Why the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) is the Lord's Day, in the Bible

[BobRyan]

I did see your 1Cor8 comment. But Paul is speaking of food & idols in Corinth, which he's not talking about in Galatia.

He is comparing former pagan Christians to Jewish Christians in 1 Cor 8.
In Gal 4 we see a focus on former pagan Christians returning "again" to their former practices in some respects.

Did you miss my points re: the elements of the world that seem to be a commonality between Paul under law and the [potential] former pagans you're suggesting? I'm questioning the line of reasoning that days, months, seasons/times, years are pagan because they are being equated to the elementary basics of the world that are powerless to accomplish [what's being accomplished in this era]. A very quick search shows this use of the same word in Gal4:10 used here:

• NKJ Leviticus 23:4 `These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times.

Paul never calls scripture, or any ordinance of God "a elementary principle/basic of the world". I think that is pretty much irrefutable.

If Paul has been enslaved to the elementary things of the world as a Jew under law

If you are quoting a text saying that obedience to the word of God in what Paul calls "scripture" is defined as "enslavement to elementary things of this world" you need to find it and post it for the sake of clarity.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi, yes i agree the doer of the law will be Justified. But which law? The law that requires FAITH or Law that requires works? Romans 3:27.

let's take an example

"do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 ---

Did you ever find Paul condemning that scripture or claiming that someone was in error because the were not taking God's name in vain - while thinking about that text in the wrong way?

I believe you referring to the law that requires works (OC), in that case "no one will be justified" Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16

Rom 2:13 "not the hearers of the Law that are just before God - but the DOERS of the Law will be JUSTIFIED ... on the day when according to my Gospel God will judge all mankind through Christ" Rom 2 :13-16

The term justification is defined according to the context in which it is used. So in one instance no one is justified by the works of the law (regarding "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 for example) and in the nearby context in that same book "it is the DOERS of the Law that will be JUSTIFIED" and yes that is applicable to that very same command "Do not take God's name in vain".

That very same command written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 (as we see in Heb 8)
Is also in the OC and is also written on stone.

 

[pasifika]

let's take an example

"do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 ---

Did you ever find Paul condemning that scripture or claiming that someone was in error because the were not taking God's name in vain - while thinking about that text in the wrong way?

Rom 2:13 "not the hearers of the Law that are just before God - but the DOERS of the Law will be JUSTIFIED ... on the day when according to my Gospel God will judge all mankind through Christ" Rom 2 :13-16

The term justification is defined according to the context in which it is used. So in one instance no one is justified by the works of the law (regarding "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 for example) and in the nearby context in that same book "it is the DOERS of the Law that will be JUSTIFIED" and yes that is applicable to that very same command "Do not take God's name in vain".

That very same command written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 (as we see in Heb 8)
Is also in the OC and is also written on stone.

Hi, Paul never condemn that scriptures was in error in any way...But Paul condemn people who claim to follow them but they themselves are breaking it..

..you who preach against stealing, do you steal?
...you who say to people "do not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?
...you who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

If you claim to uphold this command of "Do not take God's Name in vain" then you must also uphold all other commandments including stealing, coveting, hatred, etc. If you fail one you fail all of them. (James 2)

 

[trophy33]

"Sin is transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
"our faith ESTABLISHES the LAW" Rom 3:31
"The LAW is written on heart and mind" under the NEW Covenant Heb 8:6-12

Your "agreement" to set it aside -- noted.

I choose the Bible.

Do you stone adulterers? Do you hate your enemies? Do you apply "an eye for an eye"?

And without dancing around, please.

If not, you do not keep the whole Law or you do not keep it literally.

Edit: Grammar

 

[trophy33]

Jesus was preaching from "All of scripture" according to Luke in Luke 24.

Jesus was born under the Law, as a Jew etc.

 

[GDL]

Gal 4 is very specifically addressing former pagans "returning again" to their pagan practices. Even one observance of those pagan days is condemned in Gal 4.

But in Rom 14 observance of any and all Bible-approved holy days is defended.

That makes a good contrast.

