Sabbath Day business

[JLB]

Animal sacrifices, yes since Yeshua fulfilled them

All the law has been fulfilled by Jesus.

All the law was nailed to the cross and abolished in His flesh.
Eph 2:14

Therefore we are not under the law, but under grace.

Of course if you don't believe Jesus was the Lord God, but rather just a man, then I can see why you would still want to keep the law of Moses.

If Jesus isn't the Lord YHWH, the Almighty, then what is He?

Do you believe Jesus is a man or is He God?

looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Titus 2:13

YHWH said He was the Savior and God.

Do you believe Titus 2:13 to be a misprint?


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Its interesting that you validate a person's belief about keeping the law, even while they deny Jesus is Lord YHWH, which is the basic foundational requirement of obeying the Gospel.

I have never seen you say to the law keepers that they are teaching the "damnable works Gospel"

When a law keeper comes into the forums who keeps the law in order to be justified by it I will confront him with the truth. But so far, to my knowledge, only one person, Elijah674, or whatever his screen name was, was the only person who thought you are literally justified by keeping the law of Moses and that's why it's required. jocor does not keep the law in order to be justified. I know that this is the important point about the law that virtually every Protestant is blind to. Even when you point out the actual argument to them, they still can't see it. It's an interesting phenomenon. But it illustrates the incredible power that indoctrinations have over the church.

but if I teach word for word what Paul said in Romans 10:9-10, that we are to confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus.... Then I'm teaching legalism.

It is not required to first keep the law of Moses, nor to literally confess Jesus with your mouth to be declared righteous. That's what the gospel message is all about. Justification is a free gift, not something secured through righteous actions, thoughts, or words.

Your doctrine requires keeping the law of Moses, yet confessing Jesus as Lord is legalism...

I know you don't listen very well, but I'll correct you anyway: My doctrine requires that faith UPHOLD and FULFILL the law of Moses, not keep it literally to the letter as you are suggesting. And certainly not upholding and fulfilling it in order to be justified. You have two different arguments tangled up together.

And the the little voices I'm listening to are not from God ?

You are too preoccupied with your own image in these forums to realize that I was not talking to you. Go back and see for yourself in post #110.

 

[JLB]

How is 'love your neighbor as yourself' before the law of Moses a different law of 'love your neighbor as yourself' written down in the law of Moses such that one is now obsolete and the other is not?

The eternal laws of God, that were kept or broken before the law of Moses was added, and were seen in the law of Moses, continue to this day and are not made obsolete because of the temporary law of Moses being removed from the Covenant to which it was added.

The Covenant Maker attached the law of Moses, to the Covenant that He Himself made with Abraham, because Abraham's descendants began to transgress the Covenant.

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; Galatians 3:19

The law was added, until the Covenant Maker Himself should come and teach mankind the way to God, by becoming the Way.

Through His own blood He purchased us, and destroyed him who had the power of death.

...that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, Heb 2:14


JLB

 

[JLB]

When a law keeper comes into the forums who keeps the law in order to be justified by it I will confront him with the truth. But so far, to my knowledge, only one person, Elijah674, or whatever his screen name was, was the only person who thought you are literally justified by keeping the law of Moses and that's why it's required. jocor does not keep the law in order to be justified. I know that this is the important point about the law that virtually every Protestant is blind to. Even when you point out the actual argument to them, they still can't see it. It's an interesting phenomenon. But it illustrates the incredible power that indoctrinations have over the church.

What's interesting is that you deny the requirement that Paul plainly states in black and white:

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10

Confession is made unto salvation.

That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus...

You call those who teach this as creating a legalistic rule....

But validate a person who believes that it is a requirement of the New Covenant to keep the law of Moses.

Then out of the other side of your mouth, say it's a phenomenon that Protestants can't see the revelation of keeping the law of Moses in the New Testament?

Now that's phenomenal!


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The eternal laws of God, that were kept or broken before the law of Moses was added, and were seen in the law of Moses, continue to this day and are not made obsolete because of the temporary law of Moses being removed from the Covenant to which it was added.

The Covenant Maker attached the law of Moses, to the Covenant that He Himself made with Abraham, because Abraham's descendants began to transgress the Covenant.

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; Galatians 3:19

The law was added, until the Covenant Maker Himself should come and teach mankind the way to God, by becoming the Way.

Through His own blood He purchased us, and destroyed him who had the power of death.

