Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
J
Jay T
Guest
Atonement said:
Did you forget what the definition of what a sinner is ?
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
IF a person breaks the 7th day sabbath ....they are a sinner...period !
(4th commandment)
Anyone who steals is a sinner. (8th commandment)
Anyone who commits adutery is a sinner. (7th commandment)
Jesus Christ said HE kept all the commandments of God (John 15:10).
The NEW COVENANT has the same laws, as the OLD COVENANT
God has not changed them, because there is NOTHING wrong with them.....and, HE SAID SO !
Atonement
Member
Exd 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Jesus worked on the Sabbath. I already proved that by Scripture. I really don't wanna have to prove my point twice, when I quoted the Scripture already, look above at the Scripture quoted. It's in blue
Exd 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Did not Jesus go out to the field and pluck the ears of corn on the Sabbath? I already proved this also in Scripture quoted above. It's in blue
Is that contrary to this verse?
Exd 16:25 And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field.
And do not forget the story of the man who picked sticks and was brought to Moses and Aaron who was stoned to death for picking sticks on the Sabbath! Jesus plucked the ears of corn on the sabbath. Refer to the Scripture quoted above in blue for reference made by me. But here is that story found in Numbers..
Num 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
Num 15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation
Num 15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
Num 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
Num 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Jesus was making a statement by working in the field and by healing on the sabbath. I have provided Scriptures, And they are within context. So I really don't give a 2nd thought on your belief or how you feel about this subject. Any Bible student that truly reads the Word of God will know that Jesus was making a New Covenant with mankind. After all the New Testament is the New Covenant. Testament means Covenant does it not?? It only makes sense to the Bible student who truly applies the Scripture in context. But go ahead, have your say. Prove to me that Jesus did not work in the field, prove that Jesus did not heal on the sabbath? Because if you knew the Old Mosiac Laws, you would know or at least understand that plucking ears of corn in the field on the sabbath would have had you killed for this. And this is why the Pharisees were trying to slay Jesus, as I also quoted with Scripture above in blue. This is basic Bible elementary stuff. Come on guys!!
Jesus worked on the Sabbath. I already proved that by Scripture. I really don't wanna have to prove my point twice, when I quoted the Scripture already, look above at the Scripture quoted. It's in blue
Exd 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Did not Jesus go out to the field and pluck the ears of corn on the Sabbath? I already proved this also in Scripture quoted above. It's in blue
Is that contrary to this verse?
Exd 16:25 And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field.
And do not forget the story of the man who picked sticks and was brought to Moses and Aaron who was stoned to death for picking sticks on the Sabbath! Jesus plucked the ears of corn on the sabbath. Refer to the Scripture quoted above in blue for reference made by me. But here is that story found in Numbers..
Num 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
Num 15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation
Num 15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
Num 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
Num 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Jesus was making a statement by working in the field and by healing on the sabbath. I have provided Scriptures, And they are within context. So I really don't give a 2nd thought on your belief or how you feel about this subject. Any Bible student that truly reads the Word of God will know that Jesus was making a New Covenant with mankind. After all the New Testament is the New Covenant. Testament means Covenant does it not?? It only makes sense to the Bible student who truly applies the Scripture in context. But go ahead, have your say. Prove to me that Jesus did not work in the field, prove that Jesus did not heal on the sabbath? Because if you knew the Old Mosiac Laws, you would know or at least understand that plucking ears of corn in the field on the sabbath would have had you killed for this. And this is why the Pharisees were trying to slay Jesus, as I also quoted with Scripture above in blue. This is basic Bible elementary stuff. Come on guys!!
stovebolts
Member
Atonement said:
Luke 6:3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read even this, what David did, when he was hungry, he, and they that were with him;
Clearly, the teachers of the law had misapplied the law…
Unfortunately, when you respond in such an arrogant manner, it makes it difficult to do any type of serious study. (This is the bible study forum right?). Additionally, you, as a moderator have the authority to issue warnings and warning may lead to site removal. At the minimum, when you completely disagree, you have the ability to delete an entire study. Why would I spend the time to rebuttal you when it could all disappear in a flash?
Thus, I will have to pass on your offer.
Regards.
P.S. Could you please put your shirt on? You wouldn't go into a supermarket like that would you?
I am quite surprised that some believe that the Pharisees were right about Yeshua breaking the Sabbath law. If that got you killed in the OT, then the NT hasn't been established and finalized until the cross. So the Pharisees were actually justified in their actions and were doing the work of God trying to kill Yeshua. Huh, who would have thunk it. Or it could be that Yeshua never broke the Sabbath law and kept it just as God intended it to be kept and not as religious men intended it to be kept and the Pharisees were WRONG.
