Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you are believing the accusations of the Pharisees over what Jesus said, than it means Jesus deserved the death penalty, could not be our Savior and was not God.
We can't pick and choose which accusation you agree with and which one you do not. If you believe the accusation of Him breaking God's Sabbath was true, also means the accusation of Him not being equal to God was true too.
Teaching Spiritual things is a Spiritual gift. God said it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matt 12:12), so your understanding is wrong. You shouldn't share it anymore. It is a sin to teach falsely.Regarding John 5:18
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John, the author of the gospel, said Jesus was breaking the Sabbath - that is good enough for me.
I couldn't find any translation that disagreed with this.
He did this while being sinless because He was seeing What the Father was doing and being obedient to His higher 'Law of the Spirit'.
The Law served a purpose but was not able to specify righteousness in every circumstance.
Another good example of this was His refusal to comply with the Law and have the adulterous woman stoned.
Jesus obeyed the will of the father in the Power of the Spirit.
If we walk in the Spirit according to the text, we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh, because we can not do the things that we would. Therefore, we are not under the law because we are not breaking it. For we have crucified the flesh and the lusts thereof. And in such a state of being led by the Spirit there is NO LAW. That is how we are not under the Law.
It does not matter what any "all" believe. What matters is what God has said. And He said it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath Matt 12:12. Not that the Sabbath was done away with.I don't think anyone here is claiming that Jesus sinned nor did something bad.
Context.
Not all Christians believe that breaking the Sabbath is a sin.
However, the Pharisees believe that breaking the Sabbath is a sin.
Breaking the Sabbath is sin. 1 John3:4 James 2:11I don't think anyone here is claiming that Jesus sinned nor did something bad.
Context.
Not all Christians think that breaking the Sabbath is a sin.
However, the Pharisees believe that breaking the Sabbath is a sin.
Jesus said its lawful to do good not evil on the Sabbath Mark 3:4 meaning we can still profane it by not keeping the Sabbath day holy.It does not matter what any "all" believe. What matters is what God has said. And He said it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath Matt 12:12. Not that the Sabbath was done away with.
However, the Pharisees believe that breaking the Sabbath is a sin
Its the same concept. Applying a little bit of God's commandments mixing it with commandments of men. Those who keep their man-made rules laying aside the commandments of God. Mark7:7-13 Mat15:1-15And who are the pharisees of today ?
The Pharisees are winning
The thought occured to me with all the moral outrage and Culture wars over peoples behaviour and even what they believe and think as being wrong. How its all focused on virtual signalling, being asociated with the right side of history. Identity politics which divides people into groups that...www.christianforums.com
Romans 14 is about opinions outside of what the Bible says. How do we know? Because it says so in verse 1 and verse 2's example about only believing one can eat vegetables. That is not a mandate from God in Scripture. Besides that, if Paul was speaking of the Sabbath then he would have mentioned it considering that it is held at such high regard.Something doesn’t make sense here. Some of the people posting are saying that the New Covenant doesn’t include keeping the Sabbath, and some are saying that Jesus and the apostles broke the Sabbath by picking and eating grain as they walked through a field or healing on the Sabbath. However, the New Covenant didn’t start until the crucifixion or Pentecost. So the apostles and Jesus were under the Old Covenant. So one has to decide if they sinned or that they did what is acceptable during the Sabbath.
The other thing I don’t understand is why someone would stand against somebody that does more than they think the Bible requires. If a Catholic girl decides to be a virgin all of her life and stay in silence in a cloister, which is more than the Bible requires, I don’t think many people would see it as wrong. So if you don’t keep the Sabbath and somebody else does, what is the problem?
Romans 14:5, “5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.”
Romans 14:10-12 “10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’” 12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.”
Personally, I think the Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27). It is good and comes from God, and those who keep the Sabbath see it as a blessing. Why imply that it is wrong?
Collecting wheat to eat during the sabbath is the same as collecting manna to eat during the sabbath.No, its not.
Its never been a sin to eat on the Sabbath.
Its a sin to labor on the Sabbath. They were not laboring, they were walking with Jesus hungry eating the tops of grain, no different than eating a berry on the Sabbath. Its a misunderstanding of the Sabbath and God. You will not find one verse in the Bible that its a sin to eat on the Sabbath.
Why Jesus said His apostles were guiltless, not because He let sinning slide, but because they were not guilty of what the Pharisees were accusing them of, breaking their man-made sabbath.
Yes, gathered food, it however does not say they couldn't eat on the Sabbath. The apostles were not gathering as you claimed, they were picking the tops of the wheat eating because they were hungry. Eating on the Sabbath never was or is a sin. Again, why Jesus said they were guiltless Mat12:7Collecting wheat to eat during the sabbath is the collecting manna to eat during the sabbath. The Jews were expected to obtain whatever they were going to need for the seventh day, on the sixth day. They got a double portion of manna on the sixth day, to provide for the seventh day. Exodus 16:5
I agree, but many brothers and sisters use those verses to say they don't need to keep the Sabbath, but they don't follow verses 10 through 12. I have only met a few, but they are very defensive about it.Romans 14 is about opinions outside of what the Bible says. How do we know? Because it says so in verse 1 and verse 2's example about only believing one can eat vegetables. That is not a mandate from God in Scripture. Besides that, if Paul was speaking of the Sabbath then he would have mentioned it considering that it is held at such high regard.
Rom 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables.