...that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, Heb 2:14


JLB

So then you agree that it was the covenant that was temporary and which has been laid aside as obsolete, not the law of Moses itself which Paul commands us to fulfill.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What's interesting is that you deny the requirement that Paul plainly states in black and white:

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10

Confession is made unto salvation.

That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus...

You call those who teach this as creating a legalistic rule....

But validate a person who believes that it is a requirement of the New Covenant to keep the law of Moses.

Then out of the other side of your mouth, say it's a phenomenon that Protestants can't see the revelation of keeping the law of Moses in the New Testament?

Now that's phenomenal!


JLB

"for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness (justification), and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:10 NASB)

So what is it exactly that you don't get? Are you still trapped in your thinking that 'justification' and 'salvation' are exactly identical terms and you can simply interchange the two because you think they have the exact same definition?

 

[JLB]

My statement needs to be understood in the context that Jesus Martyr made his comment. When he said "delivered from the Law of Moses,"

But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Romans 7:6

Based on the above mentioned scripture, do you believe we are delivered from the law of Moses or another law?


JLB

 

[JLB]

So then you agree that it was the covenant that was temporary and which has been laid aside as obsolete, not the law of Moses itself which Paul commands us to fulfill.

The law of Moses was the law of the covenant of Sinai. It was added, because of transgressions.

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come... Galatians 3:19


JLB

 

[JLB]

"for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness (justification), and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:10 NASB)

So what is it exactly that you don't get? Are you still trapped in your thinking that 'justification' and 'salvation' are exactly identical terms and you can simply interchange the two because you think they have the exact same definition?

I just believe what the scripture says.

If a person does not believe Jesus is YHWH, the Lord God who became flesh, the they will not confess Him as Lord.

Messianic Judaism teaches that Jesus was a man, but not YHWH, The Lord.

There is one Lord of the Old Testament, YHWH. Jesus Christ is YHWH.

This is the message that Paul writes to us.

Here is the way he said it in his letter to Titus; looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ...

That is the message of the Kingdom that Paul presented to the followers of Judaism.

That is the message he was beaten and stoned for; teaching that Jesus Christ is Lord [YHWH].


That is the message Jacor and those who hold to the teachings of Messianic Judaism do not believe.

If a person does not believe Jesus Christ is Lord, then they are an unbeliever.

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;
for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. 2 John 9-11


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Romans 7:6

Based on the above mentioned scripture, do you believe we are delivered from the law of Moses or another law?


JLB

Of course he's talking about the law of Moses. He's explaining how we are delivered from the authority of the law of Moses to arouse sin in us, and to condemn us when it succeeds at doing that. That's what the passage says. It does not say we are delivered from having to fulfilll 'do not murder', 'love your neighbor as yourself', and other laws of the law of Moses. But somehow that's what many in the Protestant Church get out of the passage.

The mistake you're making is that being delivered from the law of Moses means faith has delivered us from having to uphold and fulfill the law of Moses. Paul commanded that we are to do that. So we know that's not what 'delivered from the law' means.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If a person does not believe Jesus is YHWH, the Lord God who became flesh, the they will not confess Him as Lord.

That is not the point we are contending about. The point of contention is you say one has to do that first in order to be born again. I'm confident I've been hearing your argument correctly.

Messianic Judaism teaches that Jesus was a man, but not YHWH, The Lord.

Maybe some sects do, but the vast majority of MJ's that I've chatted with over the years do not believe or teach that.

That is the message Jacor and those who hold to the teachings of Messianic Judaism do not believe.

I do not know what he thinks about that. It doesn't matter in regard to what he thinks about the law. I know for a fact that he does not keep the law in order to be justified by it. That's the only topic I've talked to him about. Whether or not he believes Christ is Yahweh or not does not make his belief about the law wrong.

 

[Sparkey]

SPARROW swoops in to THROW A RED FLAG on the play.

Another words, it's not a sin to eat pork chops.

Jesus has declared that all foods from all nations are pure.

I don't think that he told Jews that they had to eat the 'purity of swine's flesh'. Not ever. Not even once. And if he did? Echoes of that would have been heard to this day. * oy vey ist mir * (!)


Because I think that if He even tried (he didn't) he would have known that they would never listen. Nobody watched as Jesus sat down and ate even so much as a single Pork Rind. And good thing too. Have you ever taken a big pork rind out of a bag and then (pick a BIG one) soaked it in water for about 2 minutes before you ate it? Guaranteed you will NOT pop that hydrated pork rind in your mouth with gusto! Yech!