These statements apart from explaining the Text in context are not really meaningful, but thanks for the reply.

 

[GDL]

My point is that you don't find many people supposing that "transgression of the Law" is not "lawlessness".

But the phrase "transgression of the Law" brings in the concept of God's Law in a much more direct way - as center focus on what is going on. It makes the Law the mechanism that defines what sin (rebellion, lawlessness) is.

The same point as is made in Rom 3:

Same as we see in Rom 3:19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.

The same point that is made in Romans 7.

Your point is noted and understood. IMO you're simply defending inconsistent & poor Bible translation.

It makes it clear that God's Commandments are "in context" for what John considers to be the LAW in 1 John 3:4.

"Of" is ambiguous. So, it's speaking of God's Love or our Love for God? There's a difference between an objective and a subjective statement (which I just stated as a possessive). It's elaborating on 1John5:2. It speaks about and is essentially defining our Love for God.

This paraphrases, but is obviously seeking clarity:

NTE 1 John 5:1-4 Everyone who believes that the Messiah is Jesus has been fathered by God. Everyone who loves the parent loves the child as well. 2 That is how we know that we love the children of God, because we love God and do what he commands. 3 This is what loving God means: it means keeping his commandments. His commandments, what’s more, are no trouble, 4 because everything that is fathered by God conquers the world. This is the victory that conquers the world: our faith.

 

[GDL]

He is comparing former pagan Christians to Jewish Christians in 1 Cor 8.
In Gal 4 we see a focus on former pagan Christians returning "again" to their former practices in some respects.

I addressed this type of statement a moment ago. FWIW, it's not meaningful to me to have someone step in and make such statements apart from proving it in context. But, again, thanks for the reply.

Paul never calls scripture, or any ordinance of God "a elementary principle/basic of the world". I think that is pretty much irrefutable.

If you are quoting a text saying that obedience to the word of God in what Paul calls "scripture" is defined as "enslavement to elementary things of this world" you need to find it and post it for the sake of clarity.

NKJ Galatians 4:1-5 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Words like irrefutable and telling others what they "need" to do are a bit authoritative and unpleasant to be on the receiving end of.

Please note that when speaking in these verses above, Paul includes himself ("we").

Paul is explaining how the Mosaic era was for children. This same word he uses for "children" and repeats twice for some emphasis is used in Heb5:13 to speak of Christians who are unskilled in the Word of Righteousness - they are only milk drinkers. Paul uses the same word in 1Cor3:1-2 and uses the same analogy of drinking only milk. He contrasts the "babes/infants in Christ" to the "spiritual" which is Paul's word for "mature" as Heb5:14 contrasts the babes to the mature.

So, the entire era of Moses was for the "children of Israel" - Paul being one of them - who were under guardians & stewards & were in effect under slavery to the elements - the basic principles - of the world. This speaks of rudimentary principles - rudimentary knowledge. These basic/rudimentary principles were the "guardians & stewards" the "children" were "under" (under the authority of).

In Gal3:24 Paul explains the Law's part in this guardianship using a bit different wording that means: one who has responsibility for someone who needs guidance, guardian, leader, guide (BDAG).

NKJ Gal3:19-26 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

I've done what I needed to do. I've let Paul tell you your theory is not irrefutable.

When we speak of OC Scripture like this: NKJ 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, - we should recognize Paul's consistency. The word "instruction" here is the same base word Paul uses above in Gal3:24 translated in the NKJ as "tutor" in the context of "Scripture" Gal3:22 and "law."

The law is to be used "lawfully" - NKJ 1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully - It still identifies and teaches about sin vs. righteousness. It was and is something that had/has responsibility for someone who needs guidance. It is beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, but it was also a part of a bygone era that was used to keep children under guard until Christ came to free us from being under law, sin and death.

One of the problems for Law advocates is that we can have a tendency to draw back into incorrectly using the basic principles as our rule of life. But as Heb6 says: NKJ Hebrews 6:1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God. Heb5:12 tells us these elementary/basic principles are the milk.

This is all language of command: God commands us to leave the basic principles and advance to perfection/maturity and beyond.

