THE SABBATH IS GOD'S 4th COMMANDMENT - WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS IT IS ABOLISHED?

Ken Rank said:

He didn't teach against it... he said himself, just before he was killed, that he did NOT teach against the customs or Moses (an idiomatic reference to the law). What he taught against was circumcision unto salvation... go read the first 2 verses of Acts 15 and see what it was he took issue with. It is plain black and white...

Click to expand...

Amen.

συνείδησις said:

It's in his writings - circumcision is nothing. He taught gentiles against that commandment. It's clear as day.

Click to expand...

In context with the rest of Scripture, "circumcision is nothing" can mean more than you understand. The Acts 15 letter was only a reality because Jews came to Paul and Barnabas trying to convince them to teach "circumcision unto salvation" which was the teaching of the day and had been for 50 years. The Acts 15 counsel simply reversed a bad decision and actually adopted the loser's position of the debate from 50 years earlier word for word.

The "law of God" is the "law of Moses", see Ezra read from "the book of the law of Moses, which is also called the "the book of the law of God" Nehemiah 8:1,18. Even in Luke 2:22-24 records such a thing.

In Romans 7:4 and 7, Paul quotes from the ten commandments and taught that it was part of the old law to which they had "become dead....through the body of Christ".

Paul also wrote this here, 2 Corinthians 3:3-11.

What was “passing away”?

The law written on the “tablets of stone.”

What was the law “engraved on stones” that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai?

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). In this passage, Paul teaches the Ten Commandments are not an eternal covenant.

The New Testament clearly teaches that the old law has been abolished. Whether one is talking about the Ten Commandments or the ceremonial laws, the Law of Moses or the Law of God, all are considered the old law that no longer is in effect.

Jesus Christ fulfilled that law and nailed it to the cross forever
Matthew 5:17-18
Colossians 2:13-17

Anyway if we really are required to keep the sabbath it shouldn't be like the law says?
Like not walking more x distance and all that, if you think is required and don't do all the law says then you are breaking the commandment?.

NBB said:

Anyway if we really are required to keep the sabbath it shouldn't be like the law says?
Like not walking more x distance and all that, if you think is required and don't do all the law says then you are breaking the commandment?.

Click to expand...

Dont forget the animal sacrifices

Acts2:38 said:

The "law of God" is the "law of Moses", see Ezra read from "the book of the law of Moses, which is also called the "the book of the law of God" Nehemiah 8:1,18. Even in Luke 2:22-24 records such a thing.

In Romans 7:4 and 7, Paul quotes from the ten commandments and taught that it was part of the old law to which they had "become dead....through the body of Christ".

Paul also wrote this here, 2 Corinthians 3:3-11.

What was “passing away”?

The law written on the “tablets of stone.”

What was the law “engraved on stones” that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai?

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). In this passage, Paul teaches the Ten Commandments are not an eternal covenant.

The New Testament clearly teaches that the old law has been abolished. Whether one is talking about the Ten Commandments or the ceremonial laws, the Law of Moses or the Law of God, all are considered the old law that no longer is in effect.

Jesus Christ fulfilled that law and nailed it to the cross forever
Matthew 5:17-18
Colossians 2:13-17

Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it say PAUL had the authority to change what was written by the very finger of YHWH and spoken audibly to the Isarelites at Mt. Sinai? Cite your Bible verses. The Bible actually warns people, several times, not to add to, or subtract from Scriptures. You are falsely accusing Paul of doing that very thing.

So if the 10 Commandments are so called "abolished" then you get to bow down to other gods now, even satan and get to Heaven? You can kill and steal and commit adultery and still get to Heaven? Those are not rhetorical Qs. Yes or no? Yes or no to both questions.

I predict you will evade simple yes or no answers and go off on tangents.

Acts2:38 said:

Dont forget the animal sacrifices

Click to expand...

The Bible, Old Testament, shows animal sacrifices being re-instituted in the Millennium of peace. They are to be done according to the Law and that is now impossible with the Temple destroyed and the Levitical priesthood thrown to the winds in the dispersion.

