Thunder Lauriston lecture on "Why Sunday worship cannot be the Mark of the Beast"

[BobRyan]

The verses given often don't go together, except maybe having a same word in them. And they often don't apply to what they're being applied to.

The claims made against them being used - need to be substantiated. The argument that a mistake has been made needs to be "proven" not merely assumed.


The Word of God says to keep the Sabbath day holy Exodus 20:8 also makes that same case in Ex 20:11
and the Sabbath is a holy convocation -holy gathering/assembly Lev 23:3.
The day to honor God Isaiah 58:13- "The Holy Day of the LORD" in Is 58

is our worship worthy of a day God sanctified, blessed and made holy or a day to do work and labors? Exodus 20:9

Plucking grain is not the same thing as eating gran. That's a ridiculous notion. Them eating grain was not the issue. It was them performing the labor of plucking the grain that was a violation of the sabbath.

only according to Jewish tradition no scripture says that if you pick a berry and eat it while walking on Sabbath you have sinned - and we all know it.

Just the same as eating bread on the sabbath is not forbidden, but making and baking bread on the sabbath is forbidden.

You are equivocating between two very different things. Your argument above is like saying that if someone dares to pick a berry and eat it while walking it is the same as cooking a 4 course meal.

that is the kind of thinking that man-made traditions of the Jews gave the world.

If you think keeping the sabbath is mandatory

"Mandatory" as in "do not take God's name in vain" ?? ONE of the TEN where "He spoke these TEN commandments... and added no more" Deut 5:22

"Mandatory" as in "sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4

Is that what you mean by "mandatory"???

then I suggest you get a better understanding of what's actually allowed and what's forbidden.

The Bible does a good job of that.

There's nothing you can come up with where Jesus ever says a single thing about keeping the sabbath. Or where any NT author says anything about keeping the sabbath.

No NT statements about "do not take God's name in vain" either.

What is your point?

That this is how they delete a commandment?

The evidence is in the clear eisegesis being used.

I don't see any eisegesis in those texts quoted. You will need to prove the accusation.

That's what happens when doctrine that's divergent from orthodox doctrine is created. It's inevitable.

That does not prove anything. The Catholic church used that kind of argument against every protesting Catholic that pointed out errors in Catholicism. It proves nothing.

as Christ points out in Mark 7:6-13 long standing tradition did not count a wit when it contradicted scripture.

You wore out "the details" line a long time ago.

That response not not address even one detail.

The precedent was established when God told Moses to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks

Precedent for what? Having civil laws under a theocracy?

That is not what is in debate. No one doubts that God can have civil laws under a theocracy.

Even the Baptist Confession of Faith section 19, and the Westminster Confession of Faith Section 19 admit to that obvious detail.

It does not mean anything in terms the texts just quoted being somehow a form of eisegesis.

. Gathering grain is the same kind of labor.

Gathering grain for harvest, harvesting grain is labor .

But picking a berry and eating it or picking a grain while walking and then eating it is not. Rather that is merely Jewish tradition as Jesus points out - it is "condemning the innocent" to argue tradition against what the Bible allows.

Matt 12:
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

It's an actual occupation.

That is eisegesis when it comes to your usage of Matt 12 claiming that they were employed in harvesting -- when it fact it was "picking a berry while walking and eating it" only in this case - it was grain. Jesus flat out condemns them for making that false accusation and argues flat out that they were "condemning the innocent".

The false accusers say they were guilty -- Jesus said that the false accusers had condemned the innocent.

Under God-made Sabbath Law you're not supposed to do any kind of chore or labor

Matt 12 is not describing "chore or labor" -- Jesus was not sending his disciples out on Sabbath to "reap the grain" --- even the Jews knew that.

It's no different than picking up sticks.

Flat out false.

IN the OT the "picking up sticks" work was for the purpose of getting a large amount - necessary to start a fire and cook. A very labor intensive process indeed. By contrast "walking along and picking a berry and eating it while walking" -- is not at all in that category. In fact Jesus said those who do it are "the innocent" - just when the false accusers of Christ's day wanted to call them "the guilty".

Jesus is not the Lord of taking His name in vain, But He is the sovereign Lord of the Sabbath.

Jesus is God - He is Lord of everyone and when someone made in the image of God chooses to take His name in vain they are sinning. And we all know it.

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath - He is the one that commanded us to keep it Holy as Hebrews 8 reminds us.

Yes and therefore you should understand that small labors like picking up some sticks violates Sabbath Law.

Once again, the phrase “the Lord of the Sabbath” is found in Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28, and Luke 6:5. In all three instances Jesus is referring to Himself as the Lord of the Sabbath or, as Mark records it, “The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).

No doubt. But He does not present Himself as "destroyer of the Sabbath". His point in Matt 12 is that the false accusers were "condemning the innocent". Jesus presents Himself as LORD of the Sabbath -- as the ultimate enforcer of it, as the One who fully understands its benefits and its requirement. As the ultimate Judge. He says that what they did was just fine. And we can all see that they were NOT gathering piles of kindling to make a fire and cook a meal. So no need to equivocate between two very different things.