View attachment 7199

Even after being told to Rise and Eat ---> in vision, no less, Peter refused. "No so, Lord(!)," he said in full truth. It was almost as if he were being instructed to cook his barley cakes with human dung as fuel. (So he had Scriptural precedent too) But that doesn't mean that the vision didn't do what it was designed to do. The Holy Spirit knew they were in for a battle. Peter was being prepared in advance for that one. It took him awhile to figure it all out but we have his testimony to what actually happened preserved in Holy Writ (if we care to look).

Remember too, that the vision to Cornelius the Centurion happened about 37 AD (long after the Ascension) and that the Book of Acts doesn't present an easy to follow chronology.

 

[Sparkey]

And before you reach for your copy of Deuteronomy and try to flop out the law on me, let me tell you, I've been there. Birds get to hop from one place to another, after all.

Here's the Deuteronomy Scripture. Notice that he mentions "The Unclean" and then take note again. He didn't say Jews could eat unclean meats. Nobody said that. I think God was talking about "the unclean" as in a servant or a stranger in the gate; He is saying that the unclean may (has His permission to) eat flesh, which is to say, in this case --> clean flesh like the roe or the hart (field deer).

PERMISSION TO EAT FLESH BECAUSE OUR SOULS LUSTETH TO EAT FLESH​

"If the place which the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, then you may slaughter of your herd and flock which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat within your gates whatever you desire. "Just as a gazelle or a deer is eaten, so you will eat it; the unclean and the clean alike may eat of it. "Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.…​

Citation: Deuteronomy, chapter 12 somewhere around verse 20 or so? <-- also, from some non-copyrighted version. I'm never sure because I grab it real quicklike.

Also, I'm not here trying to say that people are cherry picking Scripture to suite their own purpose. Taking things out of the complete context need to understand them is indeed like being a cherry-picker, though, at least in a way. But I'm just setting the stage (giving opening remarks) prior to making a joke, are you ready? Here it is:

Cherry Picker's Special from the above quoted:
"...and you may eat within your gates whatever you desire..."

He was talking to the physical children of the Promise as blessed and as made to the Woman (Eve, and her seed) and as that PROMISE was traced down, through Abraham and bypassing Esau to Yakov (Jacob, the son of the most mysterious of the founding fathers and Oi vey(!) the Terror o' Yitzhak! through to King David who had come from Ruth, the great-grandmother of David, a man after God's heart. Ruth was a 10th century BC Moabite Princess who married the son of Naomi and Elimelech and was grafted to the family tree because of her devoted friendship to the one who went out bitter (Mara) and came back joyous (Naomi), her mother-in-law (And IN LAW means something different to the Children of Israel). Among all the books of the Torah, the one that is read in its entirety on Shavuot (the Festival and Celebration of Revealing) (in many communities it’s read from a scroll in the synagogue) is a seemingly minor tale of a couple of Moabite widows and their Jewish mother-in-law... Riddle: “Why were Adam and Eve the happiest couple in the history of the world? Answer: Because neither one of them had a mother-in-law.” But Ruth's MIL was a blessing indeed.

And from there (and elsewhere) the PROMISE is traced through to Jesus and now to us... we are children of PROMISE (too). Just having been freshly grafted in the space of a mere couple thousand years or so which is, in one way of thinking, only 2(1 x 1,000 year) 'days' ago... but that's not the point. It's the flow that is the thing. Life flows! It is NOT rigid. And it's not Csikszentmihalyi (sounds like "Chics-Sends-Me-High) flow either. It's better!

So, it's simply not right (while speaking in the context of the LAW ("Oh! The Law," the almost wistful sigh is heard) and while we expect meat to be chewed so sweetly into pablum for us) to say, "It's not a sin," followed by "Jesus declared that all foods... are pure" Because even THAT doesn't mean that we can eat any flesh. If your conscious condemns you and you can not eat in faith and can not eat with thanksgiving? Then for YOU it is sin.

You may now return to your regular programming.
Please pardon the interruption (to your viewing pleasure).
Rant over (probably, although I make no guarantees)​

 

[ezrider]

When a law keeper comes into the forums who keeps the law in order to be justified by it I will confront him with the truth. But so far, to my knowledge, only one person, Elijah674, or whatever his screen name was, was the only person who thought you are literally justified by keeping the law of Moses and that's why it's required. jocor does not keep the law in order to be justified. I know that this is the important point about the law that virtually every Protestant is blind to. Even when you point out the actual argument to them, they still can't see it. It's an interesting phenomenon. But it illustrates the incredible power that indoctrinations have over the church.