LoricaLady said:

Where in the Bible does it say PAUL had the authority to change what was written by the very finger of YHWH and spoken audibly to the Isarelites at Mt. Sinai?

Click to expand...

LoricaLady said:

You are falsely accusing Paul of doing that very thing.

Click to expand...

I don't accuse Paul of going rouge.

In fact, Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit to say as much,
2 Tim 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

LoricaLady said:

Cite your Bible verses.

Click to expand...

Did you see the verses I cited in the post you are responding about? I thought I did cite some. They seemed quite clear to me.

LoricaLady said:

The Bible actually warns people, several times, not to add to, or subtract from Scriptures.

Click to expand...

I agree.

LoricaLady said:

So if the 10 Commandments are so called "abolished" then you get to bow down to other gods now, even satan and get to Heaven?

Click to expand...

No

LoricaLady said:

You can kill and steal and commit adultery and still get to Heaven?

Click to expand...

No

LoricaLady said:

I predict you will evade simple yes or no answers and go off on tangents.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Did I surprise you? =)

Try reading the verses I put down before:

Acts2:38 said:

The "law of God" is the "law of Moses", see Ezra read from "the book of the law of Moses, which is also called the "the book of the law of God" Nehemiah 8:1,18. Even in Luke 2:22-24 records such a thing.

In Romans 7:4 and 7, Paul quotes from the ten commandments and taught that it was part of the old law to which they had "become dead....through the body of Christ".

Paul also wrote this here, 2 Corinthians 3:3-11.

What was “passing away”?

The law written on the “tablets of stone.”

What was the law “engraved on stones” that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai?

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). In this passage, Paul teaches the Ten Commandments are not an eternal covenant.

The New Testament clearly teaches that the old law has been abolished. Whether one is talking about the Ten Commandments or the ceremonial laws, the Law of Moses or the Law of God, all are considered the old law that no longer is in effect.

Jesus Christ fulfilled that law and nailed it to the cross forever
Matthew 5:17-18
Colossians 2:13-17

Click to expand...

Maybe put this into the mix, Hebrews 8:6-13

LoricaLady said:

The Bible, Old Testament, shows animal sacrifices being re-instituted in the Millennium of peace. They are to be done according to the Law and that is now impossible with the Temple destroyed and the Levitical priesthood thrown to the winds in the dispersion.

Click to expand...

Double standard?

Cite verses please. In fact, cite verses that state there will be another kingdom other than the one that is already established.

LoricaLady said:

So if the 10 Commandments are so called "abolished" then you get to bow down to other gods now, even satan and get to Heaven? You can kill and steal and commit adultery and still get to Heaven? Those are not rhetorical Qs. Yes or no? Yes or no to both questions.

Click to expand...

Your argument is a straw man; Set 'em. knock 'em down.

The law was weak and unprofitable for righteousness, so the greater law came that fulfills, and enables those walking by the spirit to do, the righteousness required by the law - the law of the spirit of life in Christ. The greater way has come. Enjoy your weak and poor rudiments (Galatians 4:9)

NBB said:

Anyway if we really are required to keep the sabbath it shouldn't be like the law says?
Like not walking more x distance and all that, if you think is required and don't do all the law says then you are breaking the commandment?.

Click to expand...

It so helps to actually search the Scriptures. The PHARISEES made up traditions of men "laws" about the Sabbath, like not carrying a mat , only walking so many miles,not healing anyone and so on.

As for healing, what is more work, a mother picking up a crying toddler to comfort it, or laying hands on someone and praying for him or her?

We are not told to lie in a coma like state on the Sabbath. What are the true instruction? Not to work or cook or have animals or servants (think waitresses and sale clerks) work. Isaiah also made it clear that financial transactions, like buying fish. are forbidden. We are also told to keep the day "holy unto the Lord." There go Netflix and other secular forms of entertainment.

When you really learn how to move into the Sabbath rest, it is not boring or a burden. The rest is kind of like a supernatural high,with the Lord.

