The Sabbath day was made for man, not man for the Sabbath

[RandyK]

I believe Mosaic law is a guidance of healthy and godly living, especially the ceremonial laws in Leviticus. Observance gives you certian benefits, but it's not a salvation issue.

The Law of Moses was never a "Salvation" issue in terms of obtaining Eternal Life. It certainly involved political salvation for the nation from enemy attacks. But it was never intended to bring Salvation to Israel prior to the Messiah coming.

On the contrary, the Law was designed to reinforce the truth from Eden that Man's sin prevents him from eating from the Tree of Life. That curse can only be lifted with the defeat of the Serpent, who condemns us.

But I don't see the giving of the Law as a "health matter" at all. Rather, it was a means to bringing accountability to Israel in a way that God designed, so that Israel remained separate from pagan practices nearby.

The Law made Israel connected to God through covenant and thus holy, just as God is holy. Their obedience and behavior expressing God's likeness put them in good favor with God, and their nation was blessed for doing that.

Certainly some elements of the Law were hygienic, but that was not the primary concern. Spiritual health, or relationship with God, was the primary concern.

No, that freedom is the freedom from the bondage of SIN, not law.

Sorry, but Jesus said that the laws of the Pharisees were "burdens." In the same way, Paul saw the continued requirement of outdated laws as burdens or a bondage.

So Christian freedom is a "Law of Liberty," as James said. It is liberty both from unnecessary laws that were to govern a purity we already have. We are liberated both from the Law of Moses and from sin by adhering to Christ.

Law is not sin, but a reflection of sin. Like without diagnosis you don't know the disease, without law you don't know sin, and without knowing sin there'd be no need for Christ, for Christ died for our sin.

You seem to be conflating a generic concept of "law" with the Mosaic Law. The Law was indeed given to make Israel aware of what they should not do, as well as what they should do. They knew what sin was by what God commanded them to do.

But mankind knew what sin was before the Law of Moses, indeed from the very beginning. Law existed in its generic sense from the creation when God made mankind to be "like Him." They would, of course, have to know what being "like God" means.

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”" (Rom. 7:7)

Yes, the Law of Moses was useful in its time. And it can still instruct us, as long as we know it was fulfilled in Christ.

 

[RandyK]

If this has "expired", then how about Rom. 1:18-32? Why does God still exhibit his wrath of unrighteousness after the death and resurrection of Christ?

Rom 1.18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

There are laws in common with both Old and New Covenants. Moral Law is in both Covenants. From the creation of Man God put a conscience in us so that we would know right from wrong, what living in God's image is like. Adam and Eve knew they should obey God. Eve knew she was transgressing God's Law when she decided to listen to the Serpent.

So Moral Law always exists for Man. We are always to live in God's image, after His likeness. That will never change.

The Covenant of Mosaic Law, however, was intended to change. It's truth will never change, representing Man's need to conform to God's Law through Christ. But as a Covenant, the Law was destined to result in the Law of Christ, a New Covenant.

The Law was intended to bring about Israel's Salvation by completing the process of purification of Israel. And it was understood that the Law could not complete that process because it always had to be repeated, as long as sin remained not completely atoned for. Only Christ completed the process of Israel's purification, rendering inapplicable the Law of Moses.

Why would God give up on his own children who were saved through the blood of Christ?

What makes you think I think God gives up on His own children? I don't believe that.

Keep in mind that this is not for pagans who don't know God, this letter was written for the Romans church. Seems to me a simplified version of Deut. 28 curses. And unless you're living under a rock, we're living in the midst of these curses, in the judgement of God on the entire western civilization.

I'm living on the same "rock" you are--on the earth. I'm well aware of the Woke ways of men, and am politically active against any Woke political party.

Judgment does hang over former Christendom. However, God is more patient than we are, and clearly has more for the Church to do before Armageddon.

Of course it's just "temporary", but God will judge each one of us accoding to what we've done and what we've left undone in this "temporal covenant", our works be tested, our rewards be determined, 1 Cor. 3:14-15. What is temporal is a sneak peek of what is eternal. Again, it's not a salvation issue, but a blessing issue.