It is not required to first keep the law of Moses, nor to literally confess Jesus with your mouth to be declared righteous. That's what the gospel message is all about. Justification is a free gift, not something secured through righteous actions, thoughts, or words.

One thing that really confuses me about your doctrine Jethro, is although you say with your mouth that it is not required the keep the Law of Moses, yet then you spend so much time try to justify why you follow the Law of Moses only you don't do in order to be justified by it. If you don't need to be justified by it, then why do you spend so much time trying to justify your reasons for following it. You make my head spin!



Oh, wait. I missed something there. You added a qualifier to your statement. Yup, you did. It is right there in print before my very eyes.
for you said. "It is not required to FIRST keep the Law of Moses".

Those are some mighty big words I hear you saying there. Care to splain your yourself. For what I hear you saying as it rings crystal clear in my ears. Because if By FIRST, then you certain must know that you then imply the AFTERWARDS then it is required of you to keep the Law of Moses, only you will not be justified by it.

I know you don't listen very well, but I'll correct you anyway: My doctrine requires that faith UPHOLD and FULFILL the law of Moses, not keep it literally to the letter as you are suggesting. And certainly not upholding and fulfilling it in order to be justified. You have two different arguments tangled up together.

No. NO. NO.

Faith DOES NOT uphold and fulfill the Law of Moses.

Faith Fulfills and upholds the Law of Christ.

Did you know Jethro that there are two set of laws, delivered from two different mountains. Why are you always called back to Egypt. Haven't you been called to the mountains of the North?


Okay, enough of that here. No more pearls to be given here.

And if a Sparrow should happen to fly by, then I know that bird shall fly to mountain on which this pearl shall appear.

 

[Sparkey]

Even here and even now we are collectively trying to figure something out.


Question: Who is that 'WE'?
Answer: We, the portion of the body of Christ that join here on CF.net
What are we trying to figure out?

We are trying to come at a collaborative understanding of the Word of Truth. *that one is worth reading a couple of times* I've read it more than 7 times and that number is mounting as I continue counting.

And so now, in the phase known as "Ideation" -- the generation of ideas and concepts... we get to throw things out pretty loosely and don't have to be perfect (even in our presentations) because we each have grace, one for another; we each are here striving to follow that GOLDen rule (Golden implies Divine, to me) -- that we love others as we love ourselves.

When was the last time you heard your inner thoughts *(your YOU)* talking inside and you didn't say something perfectly well? Three seconds ago? That sounds about right. Same here. But did you stop and throw a flag on the play (like I did a moment or two ago? I'm really not trying to be a hypocrit, but yes, I spelled that word incorrectly on porpose, or on dolphin, if you'd rather) Or did you just continue right where you left off and did some mysterious auto-self-forgive there? I'm betting that you have a mechanism in place for self-forgiveness and that we have done it so many times we almost feel authenticated as we take that for granted for ourselves only... I place that bet only because I see that is exactly how I do it and assume that you are like me. But maybe you don't have an auto-forgive or an 'almost-auto-forgive' but certainly it's fair for me to notice that it's easier for me to automatically forgive myself than it is to automatically forgive others. And it's good for ME to remember that God is no respecter of persons. That makes me a better tasting pill for some to swallow, or at least, I think it does.

We are supposed to be very critical (LISTEN to the hypocrit-bird squak) any time we hear something new or different because that's the Nobel Peace Prize thing that the Acts 17:11 Bereans did, right? No. They were more noble (and an example of nobility for us all) because they worked to prove what was being taught. And there is so little risk of that failing, either somebody can or they can not prove what is being said.... so it's easy. We might be able to listen without spinning if we understand what confusion is -- confusion is just what happens when we entertain two opposing ideas without being able to assign priority. Nothing more.

Mr. Bodine *affectionately known as Jethro, is one of those rare birds who have posted here more than me, but to be fair, I've taken a year long rest from CF.net (to which I may soon return). And I haven't quite been able to prove every single word he says yet, so no, I'm not yet eligible for that particular Noble Prize in the category of Inner Thought Translation. All I know is he is a Christian and a deep thinker and that he has more patience than I do for dealing with things that are very confounding sometimes, like our collaborative treatise on the LAW of God and the Spirit of Christ in us.

