the the distance from here to the moon. Now if that same light-mathematics is applied to other stars proving that they are hundreds of thousands of light-years away, then I cannot (with logical consistency) accept an earth-age of ,say, 6000 years. I have to be consistent. I can't accept the conclusions of science in one area (because it suits me) and then reject that same science in another area (where I find it distateful).

 

[JAL]

As far a radioactive dating of inorganics who is to say God didn't make lead in all of its states or possibly God used old material to form into the earth.

The problems facing young-earth theory are far, far greater than you seem to realize. You would have to spend a few months in the Creation versus Evolution debates even to get an INKLING of how severe the problems are. For example, take your theory that God created the world with old material. Are you also going to add to this that He put fake dinasaur bones in the fossil record as well?

 

[ThreeAM]

The problems facing young-earth theory are far, far greater than you seem to realize. You would have to spend a few months in the Creation versus Evolution debates even to get an INKLING of how severe the problems are. For example, take your theory that God created the world with old material. Are you also going to add to this that He put fake dinasaur bones in the fossil record as well?

Dinos aren't exactly inorganic are they. Yeah just discount what I understand and what I don't understand. You have no idea how much science education I have.

No not fake dinosaurs just dinos that died in the flood that appear much older than they are due to faulty carbon dating.

Can you possibly explain carbon 14 dating and why you are apperently confident in its accuracy? .

 

[JAL]

Yeah just discount what I understand and what I don't understand. You have no idea how much science education I have.

No not fake dinosaurs just dinos that died in the flood that appear much older than they are due to faulty carbon dating.

Can you possibly explain carbon 14 dating and why you are apperently confident in its accuracy?

Yes, you're right, I don't how much science you know. My apologies. But you pretty much have to depict God as the Great Deceiver if you want me to believe in a young earth - for the following reason. Carbon 14 dating is only a small subset of radiometric dating. A rather large number of substances, radiometrically dated, have confirned each other's dates, as well as carbon-14 dates. As further confirmation of these dates is given in trees whose tree-ring count indicates 10,000 years old (as verified by radiometric dating) and glaciers whose ring-count ("core-count") number 40,000 years (as verified by radiometric dating). What we have, then, is a bunch of independent tests and independent substances all mutually confirmatory.

 

[JAL]

The fossil record is huge, stretching many thousands of feet undeground, for instance there are buried mountains. It is so large that there are only two plausible theories as to how all this material got layed down (1) Billions of years (2) A sudden worldwide flood. The most obvious problem with the "flood-solution" is that the strata have all the appearances of billion-year chronology as opposed to a catastrophic mixture. That is to say, the dinosaurs are only found on the lowest layers where no human bones have ever been found. This is true not only of humans but of all modern and ancient species - THOUSANDS OF THESE SPECIES. That is to say, no modern species has ever been found on the lower layers, and no ancient species (extinct species) has ever been found on the upper layers where humans are found. Whereas if a flood had layed all this material down at once, we would expect to see all species randomly strewn about all layers. Not only that, but radiometric dating provides the expected spectrum of dates. That is to say, material found in the lower layers consistently dates agedly, and material found in the upper layers consistently dates recently. Whereas if a flood had layed all this material down as a random mixture, we would expect to see pretty much the same date (Noah's period) on all layers.

 

[ThreeAM]

You have made several posts to this effect. I disagree. You are right to distinguish two different types of offspring of Abraham, namely his natural offspring (such as ethnic Israel) and his spiritual offspring (believers such as us). You say that being a believer makes me part of "spiritual Israel" - I disagree. It makes me part of Abraham's spiritual seed. According to Gal 3, all beleivers are a covenantal people, namely we are Abrham's spiritual offspring, under the Abrahamic covenant. I do not agree that we are part of a covenantal group called "spiritual Israel" and frankly doubt that Scripture covenantally defines such a group. If you want to call the believers of Israel as "spiritual Israel" if that makes you happy, fine, but don't go off building a whole theology on top of YOUR categories.

Is the seed of Abraham part of the house of Israel? If you are not part of Spritual Israel then which covenant do you fall under. A few scriptures please.

Hebs 8:8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

 

[JAL]

Is the seed of Abraham part of the house of Israel? If you are not part of Spritual Israel then which covenant do you fall under. A few scriptures please.

Hebs 8:8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

The Abrahamic Covenant (GAl 3). As a matter of fact, this covenant is mentioned about 40 times in the NT.

 

[JAL]

All believers are Abraham's seed, including the believers of Israel.

 

[ThreeAM]

The fossil record is huge, stretching many thousands of feet undeground, for instance there are buried mountains. It is so large that there are only two plausible theories as to how all this material got layed down (1) Billions of years (2) A sudden worldwide flood. The most obvious problem with the "flood-solution" is that the strata have all the appearances of billion-year chronology as opposed to a catastrophic mixture. That is to say, the dinosaurs are only found on the lowest layers where no human bones have ever been found. This is true not only of humans but of all modern and ancient species - THOUSANDS OF THESE SPECIES. That is to say, no modern species has ever been found on the lower layers, and no ancient species (extinct species) has ever been found on the upper layers where humans are found. Whereas if a flood had layed all this material down at once, we would expect to see all species randomly strewn about all layers. Not only that, but radiometric dating provides the expected spectrum of dates. That is to say, material found in the lower layers consistently dates agedly, and material found in the upper layers consistently dates recently. Whereas if a flood had layed all this material down as a random mixture, we would expect to see pretty much the same date (Noah's period) on all layers.