I agree, but for me our works are not based on obedience to the Law of Moses, but rather, our obedience to the Law of Christ, or the New Commandments of Christ.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The account of the quail appearing just before the formal giving of a Law that includes Sabbath, means that they are connected. Sabbath was made a law immediately before the formal giving of the Law which, in my view, connects them.

In my view Sabbath was a pre-existing practice. Some numbskulls were unteachable, they went out to gather manna despite being instructed not to (Ex. 16:27). As a logical response, Sabbath was made into law to regulate their behavior. Should they have listened, this Sabbath "law" wouldn't have been necessary.

This is very confusing to me. I have accepted the difference between the era of Mosaic Law and the era of Christian Grace. And I call Sabbath Law a "law" not being concerned about what era I'm in, but only to describe what it was in the era of Mosaic Law.

Those who practice Sabbath Law as a law today are observing a strictly human law, and not a Divine law, in my view. If I take a day off, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Sabbath Law.

If Sabbath "law" is in the past, why are you still bothered by it? I don't take Saturday off as a "law" either, what are we arguing about? Nobody forces you to "practice" it as a law, you do whatever you want, meanwhile you have no right to target those who do "practice" it as a law.

It is just the product of Labor laws which for many has nothing to do with Sabbath Law. For many others, who were Christians, they saw Sabbath Law more in the sense of a Christianized version of taking Sunday off to go to church.

Even if they said they were "observing Sabbath" they knew it was a Christianized version, and not the original command to observe the Jewish Sabbath Day. Otherwise, they would've wanted Saturday off, like SDAs.

I think it has everything to do. Jews gather on Saturday, Christians on Sunday, as a compromise and the advancement of productivity, both days are off, therefore the only "law" I see in regard of Sabbath is civil labor law, not Mosaic law. You think it's not revelant, I think it is, because, once again, God's word is living and active. If there's no modern equivalent, then the bible would be antiquated and obsolete, there's no reason to waste your time reading, studying, and discussing.

Yes, I deny the NT doctrine of Grace is "antinomianism." Paul himself denied such.

What Jesus said to Jews during his earthly ministry involved commandments that ceased to apply as such after the Cross. After his death and resurrection he gave us "New Commandments" that were separate from the Law, and yet containing the Morality of the Law. This is NT Theology 101.

Paul didn't, you did. If the Lord's own words "ceased to apply", then you're essentially calling him a liar.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

But I don't see the giving of the Law as a "health matter" at all. Rather, it was a means to bringing accountability to Israel in a way that God designed, so that Israel remained separate from pagan practices nearby.

The Law made Israel connected to God through covenant and thus holy, just as God is holy. Their obedience and behavior expressing God's likeness put them in good favor with God, and their nation was blessed for doing that.

Certainly some elements of the Law were hygienic, but that was not the primary concern. Spiritual health, or relationship with God, was the primary concern.

This is a false dilemma, the most common logical fallacy. Why must the law be made for either health benefit or sanctification? Why can't be both? The bible has infinite depth, everytime you read the same passage with a new insight, a new discovery will pop out which you never knew before, human understanding of the bible evolves over time while the bible itself never changes. I don't know about you, man, for me it is these indisputable scientific evidence that convinced me of the necessity for a Creator God, which then brought me to him throught Jesus, then I started to read the bible.

Sorry, but Jesus said that the laws of the Pharisees were "burdens." In the same way, Paul saw the continued requirement of outdated laws as burdens or a bondage.

So Christian freedom is a "Law of Liberty," as James said. It is liberty both from unnecessary laws that were to govern a purity we already have. We are liberated both from the Law of Moses and from sin by adhering to Christ.

It is only a burden for those who still live in sin despite their self-identification as Christians who are supposedly living in "Christian freedom", their sins are reflected in mirrow of law. Freedom is not lawlessness, Paul specifically warned about the "hypergrace" heresy.

You seem to be conflating a generic concept of "law" with the Mosaic Law. The Law was indeed given to make Israel aware of what they should not do, as well as what they should do. They knew what sin was by what God commanded them to do.

But mankind knew what sin was before the Law of Moses, indeed from the very beginning. Law existed in its generic sense from the creation when God made mankind to be "like Him." They would, of course, have to know what being "like God" means.

I'm pretty sure Paul was referring to Mosaic law, what other law do you think he had in mind? Roman law? Yes, of course mankind knew sin before the law, that's why "for there is no partiality with God; for as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law" (Rom. 2:11-12), the result is the same, for the wages of sin is death.