I said it earlier, but some of this Law advocacy is having one foot stuck in the old era of infancy when we've been commanded to advance to maturity as sons and heirs in union with our perfect firstborn brother and Lord Jesus Christ. The Law of Christ is not the same as the Law of Moses. It has some of the same content and we use the wisdom of all Scripture, but it is not the same.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

He is comparing former pagan Christians to Jewish Christians in 1 Cor 8.
In Gal 4 we see a focus on former pagan Christians returning "again" to their former practices in some respects.

I addressed this type of statement a moment ago. FWIW, it's not meaningful to me to have someone step in and make such statements apart from proving it in context. But, again, thanks for the reply.

I am curious as to which part of my statement above you do not find to be obvious in the text?

NKJ Galatians 4:1-5 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.

The unsaved person is in bondage to the false teaching, false morality, of this world. True of both Jews and gentiles in their unsaved stated - but NOT a condemnation of God's Word (scripture) as if IT was the problem rather than the world, the flesh the devil.

Here again - I do not see how this point is anything other than obvious. Tell me what I am missing.

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Rom 3:19 ALL THE WORLD under the Law - "every mouth closed" in that lost condition without the gospel. Under the condemnation of the Law that says things like "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7

Please note that when speaking in these verses above, Paul includes himself ("we").

Obviously Paul considered all humans to be in a fallen sinful state under the condemnation of the perfect law of God that Paul says "He agrees with" in Rom 7.
The Law that according to Paul includes the TEN having "Honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

Paul is affirming that commandment - not condemning it as if it would be bad thing to include the Law of God found in what Paul calls "scripture".

In Rom 7 Paul says the only thing opposed to God's Law -- is sin.

Paul is explaining how the Mosaic era was for children.

No he is not.

He is explaining how the lost condition is for children and that condemnation of the lost by the perfect law of God that Paul says is "spiritual , holy, just and good" Rom 7 and includes commands like "do not covet" (Rom 7) -- is the condition of the lost. The role of the law for the lost is to inform them of their need of the gospel according to Paul. The role of the law for the saved... is to be written on the heart under the New Covenant according to Paul in Heb 8:6-12. Paul is not condemning the Word of God that Christ identifies in Mark 7:6-13.

How is this point the least bit controversial. No wonder almost all denominations get this point when it comes to the TEN..

. He contrasts the "babes/infants in Christ" to the "spiritual" which is Paul's word for "mature" as Heb5:14 contrasts the babes to the mature.

True but Heb 5 does not say the problem is that children "read scripture and believe it" that is never his argument.

 

[BobRyan]

In Gal3:24 Paul explains the Law's part in this guardianship using a bit different wording that means: one who has responsibility for someone who needs guidance, guardian, leader, guide (BDAG).

NKJ Gal3:19-26 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

In Gal 3 the Law condemns the lost "until faith comes". Until a lost person embraces the gospel they are under conviction and condemnation from what Paul calls the perfect, holy and just law of God that says things like "honor your father and mother" Eph 6:2 and "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. All the world... "every mouth shut" - under that conviction and condemnation they experience because of the perfect, holy , just and good Word of God - His Law.

No wonder Paul can say "what matters is keeping the commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

 

[BobRyan]

When we speak of OC Scripture like this: NKJ 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, - we should recognize Paul's consistency. The word "instruction" here is the same base word Paul uses above in Gal3:24 translated in the NKJ as "tutor" in the context of "Scripture" Gal3:22 and "law."

1. No such "OC Scripture" statement in the actual Bible. In other words Paul does not condemn the entire OT as "OC"
2. but we do have the "ALL Scripture" given by inspiration of God" in 2 Tim 3:16
3. we do have Luke saying in Luke 24 that Christ preached the gospel "from ALL scripture" beginning with Moses.

The word for "instruction" is "doctrine".

2 Tim 3:16 NKJV 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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The law is to be used "lawfully" - NKJ 1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully - It still identifies and teaches about sin vs. righteousness.