IN Matt 5 Jesus says that the one who sets aside even the tiniest spec of the Law will be held guilty. HE is the one that sets that bar so very high.

 

[BobRyan]

None of that applies though if Jesus has the authority to change sabbath law.

Not even of your texts says Jesus was "Changing the Law" or "Changing the Sabbath Law" ... no not even one.

But we DO have Matt 5 where Jesus said that this is the very thing He is NOT doing.

Your argument is based on going 180 degrees in opposition to Christ's own statement on that point.

 

[BobRyan]

He's saying that Jesus has the supreme authority over everything that the human beings He created don't have.

But He was not saying "forget everything I said in the sermon on the mount (Matt 5) about My mission NOT editing/deleting the LAW of God and then I condemned anyone who should dare to do such a thing.. Because I just changed my mind. So instead I will in fact go around deleting and ignoring whatever I wish in the Word of God - after all I am God". That was never His argument..

 

[ozso]

IN the OT the "picking up sticks" work was for the purpose of getting a large amount - necessary to start a fire and cook. A very labor intensive process indeed. By contrast "walking along and picking a berry and eating it while walking" -- is not at all in that category. In fact Jesus said those who do it are "the innocent" - just when the false accusers of Christ's day wanted to call them "the guilty".

Jesus is God - He is Lord of everyone and when someone made in the image of God chooses to take His name in vain they are sinning. And we all know it.

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath - He is the one that commanded us to keep it Holy as Hebrews 8 reminds us.

No doubt. But He does not present Himself as "destroyer of the Sabbath". His point in Matt 12 is that the false accusers were "condemning the innocent". Jesus presents Himself as LORD of the Sabbath -- as the ultimate enforcer of it, as the One who fully understands its benefits and its requirement. As the ultimate Judge. He says that what they did was just fine. And we can all see that they were NOT gathering piles of kindling to make a fire and cook a meal. So no need to equivocate between two very different things.

IN Matt 5 Jesus says that the one who sets aside even the tiniest spec of the Law will be held guilty. HE is the one that sets that bar so very high.

On one hand you're acknowledging the sovereignty of Jesus regarding sabbath law. But on the other hand you're saying if Jesus exercised His supreme authority over the sabbath, He would have been sinning.

Most of the holy sacred things of God were done away with. The Ark of the Covenant. The Temple. The Priesthood. Many or most of His 613 Laws. God even had Moses destroy the the tablets He wrote Ten Commandments on. You can't say that God hasn't removed a lot of what He called holy and sacred at one time.

 

[ozso]

Not even of your texts says Jesus was "Changing the Law" or "Changing the Sabbath Law" ... no not even one.

But we DO have Matt 5 where Jesus said that this is the very thing He is NOT doing.

Your argument is based on going 180 degrees in opposition to Christ's own statement on that point.

Then why aren't you following all 613 Laws? Can you even name 50 of the 613 off the top of your head?

 

[BobRyan]

Then why aren't you following all 613 Laws? Can you even name 50 of the 613 off the top of your head?

can't list all the 1050 commands in the NT off the top of my head.

Is that how we determine what scripture to "toss out" now ??

https://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201407/r1308729_17984331.pdf

 

[BobRyan]

On one hand you're acknowledging the sovereignty of Jesus regarding sabbath law. But on the other hand you're saying if Jesus exercised His supreme authority over the sabbath, He would have been sinning.

Jesus is the one saying He does not rule by contradicting His own Law - His own Word.

The "Jesus is sovereign so He contradicts Himself because He likes it" kinds of arguments don't go very far.

Matt 5: 17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus claims the very opposite of your suggestion.

Most of the holy sacred things of God were done away with. The Ark of the Covenant. The Temple. The Priesthood.

The ark of the covenant was hidden centuries before the time of Christ. It violated no law of God for that to happen.

The priesthood ends in Heb 7 "at the cross" when Christ takes up His own priesthood Heb 8:1-4 since that it is what it always pointed to.

The Temple was destroyed because God was no longer protecting it. That is true in every case before the time of Christ when it was destroyed and was also true when it was destroyed after the time of Christ.

None of that flies in the face of Christ's Matt 5 statement the way your suggestion does.

Many or most of His 613 Laws. God even had Moses destroy the the tablets He wrote Ten Commandments on.

Then He wrote them once again on two new tablets of stone.
IT is "Still" a sin to take God's name in vain.

You can't say that God hasn't removed a lot of what He called holy and sacred at one time.

Some of the LAW was ceremonial shadow - given in animal sacrifice and offering (unlike Gen 2:1-3) and predicting the coming of Christ and His work in the Gospel. (Predictive laws that were shadows pointing forward).

But the TEN are in the prescriptive law - the moral law of God that defines what sin IS as 1 john 3:4 points out and as almost every Christian denomination on planet Earth affirms to this very day.

 

[ozso]

can't list all the 1050 commands in the NT off the top of my head.

Is that how we determine what scripture to "toss out" now ??