What makes you think I think God gives up on His own children? I don't believe that.

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions," Rom. 1:26. In the prodigal son parable, God surely gave up the younger son to his own passions, he didn't go retrieve him as he did with the lost sheep and the lost coin, did he?

I'm living on the same "rock" you are--on the earth. I'm well aware of the Woke ways of men, and am politically active against any Woke political party.

Judgment does hang over former Christendom. However, God is more patient than we are, and clearly has more for the Church to do before Armageddon.

Then Deut. 28 is clearly not obsolete, or why is the "christendom" under God's judgement? Take 28:43-44 for instance, "The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower; he shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail." Gee, I wonder why there're these millions of illegal aliens crossing the border, and favorable policies are made for them, jobs and wellfares granted to them over local citizens, this must be a coincidence, right?

I agree, but for me our works are not based on obedience to the Law of Moses, but rather, our obedience to the Law of Christ, or the New Commandments of Christ.

And that's the difference in mentality I'm talking about. Slaves work for their master, free men work for God.

 

[Humblepie]

bondage to the Law of Moses,

The law wasn't the bondage, keeping it for salvation was the bondage.

You misread what Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount.

You are kidding right?


Did you stop thinking at THINK NOT!



Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till



all.


be



fulfilled.


( the lion has not returned yet)
(Earth is still here)
(Heaven is still up there)




19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[JLB]

Lol,
The Messiah came, but the lion has not, it has not been fulfilled yet.

Therefore the law remains.

Ok. So you believe Jesus lied and failed at fulfilling the law.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17

I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

I believe Jesus fulfilled the law according to His design.

• It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come

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.
Galatians 3:19


The Seed has come; the Passover Lamb has been manifested and has fulfilled that shadow and type that every aspect of the law pointed to.


So, the required for the law of Moses to be taken out of the way has been fulfilled to make way for the New Covenant.

• not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt

“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jeremiah 31:31-32


Now the middle wall of separation has been removed between Jew and Gentile and the way has been made for the one new man in Christ.


For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, Ephesians 2:14-15


having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, Colossians 2:14-16

 

[Humblepie]

Ok. So you believe Jesus lied and failed at fulfilling the law

That's what you would like me to believe to justify your point.

Greek word for fulfill pleroo

In Matthew 5:17, Yeshua said He came to fulfill the law, to PLEROO the Law of God. The Greek word PLEROO means to fully preach. This means that Yeshua said He came to FULLY PREACH the Law of God. We submit that if Yeshua FULLY PREACHED the Law of God, then perhaps we should listen to what our Messiah preached.


I have already been over this.



#1: he said he didn't come to abolish the Law

#2: he said he came to fully preach the law.

You claim that in the same sentence Jesus states he didn't come to abolish the Law, but to destroy the law.
That just doesn't make any sense.
You are literally adding to what he said. That brings me back to this.

The only part you do and believe is the THINK NOT.......

 

[JLB]

That's what you would like me to believe to justify your point.

Greek word for fulfill pleroo

In Matthew 5:17, Yeshua said He came to fulfill the law, to PLEROO the Law of God. The Greek word PLEROO means to fully preach. This means that Yeshua said He came to FULLY PREACH the Law of God. We submit that if Yeshua FULLY PREACHED the Law of God, then perhaps we should listen to what our Messiah preached.


I have already been over this.



#1: he said he didn't come to abolish the Law

#2: he said he came to fully preach the law.

You claim that in the same sentence Jesus states he didn't come to abolish the Law, but to destroy the law.
That just doesn't make any sense.
You are literally adding to what he said. That brings me back to this.

The only part you do and believe is the THINK NOT.......

Jesus said He came to fulfill the law.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17

You say He didn’t fulfill the law.

I believe Jesus because He is the truth.


Paul said the law was added UNTIL the Seed should come.


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. Galatians 3:19

Jesus the Seed, the promised Messiah has come so now the law has been taken out of the way, nailed to the cross and thus given way to the New Covenant, which is not like the law of Moses.


If you choose to deny Jesus fulfilled the law then that is your choice.


JLB

 

[RandyK]

The law wasn't the bondage, keeping it for salvation was the bondage.