Ken Rank said:

In context with the rest of Scripture, "circumcision is nothing" can mean more than you understand. The Acts 15 letter was only a reality because Jews came to Paul and Barnabas trying to convince them to teach "circumcision unto salvation" which was the teaching of the day and had been for 50 years. The Acts 15 counsel simply reversed a bad decision and actually adopted the loser's position of the debate from 50 years earlier word for word.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by the 50 years, but the pharisees were teaching that believing gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved. The Jerusalem council didn't reverse anything. They decreed that believing gentiles could continue as proselytes of the gate (keep 4 laws of Noah) instead of having to become proselytes of righteousness (become circumcised and keep the law of Moses).

Acts2:38 said:

Dont forget the animal sacrifices

Click to expand...

That's silly, there is no Temple and therefore the mechanism doesn't exist to do the commandment. That one wouldn't be on us anyway.

συνείδησις said:

Your argument is a straw man; Set 'em. knock 'em down.

The law was weak and unprofitable for righteousness, so the greater law came that fulfills, and enables those walking by the spirit to do, the righteousness required by the law - the law of the spirit of life in Christ. The greater way has come. Enjoy your weak and poor rudiments (Galatians 4:9)

Click to expand...

As predicted above, you evaded a yes or no answer. The strawman logical fallacy involves presenting the other person's argument in a dishonest way, and then attacking the misrepresentation. I did no such thing.

I see that further exchanges with you will be a waste of time. Blessings and bye!

συνείδησις said:

I don't know what you mean by the 50 years, but the pharisees were teaching that believing gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved.

Click to expand...

Regarding the comment about Pharisees, you're incorrect...there were two different schools of Pharisees. As far as the 50 years... here, take a few minutes to read this.

So there is this dispute, and the leaders of the faith come together, talk it out, and write a letter to the Gentiles. The letter gives a few commands, nothing new as all had been previously recorded in scripture, and that should be about the end of it, right? Well, like so much when it comes to scripture, something that seems simple gets touched by man and turned into a mass of confusion. I hope in the next few minutes, to shed some light on the contents of the Acts 15 letter.

The first thing we need to understand is what started the debate to begin with?

Acts 15:1 and certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (NKJV)

* In this case, "the custom of Moses" is a reference to Torah(God's law or instruction).

Pretty simple, unless you have been circumcised on the 8th day of your life, you can't be saved. What is wrong here? Well, for starters, YOU weren't commanded to be circumcised on the 8th day of your life. That command was given to your father; obviously, an 8 day old baby isn't performing his own bris. Second, when did physical circumcision save us to begin with? The answer to that is it didn't. Like many aspects of the Tanach (OT), circumcisions, the feasts, the sacrifices...these things were pointing to something to come. They were a type, and we need to determine what the anti-type or shadow is. But that is another note.

What we have here are men from Judea, Jews, and as we see throughout the Apostles Writings, Yehoshua (Jesus) and Paul to an extent, spend a great deal of time rebuking those things which add to Torah or change it. Not every Pharisee was rebuked, and not every tradition external of scripture is rebuked. For example, in John 10:22-39 it appears that to some degree, Yehoshua took part in Hanukkah, the feast or festival of lights. Hanukkah is not a commanded holy day, but it isn't based on pagan origins either. So, we see no rebuke of this extra biblical holiday. No, the rebukes were clearly tied to that which stood against the teachings of scripture. Circumcision unto salvation is not scripture, but we do know where it comes from.

What must I do to be saved a proselyte?

About 50 years before the council of Jerusalem, not too long before the time Yehoshua was born, there was a great debate between the two leading teachers of that day, Hillel and Shamai. Beit Hillel (Beit means house but can also be used as school) taught the spirit of the law and his teachings are pretty well aligned to what Yehoshua taught when he was here. It should be noted that Paul was taught by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was the grandson of Hillel. Beit Shamai on the other hand, taught the letter of the law, a much stricter interpretation of Torah than what Hillel taught.