Indeed as Rom 3:20 and 1 John 3:4 show us - the LAW tells us the difference between sin and righteousness -- as Paul also affirms in Rom 7.

In Rom 8:4-10 Paul says it is only the lost that "do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN they"

By contrast under the NEW Covenant the LAW is written on the heart as Jeremiah points out in Jer 31:31-34

One of the problems for Law advocates is

The LAW is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant - Heb 8:6-12.

"This IS The LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:3... where the "first commandment with a promise" is "Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:2

as Heb6 says: NKJ Hebrews 6:1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God

Heb 6:Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits.

Elementary teaching "About Christ" is not "elementary principles of THIS WORLD" -- those are two very different things as it turns out.

Which is why he adds "This we will do if God permits" in regard to the discussion about that "foundation" of repentance and of faith and of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment.

. Heb5:12 tells us these elementary/basic principles are the milk.

does not say "elementary principles of tHIS WORLD" are the chosen milk of the gospel for Christians. Not one such statement in all of scripture.

Careful attention to detail is needed to get to the correct understanding of the text.

 

[GDL]

BobRyan said:

He is comparing former pagan Christians to Jewish Christians in 1 Cor 8.

We should remain in Galatians to discuss Galatians until it is understood.

In Gal 4 we see a focus on former pagan Christians returning "again" to their former practices in some respects.

I posted Gal4 Scripture. Paul is clearly including himself as being under the elementary principles of the world.

The issue for the Galatian Gentiles is not that they were being led back into paganism, but into OC Judaism with its days and months and seasons and years - elementary principles of the old era for children.

I am curious as to which part of my statement above you do not find to be obvious in the text?

I think I addressed this and did so with Scripture. What is it you're confused about?

The unsaved person is in bondage to the false teaching, false morality, of this world. True of both Jews and gentiles in their unsaved stated - but NOT a condemnation of God's Word (scripture) as if IT was the problem rather than the world, the flesh the devil.

Here again - I do not see how this point is anything other than obvious. Tell me what I am missing.

The Jews of the OC were enslaved under the law and elementary principles. That's very clear in Ga4l as I highlighted.

Rom 3:19 ALL THE WORLD under the Law - "every mouth closed" in that lost condition without the gospel. Under the condemnation of the Law that says things like "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7

I've addressed this Rom3:19 verse several times. It does not say "under the law." It says "in law" and there is some difference.

To understand Rom3:19 we need to understand Rom2:12 where Paul uses "in law" the first time.

To understand Rom2:12 we need to understand Rom1-2:12 where Paul is essentially categorizing humanity as either rejecting God who has made Himself known through general revelation and a conscience that understand enough about sin/disobedience/lawlessness & death, that God says they are without excuse for rejecting Him. They are anomos (last o is omega so long o). This word means to not participate in an organized legal system - here being God's Law. They reject God and His Law and His Reign/Rule. Paul says they will simply perish.

The rest of humanity is said to be "in law" and will be judged as such - as hearers only or as doers who show the law written in hearts.

I do agree at this point that the Ex20:7 verse is part of judgment. I'd see it as part of the Love for God that is being written into our hearts. I do not see food or Sabbath as part of this at this time. My mind is open to Scripture on these matters, but the more I study to discuss them, the more I'm being convinced that such things no longer apply.

Obviously Paul considered all humans to be in a fallen sinful state under the condemnation of the perfect law of God that Paul says "He agrees with" in Rom 7.
The Law that according to Paul includes the TEN having "Honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

My comments and the Scripture I posted had to do with Paul being under the elementary principles of the world while being under Mosaic Law as one of the children of Israel. As a man in Adam and "in law" and under Mosaic Law, yes, he learned from Mosaic Law about sin in the flesh vs. the Law of God in his mind. He was enslaved to sin and to the elementary principles of the world in that era until Christ. As Paul goes into Rom8 his language is like an epiphany as He sees Christ as the solution to being a child, to being enslaved under the elementary principles, to being under Law.

Again, you are referencing a Commandment that is repeated in the NC and part of the Love Commandments in the Law of Christ.