Bondage, being bound, being enslaved to is used in several ways. For example, Paul speaks of being in "bondage" to the decay of this natural world.

But I'm speaking of a different kind of "bondage" Paul spoke of with respect to the Law. Paul viewed it as a commitment to the covenant of Law, like being bound to a promise or vow.

Rom 7.Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

A marriage vow does not have to be a negative thing. But Paul considered being bound to a Law that proved our sinfulness a negative thing.

Christ released us from this "negative testimony," or "bondage," so that we are no longer stuck in limbo, awaiting a means of obtaining Eternal Life. That's what I'm referring to.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus required that the righteousness of the Law be completely fulfilled in Israel. God was not interested in half a nation being faithful, but required an entire nation devoted to His Law.

He was not interested in obedience to a Law being rationalized away, but in real, substantial righteousness. At that time, righteousness was defined by standards of the Law of Moses. But Christ was presenting himself as the final form of Israel's righteousness, to which every jot and tittle of the Law pointed.

What did Jesus expect at the time, knowing Israel was about to reject him and would not fulfill his brand of righteousness? He expected them to fail, as a nation, under the Covenant of the Law.

But he would not relinquish the need for a full and true righteousness to be established in Israel. Heaven and earth would not pass away before this happens.

Jesus viewed the existence of the universe as proof that God's word is true, and that at some point national Israel would be returned to righteousness, and not to a half-baked righteousness such as the Pharisees exhibited.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
( the lion has not returned yet)
(Earth is still here)
(Heaven is still up there)

What did Jesus mean by his reference to the "jots and tittles" of the Law? He referred to the "dance" people do in trying to get around the real meaning of the Law--an effort to avoid real obedience to God.

Jesus said that no such "jockeying" would ever be tolerated, and that righteousness would have to eventually come to Israel before they would experience National Salvation.

It seemed like a fruitless exercise because the very testimony of the Law was that Israel would always sin and thus incur the same judgment as Adam incurred when he was barred from the Tree of Life.

And yet Jesus indicated that Israel must be saved as a nation in order to fulfill God's Word. The universe could not pass away before this event took place!

Jesus is not here detailing how Israel's righteousness would be fulfilled, or when it would be fulfilled. He was only guaranteeing that it would be fulfilled, in true righteousness and for the entire nation. And he would be the key to its fulfillment.

You try to read into this a promise by Jesus that the Old Covenant would stand forever. On the contary, the "jots and tittles" of the Law, if they are interpreted properly, indicated that righteousness would come by Christ after a long time of failure by Israel.

Jesus was only speaking, at that time, of the system Israel was presently under. But we now know that the righteousness that would restore Israel would come after Israel's failure under that Covenant system. It must come only by a New Covenant established by Jesus in his death and resurrection.

 

[RandyK]

This is a false dilemma, the most common logical fallacy. Why must the law be made for either health benefit or sanctification? Why can't be both?

This is not a "logical fallacy." This is an either-or proposition. The Law was either a legal agreement or it was something else, such as dietary recommendations for good health and a good life.

So the point isn't how much health benefits you have from this list of recommended eating. Rather, it has to do with what God required to keep Israel in conformity with His likeness.

At that time, certain foods may have been more healthy, but that was not the point. Foods banned under that system God had already declared were created for food.

 

[follower]

You see Gentiles joining with Jews.
I see Jews, joining with Gentiles !
Starting at the house of Cornelius.

There is more error than fact, more false than true, in the thread / forum.

Rather than joining the wicked, they are enjoined to "come out of her (babylon) (repent) " to join the believers following Jesus.
More choose still to join the wicked, to follow (serve) the enemy, and they are not saved thereby.

 

[Hopeful 2]

There is more error than fact, more false than true, in the thread / forum.

That is, more than likely, true.

Rather than joining the wicked, they are enjoined to "come out of her (babylon) (repent) " to join the believers following Jesus.
More choose still to join the wicked, to follow (serve) the enemy, and they are not saved thereby.

Are you "dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world" ? (Col 2:20)

 

[Humblepie]

so now the law has been taken out of the way, nailed to the cross

That's not how the scripture is written.
It's how you interpret it.

 

[JLB]

That's not how the scripture is written.
It's how you interpret it.

It’s exactly how the scripture is written.

