Time for the truth 7

[Job8]

The Sabbath is never quoted in scripture as a shadow of anything! If so show us!

It was already shown as a reference. But here are the actual verses (Col 2:16,17; Heb 8:4-8; 10:1 addressed to all Christians, Jews and Gentiles):
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:[days in italics]
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For 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:
Heb 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

The establishment of the New Covenant is sufficient to show that all the shadows of the Old Covenant are obsolete. The only commandments from the Old Covenant which are still binding are in Acts 15:28,29.

 

[VictorC]

You've already seen the response I gave to this, in a thread that was locked down by the moderation staff here. What you've done is latch onto a statement from Jesus that depicts compliance with the Mosaic covenant necessary to gain life - which is a tenet of Judaism, and Jesus reflected that soteriology accurately during the religious dispensation Judaism existed in.

That isn't conveyed to us. We have a commandment to cast off the Mosaic covenant, given with the reason that those retained by that old covenant have no claim to eternal life. That's a central tenet of Christianity. Taking these two contrasting sets of commandments of God and trying to force them into the same dispensation isn't possible. Old-covenant "christianity" is a oxymoron that doesn't exist, and it would serve you to recognize this instead of trying deperately to convey the impossible to those of us who aren't ever going to accept it.

There is no Judaism verse Christianity, in the sense that there is one means of salvation for them and another for us. We are all saved in Christ. Rev. 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Jesus died for all!
There is no contrasting set of Commandments! Where are they?
1 No other Gods before me. What command contrasting with that do you find?
Can you go down the line and show us the other 8 and they contrasting commands?

That you can't distinguish between Judaism and Christianity speaks volumes to everyone reading your post. The result is that when you're confronted with two opposing commandments of God, your response is to pretend previous posts haven't already detailed them for you and you perform a complete cognitive meltdown.

You have latched onto a commandment that exists only in Judaism: life comes by keeping the Ten Commandments - and God concluded everyone disobedient with no exceptions (Romans 11:32). That soteriology is concluded a complete failure by God. Meanwhile, we have the commandment to cast off the Ten Commandments, the covenant from Mount Sinai, because those retained by it have no claim to eternal life (Galatians 4:30).

 

[VictorC]

Did Jesus say that we are not to keep the Sabbath? NO!

You've already seen Scripture depicting Jesus taking away the Sabbath. You're not keeping the Sabbath anyway, so why would you care? Look at the date/time stamp that dispassionate electronic witness assigned to your post.

 

[VictorC]

The Sabbath is never quoted in scripture as a shadow of anything! If so show us!

1) Job8 beat me in a good response to this. The Sabbath sure wasn't God's rest, so it should have been intuitive that the Sabbath wasn't the reality, hence a shadow. That was the crux of my post.
2) This doesn't really address what my post challenged you with: a reminder that you've been pressed for years to produce a time when the Gentile nations were ever given the Sabbath to begin with - and once again, you failed to do so. Besides, making such an assertion would violate the Law's record, quoting God directly in Exodus 31 when He assigned the Sabbath to the children of Israel as an exclusive covenant with them.

 

[VictorC]

Jesus met with His disciples on many other days, so what do we do with those days? Did Jesus command them to keep the day? NO! Did the disciples every keep the first day? NO!

You didn't read what I posted. It is not surprising that you've once again reduced your response to periodic days, instead of recognizing God's permanent rest that is antithetical to the periodic shadows. Look at Paul's comments to the church in Galatia, who were in danger of reverting to the old covenant:

Galatians 4
8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.​

Jesus asked a question, Mat. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
No burn offerings was FOR the Sabbath, on not for.

Look at who has replaced the Biblical Sabbath with their manmade tradition!

Numbers 28
9 ‘And on the Sabbath day two lambs in their first year, without blemish, and two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with oil, with its drink offering— 10 this is the burnt offering for every Sabbath, besides the regular burnt offering with its drink offering.​

Including the daily evening/morning oblations, the nation charged with keeping the Sabbath Holy killed four lambs every Sabbath day. All you've done is admit that you don't keep the Sabbath Holy according to the Law that codified it - having replaced with with a truncated rendition stripped of its Holiness.

Now, review what you complained about in my post:
It is God's will that led to His disposition of that first covenant from Mount Sinai.

Hebrews 10
8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.​

I remind you of the burnt offerings the Law demanded for the Sabbath. Don't ignore the implications ending the rites requiring those offerings leads to.
Again.

 

[VictorC]

When Jesus didn't condone what the Law required, what attribute did He display which is absent in the Law?

I will let you tell us. For the record, the Jews did not conform to the law. The woman was caught in adultery, not by herself, where was the other party? The law called for both parties to be stoned, what the accusers were about had nothing to do with the law.

Why did the Pharisees, who promoted adherance to the Law, reject Jesus?

They rejected scripture. Took what they accepted above what God required.

Look at the questions.
Look at your responses.
Look at the questions again.
The speculative obfuscation you wrote in response bears no relation to the questions - at all. Another member responded in minutes after my original post and saw the answer immediately, so I know there isn't anything wrong with how I composed those questions.