No he is not.

He most certainly is. You are missing what is clearly stated in Gal4. The Mosaic Law as a unit was for the old era. It's clear in the Scriptures I posted. The Mosaic Law was a tutor until Christ. Now we're no longer under a tutor even though we can still learn from Mosaic Law. This word in context is speaking of being a child trainer. Until we get this, we're going to be wrongly advocating Law.

He is explaining how the lost condition is for children and that condemnation of the lost by the perfect law of God that Paul says is "spiritual , holy, just and good" Rom 7 and includes commands like "do not covet" (Rom 7) -- is the condition of the lost. The role of the law for the lost is to inform them of their need of the gospel according to Paul. The role of the law for the saved... is to be written on the heart under the New Covenant according to Paul in Heb 8:6-12. Paul is not condemning the Word of God that Christ identifies in Mark 7:6-13.

Again, the Mosaic Law was a child-trainer until Christ.

The way I see it, God's Law was pre-Moses, part of Mosaic Law, and is in the Law of Christ. But Moses was a unit for a specific Covenant now ended. The Law being written on hearts does not include all Mosaic Law, not even close.

How is this point the least bit controversial. No wonder almost all denominations get this point when it comes to the TEN..

Your appeals to democracy are not the arbiter of Truth and FWIW mean nothing to me. It's actually pointless reasoning that may work for some, but only some. If we want to use such reasoning SDA and Messianics lose the argument about 7th day observance.

True but Heb 5 does not say the problem is that children "read scripture and believe it" that is never his argument.

Rightly dividing is different than reading & believing incorrect interpretation. Nepios-infants/children is what the entire era under the Mosaic Covenant is identified with. IMO we're barely scratching the surface of what this era is all about. But it's not carrying forward things God does not carry forward.

 

[GDL]

In Gal 3 the Law condemns the lost "until faith comes". Until a lost person embraces the gospel they are under conviction and condemnation from what Paul calls the perfect, holy and just law of God that says things like "honor your father and mother" Eph 6:2 and "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. All the world... "every mouth shut" - under that conviction and condemnation they experience because of the perfect, holy , just and good Word of God - His Law.

No wonder Paul can say "what matters is keeping the commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

This still does nothing to negate the fact that Paul as a Jew under Mosaic Law was enslaved to the elementary principles of the world and is concerned that the Galatian Christians want to go back to that old era of enslavement.

What matters today is keeping God's Commandments that He has not terminated for this era in Christ.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Well if one were to believe this statement...

IMO we're barely scratching the surface of what this era is all about. But it's not carrying forward things God does not carry forward.

Could never come to this conclusion.....

I do agree at this point that the Ex20:7 verse is part of judgment. I'd see it as part of the Love for God that is being written into our hearts. I do not see food or Sabbath as part of this at this time. My mind is open to Scripture on these matters, but the more I study to discuss them, the more I'm being convinced that such things no longer apply.

Isaiah 66:21 And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites,” says the Lord.
22 “For as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord,
“So shall your descendants and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord.
24 “And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

The Sabbath is part of God's eternal commandments and continues on for worship and this verse does not say Jesus gives us rest on the Sabbath, it clearly shows His people coming before Him from one Sabbath to another for worship. (something we do for Him, like the commandment tells us to)

Jesus taught it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath Matthew 12:12
Which means the opposite of saying the Sabbath commandment is not a law written in the heart, when obviously part of the law of God that came in a unit of Ten and in Jesus own's words quoting from the same unit of Ten condemning those for not obeying over peoples own self-laws Matthew 15:3-9


And using this philosophy

We should remain in Galatians to discuss Galatians until it is understood.

We should apply to this to Gal 2 as well.

 

[Leaf473]

Love your neighbor as yourself Lev 19:18 was not a Jewish tradition - rather it was scripture.