So, one day these two heavyweights engage in debate about what should be expected of a proselyte. (A convert to Judaism) Hillel took the softer position, saying that a person must abstain from idols, from fornication, from blood and food offered to idols. (Does that all sound familiar?) He also added that a person must know the two great commands, because as Yehoshua said in Matthew 22:40, "all Torah and the Prophets hang on knowing we are to love God and neighbor." (Paraphrased)

Shamai however was more of a hardliner. He also took the same positions Hillel took but he added the need to know ALL 613 commands rather than just the "big two," AND that a proselyte would need to be circumcised in order to become a Jew. In the end, Shamai's position became hallacha or "Jewish law."

*It should be noted that both men agreed that these were what was expected for the new convert and that the new convert would learn more as they grow.

From this you should be able to see that the men from Judea that confronted Paul and Barnabas were of the school of Shamai or were at least adhering to this 50 year old Jewish law and were applying it to those non-Jews who were following Yehoshua. As a quick side note, we must understand that the first 30-40 years of the faith had gentiles or non-Jews going into the synagogues on Sabbath to hear Torah read. In practice, there was no difference between an orthodox Jew and a Yehoshua following Jew OR gentile. So because the non-Jews were going to the synagogues, many of what we would now call orthodox Jews placed their expectations on these gentiles... and one of those expectations was "get circumcised to be saved."

Is there more than these four?

When the cases had been made before the council, a ruling was handed down and a letter was drafted. It was to be sent to the gentiles/nations, and the main point was:

Act 15:29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. (NKJV)

Many today, especially in the church, teach that the above was all that was expected of the gentile believer in Yehoshua. Well, as you would expect, I don't agree. Where do we see not to serve another god? Where does it say not to steal? Is it ok to bear false witness now? Obviously, when just a little reason it applied, we can clearly see that there is more that is expected of us than what is written in the Acts 15 letter. I submit that this council convened to right an old wrong! I submit that the same argument that occurred 50 years before this council came together, was argued one more time and reversed. The pagans in this time period fornicated with pagan temple prostitutes, made offerings to idols and ate things sacrificed to idols, etc. By asking that a new gentile believer in Yehoshua to abstain from these things, you were "setting them apart" from their pagan brethren. They clearly were then to be taught what was expected of them, they were to "STUDY to show themselves approved as workman unto God."

I conclude then, that the letter in Acts 15 was the starting point, not the finish line.

Peace to you.
Ken

Acts2:38 said:

Double standard?

Cite verses please. In fact, cite verses that state there will be another kingdom other than the one that is already established.

Click to expand...

You should already know that but you don't because, evidently, you don't research carefully and completely. I suggest you get on the net and get in the habit of doing your own homework. Anyway, those who don't see the obvious in "YHWH never changes" and "Will not alter" what goes out of his mouth, will argue endlessly. Blessings and bye

DavidFirth said:

None of the laws of Moses have been repealed. However, Gentile Christians do not have to keep the law of Moses. See Acts 15.



The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

Click to expand...

The Law is not from Moses; it is from the Most High God.

God had to give the Hebrews prophets, and communicate the Law to them because they were too ignorant and carnal to understand what was expected of them in the first place. The Law was never the problem; we were never "freed" from being obedient to the Most High God, because lawlessness is bondage.

Ken Rank said:

Regarding the comment about Pharisees, you're incorrect...there were two different schools of Pharisees. As far as the 50 years... here, take a few minutes to read this.

Click to expand...

You described what I stated in post 72, so I don't know why you called it incorrect, and I don't know what further to say about the matter since we both said the same thing.

Ken Rank said:

That's silly, there is no Temple and therefore the mechanism doesn't exist to do the commandment. That one wouldn't be on us anyway.

Click to expand...

It will occur again in the Millennium of peace, though. Google "animal sacrifices in the Millennium of peace."

LoricaLady said:

As predicted above, you evaded a yes or no answer. The strawman logical fallacy involves presenting the other person's argument in a dishonest way, and then attacking the misrepresentation. I did no such thing.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what you did. You falsely characterized lawlessness as not being subject to the law of Moses with the intent to knock that down. Classic straw man. Paul makes clear that not being subject to the law of Moses is not lawlessness.