It means that you don't keep the Law.

https://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201407/r1308729_17984331.pdf

Only two NT commands regarding the sabbath:

NT command #14. Let everyone choose his own sabbath day (ROM 14:5-7; COL 2:14-1)

NT command #40. Let no one judge you with regard to meats, drinks, holy days, new moons, and sabbath days (COL 2:14-17; ROM 14:5-7)

 

[ozso]

Jesus is the one saying He does not rule by contradicting His own Law - His own Word.

The "Jesus is sovereign so He contradicts Himself because He likes it" kinds of arguments don't go very far.

Matt 5: 17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus claims the very opposite of your suggestion.

What you're not acknowledging is that all was accomplished. "It is accomplished" John 19:30

τετελέσται (tetelestai) 5055: to bring to an end, complete, fulfill Usage: (a) I end, finish, (b) I fulfill, accomplish, (c) I pay.

 

[ozso]

No NT statements about "do not take God's name in vain" either.

1 Timothy 6:1

NT command #5. Put off blasphemy (COL 3:8)

 

[HIM]

can't list all the 1050 commands in the NT off the top of my head.

Is that how we determine what scripture to "toss out" now ??

https://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201407/r1308729_17984331.pdf

They say we are no longer of the letter in reference to the laws that showed us what sin is yet quote another letter which quotes the other letter to show us what sin is. See the issue they have?

 

[HIM]

1 Timothy 6:1

NT command #5. Put off blasphemy (COL 3:8)

Not quite sure why you would quote Col 3:8 in reference to blaspheme against holy Spirit or doctrine. Col 3:8 is speaking of blaspheming against one another not God directly or sound doctrine.

 

[HIM]

What you're not acknowledging is that all was accomplished. "It is accomplished" John 19:30

τετελέσται (tetelestai) 5055: to bring to an end, complete, fulfill Usage: (a) I end, finish, (b) I fulfill, accomplish, (c) I pay.

Jesus said not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled.
Have heaven and earth passed away? No.
Has the anti-christ finished his work and the great tribulation happened? No.
Has Jesus come and gathered the elect from the four winds of heaven? No.
Are we in heaven? No.


And Where does it say all was accomplished in John 19:30? It doesn't.
Is it possible that verse thirty is being said in context to the chapter in respect to the things that are prophesied that are to happen to Christ and not total fulfilment? Yes because all has not been accomplished. And we know this because we are still here in this world of sin and Jesus has not returned,

 

[ozso]

They say we are no longer of the letter in reference to the laws that showed us what sin is yet quote another letter which quotes the other letter to show us what sin is. See the issue they have?

Who's they?

 

[HIM]

Then why aren't you following all 613 Laws? Can you even name 50 of the 613 off the top of your head?

That is not an argument. The 613 that you suggest is compiled by man not God. And whether he or any follow anything is not relevant. What the New Covenant is though.

Did God say that His Law was to be put in hearts and minds? And where did He say it?
Did God say that His word, the commandments and statutes contained in the Book of the Law are in our hearts and mouths that we do it? Where did He say that?

 

[ozso]

Not quite sure why you would quote Col 3:8 in reference to blaspheme against holy Spirit or doctrine. Col 3:8 is speaking of blaspheming against one another not God directly or sound doctrine.

Taking God's name in vain is blasphemy . Colossians 3:8 says to put off blasphemy. In that verse after blasphemy is filthy language out of your mouth. People quite often take God's name in vain when spewing profanity.

 

[HIM]

Who's they?

satan and his nymphs

 

[ozso]

satan and his nymphs

I don't understand. Could you elaborate more please?

 

[HIM]

Taking God's name in vain is blasphemy (Exodus 20:7). Colossians 3:8 says to put off blasphemy. In that verse after blasphemy is filthy language out of your mouth. People quite often take God's name in vain when spewing profanity.

From the BDAG
βλασφημία, ας, ἡ (s. βλασφημέω; Eur., Democr., Pla.+; LXX, Philo, Joseph.; Just., A I, 26, 5; Ath. 31, 2, R.72, 27; AssMos fgm. j p. 67 Denis; loanw. in rabb.) speech that denigrates or defames, reviling, denigration, disrespect, slander
gener., of any kind of speech that is defamatory or abusive, w. other vices Mk 7:22; Eph 4:31; Col 3:8. πᾶσα β. all abusive speech Hm 8:3; cp. Mt 12:31a. Pl. (Jos., Vi. 245) Mt 15:19; 1 Ti 6:4.
specif., against humans and transcendent entities



Colossians 3:8,9 is about how we treat each other mainly but I will grant you it does say ALL.

Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

 

[ozso]

That is not an argument. The 613 that you suggest is compiled by man not God. And whether he or any follow anything is not relevant. What the New Covenant is though.

Did God say that His Law was to be put in hearts and minds? And where did He say it?
Did God say that His word, the commandments and statutes contained in the Book of the Law are in our hearts and mouths that we do it? Where did e say that?

The point is Mosaic Law is comprised of hundreds of commandments. James 2:10 says whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. Therefore Christians who say that Christians are sill under the law should be expected to know every jot and tittle of the law and to keep the whole law.