A scripture which was incorporated into a traditional saying. Jesus agrees with the first part of the saying, disagrees with the second.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 5:43 - New American Standard Bible

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’

www.biblegateway.com

 

[HIM]

"or" can be disjunctive or comparable:

[BDAG] ἤ
• ἤ particle (Hom.+).
1. marker of an alternative, or, disjunctive particle (B-D-F §446; Rob. 1188f)
a. separating
α. opposites, which are mutually exclusive
β. related and similar terms, where one can take the place of the other or one supplements the other.

Not sure why you would post that. Did you bother to look at their examples? Pretty weak argument in respect to the examples they presented. Did you notice they are silent in thinking that Acts 10 is an example of said thought.

There is also a textual variant here: The manuscript evidence is mixed between "or" & "kai-and".

There are way to many issues here to start down this rabbit whole. The only thing I wish to know and can't find out is what of the other texts? I can see WH and the Byzan. do not agree but what of the other texts? And have you considered the fact that they agree in the other two witnesses of this account? Take a look at 10:28 and 11:8. Especially 11:8 where Peter gets really specific.
It seems NET notes failed to consider that. And the fact that anything that touched an unclean thing was ritually unclean, Koinos. See Leviticus 5 and 11. However Koinos was not used there to translate from the Hebrew miaino was. The only occurrences of koinos in the LXX are in Proverbs 15:23, 21:9 and 25:24 for the Hebrew words
koinos H259 * אֶחָד ('eḥāḏ) echad
koinos H2267 * חֶבֶר (ḥeḇer) chever

Looking at Philo, and the Epistle of Aristeas in respect to the time they were written there is a possibility the koinos was not commonly used when the Pentateuch was written. Which would could explain why it is so silent in all the books except proverbs. But I can't be certain. But what I am certain of is how it is used within the NT and How most Lexicons including see the word being used in antiquity.



And in respect to Kai the connection to what is being said can also be in relation to what Peter saw. He seen common and unclean animals. As the NET notes admit "Possibly there is a subtle distinction in meaning between κοινός (koinos) and ἀκάθαρτος (akathartos) here" Apparently they had not considered the other instances of the account and Lev. 5 and 11. Thinking also there might a bit of bias due to preconceived notions in respect to doctrine.

Here's a note from the NET Bible translators:

NET Notes (Act 10:14)

38 tn Possibly there is a subtle distinction in meaning between κοινός (koinos) and ἀκάθαρτος (akathartos) here, but according to L&N 53.39 it is difficult to determine precise differences in meaning based on existing contexts.
sn Peter insisted he would not violate the law by eating anything defiled and ritually unclean. These food laws were one of the practices that distinguished Jews from their Gentile neighbors. The practice made table fellowship with Gentiles awkward. For an example of Jewish attitudes to this, see Dan 1:8–16; 1 Macc 1:41–64; Letter of Aristeas 142; Tacitus, History 5.5.

Lol did you see their paraphrase of these verses? For one the unclean animals are not ritually unclean. They are unclean physically and unfit for food. Two Koinos is the word that is used for something that would be ritually unclean not Akatharos in the NT. Akartharos is used in respect to things that are unclean. Like Spirits, frogs, birds, sinners and the unconverted in the NT.

YLT (since you use this translation) Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, 'Ye know how it is unlawful forbidden/not allowed for a man, a Jew, to keep company with, or to come unto, one of another race, but to me God did shew to call no man common or unclean;

• Peter's conclusion was that God was cleansing the common & the unclean, not just the common.

See below re: Lev.

Doesn't fit the logic or the range of the language.

Why did you not address or correct the rest of the logic I presented?

If something touched an unclean thing, then it became unclean, not common. As I said, this word kainos is not even used in the LXX.

No it became defiled as the word Koinos is commonly used.

Apparently, God was also in the business of forgiving uncleanness.

Agreed. Yet if we don't set ourselves on the disjunctive in Acts10, then common and unclean become closely related. And the in-context relationship between kainos-common in Rom14:14 to the clear statement in Rom14:20 in the continuing context of foods that "all things [are] katharos-clean" seems to wrap this up nicely.

Yet the absence of Akartharos is telling especially considering the word for an unclean animal would be it rather than Koinos at the time that this was written. At least John thought so and the writers of the LXX. Which as you know was commonly used at that time.