Here, let's go through the whole process again. This time, please answer the questions as they appear.

You're focusing on the man and ignoring the woman. The man in your hypothetical situation is has a decision to render. He could:

1) locate another witness to the woman's action, and go through the process that would have her stoned to death.
2) wriggle his wedding ring in front of the woman's face and basically refuse her.
3) feed on the passion (aka lust) in his heart and decide two wives are better than one (sound familiar?) and follow through on his passion (aka lust).

Only one of these responses is in accordance to the Mosaic covenant Law you're promoting on this forum.

WWJD?

John 8
2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
13 The Pharisees therefore said to Him, “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.”​

I only highlighted a couple of the Pharisees' statements for simplicity.
Two questions to consider:

• When Jesus didn't condone what the Law required, what attribute did He display which is absent in the Law?
• Why did the Pharisees, who promoted adherance to the Law, reject Jesus?

The questions are again extracted from the quote, so they appear before you when you provide a response:

• When Jesus didn't condone what the Law required, what attribute did He display which is absent in the Law?
• Why did the Pharisees, who promoted adherance to the Law, reject Jesus?

 

[Strong in Him]

Did Jesus say that we are not to keep the Sabbath? NO!

Neither did he say that we, Gentiles, HAD to keep it.

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

"He said unto HIM" - the rich young JEWISH man to whom he was speaking.

But Jesus wasn't saying "you will have eternal life if you keep the commandments perfectly". HE knew, and the Jews knew if they were honest with themselves, that they had NEVER been able to keep the commandments perfectly - just read their history in the OT. When they had strong, Godly judges and kings, they worshipped and obeyed God and just about stayed on the straight and narrow. But if anyone had ever been able to keep the law perfectly, Jesus would not have needed to come and die. If keeping the commands and the law gave eternal life, Jesus would not have said "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (John 6:53-54). He would not have said, "I have come that they might have life; life in all its fullness" (John 10:10). He would not have said that he was the way, the truth the life and the ONLY way to the Father (John 14:6), nor that God's will was that everyone who looks to the Son would have eternal life (John 6:40.)
And John would not have said "whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not have life." (John 3:36).

If Jesus' message - to all people - had been, "become a Jew, keep the law, every festival and the Sabbath", he would have been just a prophet, would not have died, would not have been able to save us, and we'd still all be lost in our sins.

Jesus was the Word made flesh. He told people to come to him and he would give them rest (Matt 11:28), life (John 10:10, 14:6) and that he had come to save those who were lost (Luke 19:10). He fulfilled the Jewish law and prophets - which were not given to gentiles anyway - and his blood was of the NEW covenant; the one of which Jeremiah spoke (Jer 31:31-34.)

 

[Elder 111]

You should take this to heart because Jews were about keeping the Law and Gentiles basically had little desire to keep Israel's laws. Either Gentiles were forced to become Jews and keep the Law or Jews were no longer required under Paul's Gospel to keep the Law.

Paul demonstrates that the Gentiles kept the law, were required to keep it, and would be guilty for breaking the deeds of the law even though they did not receive it at Sinai, in the same chapter of Romans 2. 12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul demonstrates that the Gentiles kept the law, were required to keep it, and would be guilty for breaking the deeds of the law even though they did not receive it at Sinai, in the same chapter of Romans 2. 12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Paul taught that if anyone kept the law, or was bound by the law, then it meant that Christ died for nothing. (Which is what I said.)

 

[VictorC]

Paul demonstrates that the Gentiles kept the law, were required to keep it, and would be guilty for breaking the deeds of the law even though they did not receive it at Sinai, in the same chapter of Romans 2. 12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

You started with a claim, followed with a passage that contradicts your claim. And, had you continued one single verse more, you would have seen your misinterpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy of moving the old covenant's contents into the heart wasn't a promise of the new covenant. The Gentiles had it during the tenure of the old covenant, showing it wasn't a promise at all.

This is how you handle Scripture: truncated sound bites, ignorant of the narrative they come from, omitting the next sound bite that proves your opinion to be faulty.

 

[listed]

It was already shown as a reference. But here are the actual verses (Col 2:16,17; Heb 8:4-8; 10:1 addressed to all Christians, Jews and Gentiles):
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:[days in italics]
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For 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:
Heb 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

The establishment of the New Covenant is sufficient to show that all the shadows of the Old Covenant are obsolete. The only commandments from the Old Covenant which are still binding are in Acts 15:28,29.

The evidence is he does not read the Scripture.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Neither did he say that we, Gentiles, HAD to keep it.



"He said unto HIM" - the rich young JEWISH man to whom he was speaking.