At least I have hope in my Salvation, my Yeshua went to the cross without sin, not even the sin of breaking the sabbath. My perfect lamb of God without blemish.
At least I have hope in my Salvation, my Yeshua went to the cross without sin, not even the sin of breaking the sabbath. My perfect lamb of God without blemish.
Atonement
Member
StoveBolts,
You are right I completely disagree with you and JAY T.. There is nothing for you to rebuttal, debate or argue with. Read the Word of God in context. It's black and white. The BASIC Bible teachings on the sabbath, is very simple. Jesus came to make a new covenant with mankind. Jesus being our Lord and Saviour was showing that God made the sabbath for the man, and not man for the sabbath.
You are right I completely disagree with you and JAY T.. There is nothing for you to rebuttal, debate or argue with. Read the Word of God in context. It's black and white. The BASIC Bible teachings on the sabbath, is very simple. Jesus came to make a new covenant with mankind. Jesus being our Lord and Saviour was showing that God made the sabbath for the man, and not man for the sabbath.
Atonement said:
Since its black and white:
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
Can you explain how Yeshua has fulfilled the Sabbath law by breaking it?
By your reasoning, Can I fulfill the TOS of this website by breaking them? If not, why not?
Or was Yeshua a liar when He said He was going to fulfill the law, yet broke the Sabbath law? If not, why not?
When did the new covenant start according to you? Before He fulfilled the law or after?
That will help me understand where you are coming from. Thank you.
stovebolts
Member
Atone,
Then we are in agreement that your bible is black and white, while mine has little red bits here and there scattered about the NT. To that, I will agree.
But let it be known to all other readers of this thread that I do not agree with JayT's perspective on the Sabbath within the context of the new covenant.
What I disagree on, is a particular statement that was made in regard that Christ was a sinner. Simply put, if Christ had broken the mosaic law as it was given to Moses, it would not have been a mere "Statement" on Christ's part, but rather, he would have committed a sin (since the law convicts) in the eye of YHWH's since
1. YHWH was the giver of the law when the conditional covenant with Israel was established.
2. The "New Covenant" (which is also conditional) had not yet been established as Christ had not yet shed his blood as the Atonement for sin on the cross.
Can anyone guess what OT and NT versed I would use to back my statements?
Regards, and have a fantastic weekend
Then we are in agreement that your bible is black and white, while mine has little red bits here and there scattered about the NT. To that, I will agree.
But let it be known to all other readers of this thread that I do not agree with JayT's perspective on the Sabbath within the context of the new covenant.
What I disagree on, is a particular statement that was made in regard that Christ was a sinner. Simply put, if Christ had broken the mosaic law as it was given to Moses, it would not have been a mere "Statement" on Christ's part, but rather, he would have committed a sin (since the law convicts) in the eye of YHWH's since
1. YHWH was the giver of the law when the conditional covenant with Israel was established.
2. The "New Covenant" (which is also conditional) had not yet been established as Christ had not yet shed his blood as the Atonement for sin on the cross.
Can anyone guess what OT and NT versed I would use to back my statements?
Regards, and have a fantastic weekend
Atonement
Member
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
One of my favorite verses. Jesus did fulfill the law and brought two new ones with Him during His ministry. You can not refute first, the Scriptures I have already quoted. So untill you can tell me Why Jesus was working in the field plucking corn on the sabbath, or why he healed on the Sabbath, this topic is really dead in the water, I think we can agree to that. Answer the Scriptures I quoted first and tell me how Jesus did these things, and by what authority, then I will answer your Scripture, if you do not 1st answer your question by answering mine.
One of my favorite verses. Jesus did fulfill the law and brought two new ones with Him during His ministry. You can not refute first, the Scriptures I have already quoted. So untill you can tell me Why Jesus was working in the field plucking corn on the sabbath, or why he healed on the Sabbath, this topic is really dead in the water, I think we can agree to that. Answer the Scriptures I quoted first and tell me how Jesus did these things, and by what authority, then I will answer your Scripture, if you do not 1st answer your question by answering mine.
Fair enough Atonement. I will deal with the scriptures you have presented first.
So equating a “reckless stick gatherer†to “doer of God’s work†in the same sentence of “breaking the Sabbath†law is not one and the same.