You seem to have set aside the reference I made to kainos in Heb9, which I see is vital to this entire discussion. This is, for lack of clearer wording, spiritual now and the old order which was a parable for the new order in Christ is a bygone era.

I noted before how "unclean" is such a big concept in the old era and much of this was having to do with physical things. Now "unclean" is mostly stated re: spirits - unclean spirits - and sinfulness.

Now statements about not touching unclean things such as that in Isaiah52:11 are being connected with idolatry and not being yoked together with unbelievers 2Cor6:17. And in Eph5:3-5 unclean(ness) is correlated to being sinful & idolatrous. This really is not about food anymore.

You previously directed me to do a study of common and unclean. I went back and dug up my old work and reviewed and even added to some of it. Why don't you reciprocate and just look at "unclean(ness)" in the NC and see if it ever refers to food making us unclean. The word is referring to spiritual matters now - unbelievers and sin.

Unclean is stated in reference to animals; frogs and birds as you know and is shown above.

Would you please ta

ke the time and explain yourself. The issue as I see it is faith-righteousness - faith in Jesus Christ - Christ.

God said it so it must be so.

Fine and agreed to a point. But the KOG is not eating and drinking. If anything, now, food is a be careful what you eat, or you'll get sick matter - immediately or over time - and you may even die immediately. And in this way, it can, and IMO should be a matter of faith

It was always a matter of faith. God said so it must be so. Now that we live through and in Christ there should be no question. But alas as Paul stated in his time, the mystery of iniquity is already at work. A little leaven has leavened the whole.

-
Fine and agreed to a point. But the KOG is not eating and drinking.

As was said before chapter 14 is in respect to opinions not in respect to things stated in the Law that are spoken outright. Verse 2's statement in regard to eating only vegies sets this context.


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.



And there is...

Isa 66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
Isa 66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

And as was shown above, John in the Revelation showed that he saw that animals were still unclean.

I have a question for you if you'd be so kind to answer: Are you or do you congregate with SDA or Messianics?

Non denomination, but yes to both and Sunday keepers also. The Harvest is ripe.

 

[GDL]

1. No such "OC Scripture" statement in the actual Bible.
2. but we do have the "ALL Scripture" given by inspiration of God" in 2 Tim 3:16
3. we do have Luke saying in Luke 24 that Christ preached the gospel "from ALL scripture" beginning with Moses.

2Tim3:16 is Paul referring to what we refer to OC Scripture.

The word for "instruction" is "doctrine".

2 Tim 3:16 NKJV 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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I'm not sure why you desire to argue definitions so much. Doctrine is a possible translation. Basically, it means what is taught. Maybe this will help:

Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)

[BDAG] διδασκαλία
• διδασκαλία, ας, ἡ (s. διδάσκω; Pind.+).

1. the act of teaching, teaching, instruction.

2. that which is taught, teaching, instruction.

Indeed as Rom 3:20 and 1 John 3:4 show us - the LAW tells us the difference between sin and righteousness -- as Paul also affirms in Rom 7.

In Rom 8:4-10 Paul says it is only the lost that "do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN they"

By contrast under the NEW Covenant the LAW is written on the heart as Jeremiah points out in Jer 31:31-34

Whatever the Law of God is that was before Moses, in Moses, post Moses. But it's not all the Law of Moses that's being written on hearts..

The LAW is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant - Heb 8:6-12.

"This IS The LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:3... where the "first commandment with a promise" is "Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:2

We're probably in agreement on some to many things Law, but not all.

Heb 6:Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits.

Elementary teaching "About Christ" is not "elementary principles of THIS WORLD" -- those are two very different things as it turns out.

Which is why he adds "This we will do if God permits" in regard to the discussion about that "foundation" of repentance and of faith and of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment.


does not say "elementary principles of tHIS WORLD" are the chosen milk of the gospel for Christians. Not one such statement in all of scripture.

Careful attention to detail is needed to get to the correct understanding of the text.