Word for word exactly what the scriptures teach and exactly what you deny.

• having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us.
• He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Colossians 2:13-14


IT = The law of Moses.


By saying the handwriting of requirements that was against us, Paul is directly quoting Moses.

 

[Humblepie]

That's not how the scripture is written.

It’s exactly how the scripture is written.

so now the law has been taken out of the way, nailed to the cross

This is exactly as its written
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

IT = The law of Moses.

It= oral law written by men, Not the law written by God.

We can do this all day, why don't you dig deeper to find out what he is really saying.

Jesus came and eliminated the traditions of men. The written law of ordinances, that men wrote, not God.

Do you even read what Jesus was actually against?
Here let me point out one instance for an example.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, ((((((((((((teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.))))))))))))))

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.




This would be the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, nailed to the tree.

 

[JLB]

It= oral law written by men, Not the law written by God.

This is blatant denial of what is plainly written in the scripture.

Handwriting is not oral.

You are grasping at straws.

• having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us.
• He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Colossians 2:13-14


IT = The law of Moses.


By saying the handwriting of requirements that was against us, Paul is directly quoting Moses.


Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you; Deuteronomy 31:26

• having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is not a "logical fallacy." This is an either-or proposition. The Law was either a legal agreement or it was something else, such as dietary recommendations for good health and a good life.

So the point isn't how much health benefits you have from this list of recommended eating. Rather, it has to do with what God required to keep Israel in conformity with His likeness.

At that time, certain foods may have been more healthy, but that was not the point. Foods banned under that system God had already declared were created for food.

No it's not. You're just too blind to read God's word from any other perspective. Your mind's closed. Suppose one day you talk to somebody who's biblically illiterate, doesn't know a thing about any Mosaic laws or Jewish costumes, how do you communicate with them? Believe it or not, if I know they're health-conscious, and I tell them about kosher diet and the potential health benefits, I have a good chance to pique their interest; meanwhile, if you just dump all your religious stuffs on them and declare that you can eat whatever you want including sugar-laden junk food, then they'll probably feign interest and laugh you off, they'll just see you as nothing more than an "intuitive eating" guru with a Christian label.

 

[RandyK]

No it's not. You're just too blind to read God's word from any other perspective. Your mind's closed.

Can you argue without the negative commentary?

Suppose one day you talk to somebody who's biblically illiterate, doesn't know a thing about any Mosaic laws or Jewish costumes, how do you communicate with them? Believe it or not, if I know they're health-conscious, and I tell them about kosher diet and the potential health benefits, I have a good chance to pique their interest; meanwhile, if you just dump all your religious stuffs on them and declare that you can eat whatever you want including sugar-laden junk food, then they'll probably feign interest and laugh you off, they'll just see you as nothing more than an "intuitive eating" guru with a Christian label.

I see nothing wrong with that? If I'm interested in treating a theological subject why am I giving others health advice?

A person may indeed speak of health foods and lead into a discussion of the Law. But in reality, it may turn them off. Saying pork is bad is not a "winner." ;)

Neither is there anything wrong with sugar. God made it. It would be good advice to recommend not eating foods drowning in syrup, but the point of theology is to save souls--not just to give them health advice.

It's clear to me that the Dietary Laws of the Law of Moses were not designed with health in mind. As I said before, God had earlier proclaimed all foods good--they just need to be cooked.

So the idea involved using images that depict the difference between good and evil, showing how evil should be avoided like avoiding toxic grapes. Nature teaches us that food that may be good for birds is poisonous for human beings.

We need to discriminate between good food and poison food, and in the same way discriminate between good practices and evil practices. That was the lesson of the Law of Moses. It used symbols, and not rules of dietary health.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Can you argue without the negative commentary?

That's rather an objective observation than a "negative commentary", since you can't perceive the Sabbath as anything else other than a "mosaic law".

I see nothing wrong with that? If I'm interested in treating a theological subject why am I giving others health advice?

Because your listener is not interested in any theological subject, but might be in health advice. In such a given circumstance, you speak what your listener is interested in, not what you yourself is.

 

[eddif]

Psalm 23:4 kjv
4. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Positive and negatives direct our lives. We have to know which voice is speaking.

Theology requires knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and Agape love.

Mississippi redneck
eddif