These look pretty good for 65million years old don't you think

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=28867325

by Dr Carl Wieland, AiG–Australia
25 March 2005
We previously announced the discovery of what seemed to be microscopic red blood cells (and immunological evidence of hemoglobin) in dinosaur bone (see Sensational dinosaur blood report! and response to critic).1 Now a further announcement, involving the same scientist (Montana State University’s Dr Mary Schweitzer2) stretches (pun intentional) the long-age paradigm beyond belief.
Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely “history”.

 

[ThreeAM]

All believers are Abraham's seed, including the believers of Israel.

Is Chirst your father?

 

[JAL]

I'll clarify my position somewhat. Promise and Covenant are typically the same thing in Scripture, because God's promise to bless us obligates Him covenantally to fulfill the promise. God's intention was to give Abraham EVERYTHING (all He had to give), and this is what Scripture refers to as THE PROMISE (Gal 3), but generally God expressed the blessings involved gradually, that is, by voicing various promises. Each "new" promise that God voices to Abraham or to us CAN be called a "new covenant" but is also a mere fulfillment/extension of the Abramic Covenant/Promise.

Ethnic Israel is a people chosen (elected) by God and, as such, is destined to national salvation (I cannot discuss all this here). When the latter-day prophets such as Eziekiel, made a fresh promise (a "new" promise) to Israel that she wouold receive the Promised Land, God was entitled to call this a New Covenant (as argued above) even though it was really just an application of the Abrahamic covenant to ethnic Israel. There is nothing new about it, therefore. The Gentiles are not members of Israel's New Covenant, however - even though it ultimately involves the same Abrahamic blessings. The Gentiles are not members because it is a covenant that guarantees salvation to ALL of ethnic Israel (which I cannot discuss here). No such all-Gentile covenant exists.

The Abrahamic Covenant is given such prominence in Scripture because it is really the Father-Son covenant. Why so? Because when God spoke these covenantal promises to Abraham, He was simultaneously voicing them to the Son (Gal 3:16).

Because the Gentiles and Israel are really participating in the same covenantal dynamics (the Abrhamic covenant) the NT writers did not bother to clearly indicate that the Israeli covenant is separate (I don't have time to elaborate on this), leaving some with the mistaken impressoin that Gentiles are under "the" new covenant (Israel's new covenant).

 

[JAL]

These look pretty good for 65million years old don't you think

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=28867325

by Dr Carl Wieland, AiG–Australia
25 March 2005
We previously announced the discovery of what seemed to be microscopic red blood cells (and immunological evidence of hemoglobin) in dinosaur bone (see Sensational dinosaur blood report! and response to critic).1 Now a further announcement, involving the same scientist (Montana State University’s Dr Mary Schweitzer2) stretches (pun intentional) the long-age paradigm beyond belief.
Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely “history”.

For several decades now organizations such asa the AIG have been publishing so-called "scientific articles" or "scientific responses" on these issues. One by one, each of their newly fabricated arguments for a young earth have been discredited. Generally, it is only a matter of time. Further, there aricles ahve been marked by intellectual dishonesty, misquoting of source materials, and distortion of the facts. I have seen too many examples in the past to trust anything that they produce.

Their articles don't get published in real science journals because they are not science. Why not? Because they usually involve a methodological contradiction, namely, on the one hand they are trying to discredit the conclusions of science while, on the other hand, they are trying to use established scientific formulae and methods to establish a young earth. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot say, "Scientific method is unreliable" but "it is reliable enough to establish a young earth." This sort of methodological contradiction exposes a corrupted methodology which is decidedly non-scientific.

Sorry, I'm tired of examining Young Earth sources. I have found them too disappointing. If you want to get my attention, show me that real scientists have drawn the sort of conclusions you are seeking to establish.

 

[ThreeAM]

For several decades now organizations such asa the AIG have been publishing so-called "scientific articles" or "scientific responses" on these issues. One by one, each of their newly fabricated arguments for a young earth have been discredited. Generally, it is only a matter of time. Further, there aricles ahve been marked by intellectual dishonesty, misquoting of source materials, and distortion of the facts. I have seen too many examples in the past to trust anything that they produce.

Their articles don't get published in real science journals because they are not science. Why not? Because they usually involve a methodological contradiction, namely, on the one hand they are trying to discredit the conclusions of science while, on the other hand, they are trying to use established scientific formulae and methods to establish a young earth. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot say, "Scientific method is unreliable" but "it is reliable enough to establish a young earth." This sort of methodological contradiction exposes a corrupted methodology which is decidedly non-scientific.

Sorry, I'm tired of examining Young Earth sources. I have found them too disappointing. If you want to get my attention, show me that real scientists have drawn the sort of conclusions you are seeking to establish.

The research for this discovery was done at Montana State University by Mary Schweitzer in a lab supervise by famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner. The following test were done. And connective tissue was still flexable.

• The tissue was coloured reddish brown, the colour of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
• Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.
• Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modem heme compounds.
• To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.

You can check the article in scientfic journals out also.

Schweitzer, M.H., Johnson, C., Zocco, T.G., Horner, J.H., Starkey, J.R., 1997C Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Volume 17, No. 2, June 19. 349-359

Schweitzer, Mary Higby, John R. Horner 1999 Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex, Annales de Paléontologie Volume 85, Issue 3, July-September , pg.179-192.

Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Darlene Barnard, Scott Bohle, Keith Carron, Ernst V. Arnold, Jean R. Starkey 1997B Blood from a Stone, Dinofest International 101-104

Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey 1997A Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 6291-6296, June

Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter,1997 The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June pp. 55-57.