One was doing “lawfully allowed works†on the Sabbath, the other “unlawful†works on the Sabbath.
Let me show you the implications of your belief,
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
You are reveling in the comfort zone of it was only the Sabbath law that Yeshua broke. But to break you the truth, if Yeshua broke one law He was guilty of all. And this makes His sacrifice on the cross of no effect because He was guilty of breaking all of the law. If His sacrifice was sinful, what is the hope for our salvation?
Now, care to address my questions since I at least cared to attempt yours?
Yeshua was accused of “working†on the Sabbath. How did Yeshua refute them? He did that by trying to prove there was “lawful work†that can be done on the Sabbath without breaking it and there was also “unlawful work†that deserves punishment because it was breaking of the Sabbath. What Yeshua and the disciples did were “lawful works†that did not break the Sabbath, whereas the religious leaders considered ANY work to be breaking the Sabbath just like you are above.
Even though they found him gathering sticks they did not put him to death. What were they waiting on? They were waiting on a “declaration†that his “work†was indeed “unlawful†and was breaking the Sabbath. The LORD said unto Moses to put the stick gatherer to death. Moses, didn’t come to this conclusion himself based on the Sabbath. Who knows what our God considered before He passed that judgment? Can’t this man have been reckless the day before and been lazy on the sixth day and decided to gather sticks on the Sabbath willfully defying and showing carelessness towards the law? Who is going to vouch for the righteousness of the man and if his heart was pure for God to have told Moses to go ahead with the punishment?
So equating a “reckless stick gatherer†to “doer of God’s work†in the same sentence of “breaking the Sabbath†law is not one and the same.
One was doing “lawfully allowed works†on the Sabbath, the other “unlawful†works on the Sabbath.
I agree. But I don’t agree He was making the same statement that you think He was making.
Let me show you the implications of your belief,
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
You are reveling in the comfort zone of it was only the Sabbath law that Yeshua broke. But to break you the truth, if Yeshua broke one law He was guilty of all. And this makes His sacrifice on the cross of no effect because He was guilty of breaking all of the law. If His sacrifice was sinful, what is the hope for our salvation?
Now, care to address my questions since I at least cared to attempt yours?
Atonement
Member
1st off I never said that Jesus broke the sabbath. I stated that Jesus worked and healed on the sabbath. And to the Jews it was punishable by death. Don't twist what I'm trying to say here. Jesus never sinned. But to men Jesus was commiting a sin punishable by death. I think we agree, but somehow, somewhere you think I'm saying that Jesus broke the Law? My point is that the Jews and religious people are the ones that were trying to condmen Jesus of breaking the Laws. In the NT Jesus stated that he came to fulfill the law, now what is the law? Of course the 10 commandments. But until Jesus' time men distorted that law. As I said Jesus was making a point that the sabbath was for men and not men for the sabbath. I think we agree, so in order to stop any further confusion on this topic or throw pebbles in the water. I'm humbly apologize for any misunderstanding on my part, and what I was trying to say; because I do not believe that Jesus was breaking the sabbath. Religious men thought Jesus was breaking the sabbath. Not me. I know He did not break the law.
My bad Atonement. I think I read the contrary into your post and thought that you believed Yeshua broke the law. For that I apologize. I better scoot out of here before George whips me about hi-jacking the threadAtonement said:
Sorry Georgy, last post on this thread off-topic. I plomise.
J
Jay T
Guest
One problem here.Atonement said:
The 7th day sabbath is NOT....in the Mosaic Law.
Moses, wrote the Mosaic law....in a book.
Christ (God) wrote the 4th commandment (7th day sabbath), found among the other 9 commandments.....which Christ wrote, and NO MAN.
Atonement
Member
Jay T what are the Mosaic Laws?? Are they not the 10 commandments? But except that one though?
The Laws were given in three categories: Of course I will share them with you
1) ceremonial law
2) civil law
3) moral law
I was asked to answer a Scripture in
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Here is my answer:
Some have suggested that by "fulfil," Jesus meant "abolish." Indeed, "abolish" is one meaning of "fulfil," but it is also the only meaning of "destroy." So if He had meant "abolish," He might as well have said, "I am not come to abolish, but to abolish." We can assume, therefore, that Jesus meant, "to develop the full potentialities of" when He said "fulfil."
Some parts of the Law were meant to be temporary, while others were intended to be permanent. This is seen in the fact that before Moses, the ancient Jews were not bound to the ritual commands (except circumcision). If the Mosaic Law was not meant to be temporary, then either God changes or the God of the righteous men and women before Moses was a different god. But this is absurd. We know that the God of Abraham was the God of Moses, and that He is our God today. The coming of Christ made parts of the Mosaic law unnecessary.