Something doesn’t make sense here. Some of the people posting are saying that the New Covenant doesn’t include keeping the Sabbath, and some are saying that Jesus and the apostles broke the Sabbath by picking and eating grain as they walked through a field or healing on the Sabbath. However, the New Covenant didn’t start until the crucifixion or Pentecost. So the apostles and Jesus were under the Old Covenant. So one has to decide if they sinned or that they did what is acceptable during the Sabbath.
The other thing I don’t understand is why someone would stand against somebody that does more than they think the Bible requires. If a Catholic girl decides to be a virgin all of her life and stay in silence in a cloister, which is more than the Bible requires, I don’t think many people would see it as wrong. So if you don’t keep the Sabbath and somebody else does, what is the problem?
Romans 14:5, “5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.”
Romans 14:10-12 “10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’” 12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.”
Okay that is wonderful.I agree, but many brothers and sisters use those verses to say they don't need to keep the Sabbath, but they don't follow verses 10 through 12. I have only met a few, but they are very defensive about it.
What's the difference between picking (breaking off) the tops of wheat, and picking up flakes of manna?Yes, gathered food, it however does not say they couldn't eat on the Sabbath. The apostles were not gathering as you claimed, they were picking the tops of the wheat eating because they were hungry. Eating on the Sabbath never was or is a sin. Again, why Jesus said they were guiltless Mat12:7
What a good point. But according to God's Own Definition of His "New Covenant", where is a change in the 10 Commandments mentioned, suggested or even implied? There is no mention at all, concerning the abolition, change or removal of God's Definition of Holy, Righteous, Clean and Good at all. In this world's religious system there is, but in the Law and Prophets, specifically the promise of a New covenant, the only "change" mentioned is "the manner in which God's Laws are administered to His People", and "the manner in which forgiveness for transgression of God's Law is provided for". Both of these things were exclusive duties of the Old Priesthood "after the order of Aaron", which from the beginning was only to be in place until the Prophesied Priest, "After the Order of Melchizedek" should come.
We have been taught since our youth, not by the Bible, but by this world's religions "who come in Christ's Name", that God Promised to end of God's definition of Holy, Just and Good that Jesus said to Live by. I think this doctrine is "Leaven" and has influenced you and I to believe things that are not true about God's Salvation.
No different than the "leaven" promoted by the mainstream religions of Christ's Time, that it was against God's Sabbath Commandment to take a walk in fellowship with Him on the Sabbath Days, and pick a blackberry to munch on along the way.
And I understand your believe that the promised New Covenant didn't start until Pentecost. I was taught the same thing. But Jesus, before HE was murdered, forgave sins. And not once did HE follow sacrificial "works of the Law" required under the Old Priesthood, at least according to my understanding of what is written. I could be wrong about that, so please do your own study of the Scriptures discerning this belief.
And I can't get my head around the implication of God's New Covenant not starting until after HE ascended, because HE was the High Priest of the Apostles in my view. So while I believe the New covenant still has parts that are even today, yet to be fulfilled, it seems that it started the day Jesus was anointed High Priest of God by a True Levite Priest, "John the Baptist", "for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness".
Give this some thought, and let me know what you think, even in PM if you want.
But if a man who professed to know God, stole from people, and another man who professed to know God didn't steal, is there a problem?
I would say it would be a problem if a man didn't judge one Law of God above another. But if we have judged that One Law of God is more Holy, more righteous, more worthy of our honor and respect than His Other Laws, then it might not be a problem.
Isn't that the reason God rejected the Priests in the first place?
Mal. 2: 7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but "have been partial in the law."
So if a girl chooses to stay a virgin her whole life, in service to God, but judged some of His Commandments as unworthy of her honor and respect, would that be a problem?
I love your perspective and questions Jerry. These are good, but perhaps sometimes uncomfortable discussions to have among men "Seeking the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness".
But is Paul talking about God's Law here? "One person is loyal to his wife, while another person cheats with many different women". Would Paul not rebuke this person and tell them as he has others, "he who committed adultery, commit adultery no more".
What difference does it make what day one man esteems, or another man esteems. In the Holy Scriptures, God Esteemed one day a week above the other 6, and sanctified it and gave it to men. Then will a man who "Yield himself" to God, and submits to God's Righteousness, not be fully convinced in his mind concerning God's creation of the day and the week?
I think Him was pointed in the right direction when he said these men, "weak in faith" are dealing with opinions they have adopted "Wherein in time past they walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience". And God will reveal to them what is important, as Paul also teaches.
Phil. 3: 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God (The Perfection that was) in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. (Let each man be convinced in his own mind)
Yes, this is why Paul Labored.
2 Cor. 5: 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
Great topic, great points and ones I have pondered myself for years. I appreciate that I can share what my studies have found.
Deut. 23:26 When you enter another man’s field of standing grain, you may pluck ears with your hand; but you must not put a sickle to your neighbor’s grain.What's the difference between picking (breaking off) the tops of wheat, and picking up flakes of manna?
And how was wheat harvested if it didn't involve picking heads of wheat? And how did the wheat grains get seperated for food without threshing being involved?
Collecting heads of wheat and then separating the grain from the husk is labor intensive. People were employed to do that kind of work.
Exactly where I was going.Deut. 23:26 When you enter another man’s field of standing grain, you may pluck ears with your hand; but you must not put a sickle to your neighbor’s grain.
Yep. It was repeated by Jesus two love commandments so your aha moment is gone. Can you show me the verse where the 4th commandment was repeated by Jesus two love commandments?Do you apply this to the commandment not to commit adultery as well?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?