Thanks for catching me on something here. The detail I got lazy about is letting the English translation of Heb6:1 stand. The YLT comes closer:

YLT Hebrews 6:1 Wherefore, having left the word of the beginning of the Christ, unto the perfection we may advance, not again a foundation laying of reformation from dead works, and of faith on God,

Heb5:12 chastises Hebrew Christians for not getting beyond the elementary principles of the sayings of God. Heb5:13-14 get into the difference between infancy and maturity with the mature having faculties well-exercised to discern both good and bad according to the Word/Message of Righteousness.

But I don't agree with you that Hebrews does not discuss the issues of the elementary principles of the world.

• The "beginning of the Christ" speaks of the new era in Christ in whom we advance to maturity/perfection by His Spirit.
• Hebrews will go on to speak of the New Priesthood, the end of the OC with its fleshly ordinances and tabernacle that was just a parable - an illustration for the reality of Christ. This language of the old earthly system with its fleshly regulations is precisely what Paul talks about in Gal4 that had enslaved and guarded under the elementary principles of the world that are no longer in effect now that the spiritual reality has come in Christ and His Spirit.

Detail looks at the micro and the macro.

 

[GDL]

Well if one were to believe this statement...


Could never come to this conclusion.....

You're back!! Whatever God carries forward, God carries forward. It's obvious in the NC that Lev19:18 and some of the 10 and others were carried forward. Whatever God doesn't carry forward, God doesn't carry forward. This seems simple.

Isaiah 66:21 And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites,” says the Lord.
22 “For as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord,
“So shall your descendants and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord.
24 “And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

We've already dealt with this

The Sabbath is part of God's eternal commandments and continues on for worship and this verse does not say Jesus gives us rest on the Sabbath, it clearly shows His people coming before Him from one Sabbath to another for worship. (something we do for Him, like the commandment tells us to)

Part of the above.

Jesus taught it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath Matthew 12:12
Which means the opposite of saying the Sabbath commandment is not a law written in the heart, when obviously part of the law of God that came in a unit of Ten and in Jesus own's words quoting from the same unit of Ten condemning those for not obeying over peoples own self-laws Matthew 15:3-9

Actually, the entire Mosaic Law was a unit and the 10C as a unit in itself that is all carried forward is speculation.

And using this philosophy

We should apply to the chapter before Gal 3.

Whenever someone would like to wring out Gal I may be game to join in. Until then I've posted some bits and pieces to counter generalized statements.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You're back!! Whatever God carries forward, God carries forward. It's obvious in the NC that Lev19:18 and some of the 10 and others were carried forward. Whatever God doesn't carry forward, God doesn't carry forward. This seems simple.

We've already dealt with this

Part of the above.

Actually, the entire Mosaic Law was a unit and the 10C as a unit in itself that is all carried forward is speculation.

Whenever someone would like to wring out Gal I may be game to join in. Until then I've posted some bits and pieces to counter generalized statements.

Do you believe that Jesus is our example to follow? 1 John 2:6 1 Peter 2:22 Hebrews 4:15 That He did not just die to save man from sin or that we can be free to sin, but lived so we would know the example of how someone in Christ lives, the same example the disciples followed and were commissioned by Jesus to continue, not something not instructed in scripture. Jesus came to do the will of the Father John 6:38, did not come to destroy the law Matthew 5:17-30 but to magnify Isaiah 42:21 and never once taught we should not keep the Sabbath that He said was made for man and the holy day of the Lord thy God, but instead kept all of His Fathers commandments, just as we should.

Anyway, not planning on staying long, just commenting on some obvious contradictions to the scriptures.

 

[GDL]

Not sure why you would post that. Did you bother to look at their examples? Pretty weak argument in respect to the examples they presented. Did you notice they are silent in thinking that Acts 10 is an example of said thought.

I'm going to break this post apart to make things simpler to respond to.

I posted that because it's clearly meaningful to the interpreter having a choice between opposite or comparison. I don't see comparison as weak at all. I see what the LN Lexicon identified re: Acts10 that the NET Bible translators noted, and I posted for you. The 2 words are difficult to distinguish as completely distinct or separate.