In order to understand this, we must realize that the Law is made up of three parts: ceremonial, civil, and moral.
Could you define these three? If not please just let me know. I will not judge you for it. It's not prideful to say that you don't know. I will be happy to share this knowledge with you. But I need to know where you stand on the Mosaic law. And how deep is your knowledge on this subject. So I can present to you the truth.
Georges, if I'm hijacking your thread, please tell me? I would then ask that Jay T and I go to the one on one area and debate this issue? And clean up any hijacking going on here!!
The Laws were given in three categories: Of course I will share them with you
1) ceremonial law
2) civil law
3) moral law
I was asked to answer a Scripture in
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Here is my answer:
Some have suggested that by "fulfil," Jesus meant "abolish." Indeed, "abolish" is one meaning of "fulfil," but it is also the only meaning of "destroy." So if He had meant "abolish," He might as well have said, "I am not come to abolish, but to abolish." We can assume, therefore, that Jesus meant, "to develop the full potentialities of" when He said "fulfil."
Some parts of the Law were meant to be temporary, while others were intended to be permanent. This is seen in the fact that before Moses, the ancient Jews were not bound to the ritual commands (except circumcision). If the Mosaic Law was not meant to be temporary, then either God changes or the God of the righteous men and women before Moses was a different god. But this is absurd. We know that the God of Abraham was the God of Moses, and that He is our God today. The coming of Christ made parts of the Mosaic law unnecessary.
In order to understand this, we must realize that the Law is made up of three parts: ceremonial, civil, and moral.
Could you define these three? If not please just let me know. I will not judge you for it. It's not prideful to say that you don't know. I will be happy to share this knowledge with you. But I need to know where you stand on the Mosaic law. And how deep is your knowledge on this subject. So I can present to you the truth.
Georges, if I'm hijacking your thread, please tell me? I would then ask that Jay T and I go to the one on one area and debate this issue? And clean up any hijacking going on here!!
stovebolts
Member
Just some highlights.
http://christianforums.net/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=30
Atone,
If I am included in your last statement,
Then
Apology accepted.
Please confirm.
Jeff
http://christianforums.net/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=30
Atonement said:
StoveBolts said:
Atonement said:
Atonement said:
Atone,
If I am included in your last statement,
Then
Apology accepted.
Please confirm.
Jeff
stovebolts
Member
Good enough :wink:
Have a good weekend brother :D
Have a good weekend brother :D
G
Georges
Guest
Atonement said:
nah...I was kinda pokin fun....at all who think I exclusively hijack threads.
J
Jay T
Guest
It is the cunning of Satan that the death of Christ brought in grace to take the place of the law.
The death of Jesus did not change or annul or lessen in the slightest degree the law of Ten Commandments. That precious grace offered to men through a Saviour's blood establishes the law of God.
Since the fall of man, God's moral government and His grace are inseparable. They go hand in hand through all dispensations. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other" (Psalm 85:10).
Jesus, our Substitute, consented to bear for man the penalty of the law transgressed.
He clothed His divinity with humanity and thus became the Son of man, a Saviour and Redeemer. The very fact of the death of God's dear Son to redeem man shows the immutability of the divine law.
How easily, from the transgressor's standpoint, could God have abolished His law, thus providing a way whereby men could be saved and Christ remain in heaven!
The doctrine which teaches freedom, through grace, to break the law is a fatal delusion.
Every transgressor of God's law is a sinner, and none can be sanctified while living in known sin.
Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.
8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
The death of Jesus did not change or annul or lessen in the slightest degree the law of Ten Commandments. That precious grace offered to men through a Saviour's blood establishes the law of God.
Since the fall of man, God's moral government and His grace are inseparable. They go hand in hand through all dispensations. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other" (Psalm 85:10).
Jesus, our Substitute, consented to bear for man the penalty of the law transgressed.
He clothed His divinity with humanity and thus became the Son of man, a Saviour and Redeemer. The very fact of the death of God's dear Son to redeem man shows the immutability of the divine law.
How easily, from the transgressor's standpoint, could God have abolished His law, thus providing a way whereby men could be saved and Christ remain in heaven!
The doctrine which teaches freedom, through grace, to break the law is a fatal delusion.
Every transgressor of God's law is a sinner, and none can be sanctified while living in known sin.
Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.
8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.