I've asked them over and over if they sold everything to follow Jesus and so far none of them has admitted to obeying Jesus but they are certainly willing to condemn others with the instructions that they disobey.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Paul demonstrates that the Gentiles kept the law, were required to keep it, and would be guilty for breaking the deeds of the law even though they did not receive it at Sinai, in the same chapter of Romans 2. 12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

You truly do not understand Paul in this scripture.
1.Nobody truly keeps the Law therefore ALL are sinners who try and keep it.
2. It says outright GENTILES, WHICH HAVE NOT THE LAW yet you say they have the Law over and over to us Paul says NO they do NOT have it.

 

[Strong in Him]

I've asked them over and over if they sold everything to follow Jesus and so far none of them has admitted to obeying Jesus but they are certainly willing to condemn others with the instructions that they disobey.

That's sad.

 

[listed]

You truly do not understand Paul in this scripture.
1.Nobody truly keeps the Law therefore ALL are sinners who try and keep it.
2. It says outright GENTILES, WHICH HAVE NOT THE LAW yet you say they have the Law over and over to us Paul says NO they do NOT have it.

It is amazing.

 

[Elder 111]

It was already shown as a reference. But here are the actual verses (Col 2:16,17; Heb 8:4-8; 10:1 addressed to all Christians, Jews and Gentiles):
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:[days in italics]
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The context here makes no reference to the Ten commandments but to the ceremonial laws, which had Sabbaths.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For 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:

Again there is no reference to the Ten Commandments here or the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments. This is pertaining to the sacrifices, the priesthood and the earthly sanctuary. Jesus is now the High Priest and not a Levi.
Heb 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

The establishment of the New Covenant is sufficient to show that all the shadows of the Old Covenant are obsolete. The only commandments from the Old Covenant which are still binding are in Acts 15:28,29.[/quote]
Just in cast you missed it I have shown what is obsolete. If we are going to take that the ten commandments are obsolete, then to worship God alone is obsolete, so also all of the Ten Commandments including stealing adultery,not worshiping idols and the like. Is that your position?

 

[Elder 111]

That you can't distinguish between Judaism and Christianity speaks volumes to everyone reading your post. The result is that when you're confronted with two opposing commandments of God, your response is to pretend previous posts haven't already detailed them for you and you perform a complete cognitive meltdown.

You have latched onto a commandment that exists only in Judaism: life comes by keeping the Ten Commandments - and God concluded everyone disobedient with no exceptions (Romans 11:32). That soteriology is concluded a complete failure by God. Meanwhile, we have the commandment to cast off the Ten Commandments, the covenant from Mount Sinai, because those retained by it have no claim to eternal life (Galatians 4:30).

If the God you serve commands that you cast these off then go ahead.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

[Elder 111]

Neither did he say that we, Gentiles, HAD to keep it.



"He said unto HIM" - the rich young JEWISH man to whom he was speaking.

But Jesus wasn't saying "you will have eternal life if you keep the commandments perfectly". HE knew, and the Jews knew if they were honest with themselves, that they had NEVER been able to keep the commandments perfectly - just read their history in the OT. When they had strong, Godly judges and kings, they worshipped and obeyed God and just about stayed on the straight and narrow. But if anyone had ever been able to keep the law perfectly, Jesus would not have needed to come and die. If keeping the commands and the law gave eternal life, Jesus would not have said "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (John 6:53-54). He would not have said, "I have come that they might have life; life in all its fullness" (John 10:10). He would not have said that he was the way, the truth the life and the ONLY way to the Father (John 14:6), nor that God's will was that everyone who looks to the Son would have eternal life (John 6:40.)
And John would not have said "whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not have life." (John 3:36).

If Jesus' message - to all people - had been, "become a Jew, keep the law, every festival and the Sabbath", he would have been just a prophet, would not have died, would not have been able to save us, and we'd still all be lost in our sins.

Jesus was the Word made flesh. He told people to come to him and he would give them rest (Matt 11:28), life (John 10:10, 14:6) and that he had come to save those who were lost (Luke 19:10). He fulfilled the Jewish law and prophets - which were not given to gentiles anyway - and his blood was of the NEW covenant; the one of which Jeremiah spoke (Jer 31:31-34.)

Is it your contention that God removed the law because no one could have kept it perfectly?
My contention is that the law remains but that Jesus died so that His perfect keeping of the law could be imputed for us who failed to keep it perfectly. 1 John 2: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

Paul demonstrates that the Gentiles kept the law, were required to keep it, and would be guilty for breaking the deeds of the law even though they did not receive it at Sinai, in the same chapter of Romans 2. 12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
​

You truly do not understand Paul in this scripture.
1.Nobody truly keeps the Law therefore ALL are sinners who try and keep it.
2. It says outright GENTILES, WHICH HAVE NOT THE LAW yet you say they have the Law over and over to us Paul says NO they do NOT have it.

It says they do the things of the law, do you not see that?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

Paul demonstrates that the Gentiles kept the law, were required to keep it, and would be guilty for breaking the deeds of the law even though they did not receive it at Sinai, in the same chapter of Romans 2. 12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
​

It says they do the things of the law, do you not see that?

I'm sorry but you aren't refuting the FACT Paul says they do NOT have the Law which pretty much destroys your argument that Gentiles must have it.