Sorry, still working on ending the rant... it's a work in progress maybe? Well, we are, in any case. That much is obvious.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

One thing that really confuses me about your doctrine Jethro, is although you say with your mouth that it is not required the keep the Law of Moses, yet then you spend so much time try to justify why you follow the Law of Moses only you don't do in order to be justified by it. If you don't need to be justified by it, then why do you spend so much time trying to justify your reasons for following it. You make my head spin!

Spoken in true Protestant fashion.
I'm going to try to stay in a casual 'Lounge' frame of mind here, so I don't mean anything personally, really (this time, lol). But it's just funny to see over and over this Protestant vein of thinking that grips the church like a vice that can't reconcile works and faith as if they are completely and totally alien and opposing ideas.

I've been a Christian for almost 30 years. I've been reading and studying the Bible virtually that whole time. In these last few years I am utterly amazed at how lost the Protestant church is to some pretty fundamental concepts of Biblical Christianity. If this had become apparent to me years earlier it may have affected my faith. How could so many, many Christians be led astray into the distorted doctrines of grace that rule her like a tyrant?

For someone who loves mysterious, veiled meanings and teachings of God you actually would get full on board if you could see and appreciate how true what I'm saying is, but you seem to be among the thoroughly indoctrinated in the non-Catholic church of today.

I'm not done. Let's chat some more as time permits....

 

[ezrider]

Spoken in true Protestant fashion.
I'm going to try to stay in a casual 'Lounge' frame of mind here, so I don't mean anything personally, really (this time, lol). But it's just funny to see over and over this Protestant vein of thinking that grips the church like a vice that can't reconcile works and faith as if they are completely and totally alien and opposing ideas.

I've been a Christian for almost 30 years. I've been reading and studying the Bible virtually that whole time. In these last few years I am utterly amazed at how lost the Protestant church is to some pretty fundamental concepts of Biblical Christianity. If this had become apparent to me years earlier it may have affected my faith. How could so many, many Christians be led astray into the distorted doctrines of grace that rule her like a tyrant?

For someone who loves mysterious, veiled meanings and teachings of God you actually would get full on board if you could see and appreciate how true what I'm saying is, but you seem to be among the thoroughly indoctrinated in the non-Catholic church of today.

I'm not done. Let's chat some more as time permits....

30 years, that's pretty impressive there Jethro. Why if you can hold on for at least 10 more, you just might see the PROMISED land after all!

I know. It's veiled. But none the less, it is very telling of your doctrine.

 

[Sparkey]

I know. It's veiled. But none the less, it is very telling of your doctrine.

And Jethro, I can testify to the sincerity of the message behind the voice speaking to you. Sincere AND sweet. And a Romantic at Heart too! (Like you)

 

[jocor]

Wow! You guys sure were busy while I was away celebrating Yahweh's blessed Holy Sabbath Day. Upon reading the direction this thread is taking and the absurd arguments being posted, I choose to bow out. Thanks for sticking up for me Jethro in trying to help JLB understand my view of the law. I've been involved in several other law related threads with him, but his steadfastness in his position is, well ... Perhaps I'll rejoin the thread if others join in with new insights.

 

[Tony Hyman]

It is a mistake to read the Sabbath into this verse. Nowhere is the Sabbath mentioned. Nor can we read any of Yahweh's annual sabbaths or feast days into this verse. There were many other "days" that the Jews highly esteemed besides the Sabbath and feasts. For example, most Jews at that time fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12 and Talmudic writings).

Thanks for pointing out the fact the Greek word for alike is not defined in this verse.Yet what other alternative would one suggest, KJV, NIV and NASB all use the word alike.Now the question posed is should a Christian work or make bucks on a Sabbath , God's Holy Day of rest .Robert Haldane agrees with you "It is proper, however, to remark that the Lord's Day ...be included in what is here said, as the Apostle is speaking of those meats and days that were peculiar to the Jewish dispensation..."(An Exposition of Romans 597)

However within the context of this verse others say "In the New Testament the early church continued to hold a special day of worship...The early Christians continued to worship at the Temple or in the synagogue on the sabbath until persecution drove them away.It seems logical that they would move their special day to the day on which they celebrated their Lord's resurrection.the first day (Ac.2 :46-47)...Diverse attitudes about holy days remained (Ro. 14:5-6), but Paul clearly forbid Christians to judge one another on the basis of the day or manner of their worship (Col 2:16-17)."(NIV Disciple's Study Bible 94) Therefore, it remains a matter of conscience for the Christian to choose whether he is respecting the Lord's Rest Day as understood under the New Covenant."I will put my law in their minds..." Jer.31:33