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

[JLB]

Like I said , maybe you can ask God to share some pig with you when you get to heaven.

You can tell him, "I'm saved God, now let's go eat some bacon God.

You post is extremely rude and does not address the obvious point from scripture.

Handwriting is not oral.

• 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

 

[Consecrated Life]

Scripture tell is to live as Jesus lived.

No person ever lived as Jesus lived .
And you can't name one .

 

[Consecrated Life]

In all the condemnatory language Jesus ever issued He never once condemned violating the Sabbath ?
Why not do you think ?

Mat 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies

 

[Humblepie]

Yes

No.

 

[Humblepie]

You post is extremely rude and does not address the obvious point from scripture.

Handwriting is not oral.

• 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

Well then, maybe you and Jesus can join in on a hog when you get to heaven.

 

[Humblepie]

No person ever lived as Jesus lived .
And you can't name one .

So don't try?

 

[Consecrated Life]

So don't try?

You never said "try"
You never said "strive"
Your sentence implies that it is possible "to Live" as Jesus Lived.

Scripture tell is to live as Jesus lived.

You never said His nature is what we should be continually progressing towards, never looking back, which is perfectly reasonable with the understanding that it will never be fully achieved until the day we look Him in the eyes.
In the day that we see Him we will be fully living like him.
Prior to that we can only be progressing towards that day .

1John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

 

[Humblepie]

You never said His nature is what we should be continually progressing towards,

Do I need to in order for the post to be relevant?

I think as Christians there are things that don't need to be spelled out. Some things you should know even as a baby Christian

I assume you are a Christian that knows some scripture. Am I wrong? Or do I need to post it because "you" don't know.

 

[Humblepie]

Your sentence implies that it is possible "to Live" as Jesus Lived.

I'm not a Sinless perfection proponent. I never even hinted that. Ever. We should live as Jesus lived, but when we fail, we have grace.

 

[Humblepie]

Handwriting is not oral.

Wow, learn some historical context, it could help you better understand.


The Talmud or oral law given to jews by Pharisee's and priest, not By God, has been written well before Jesus took the stage, but it is still called the oral law, or the Talmud or the teachings of men, or the traditions of men.

 

[Free]

A number of posts are condescending and disrespecting of others. Any further such posts and additional members will be removed from this thread.

 

[RandyK]

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'm not "blind" for thinking of the Sabbath as Mosaic Law. By definition that is what it is. You call me "blind," it seems, simply because I don't agree with you that Sabbath restrictions exist today along with the other 9 Commandments. Or, correct me if I'm wrong?

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.

If you are the "listener" who is disinterested in "any theological subject," then clearly we're done here? And no, I do not believe Dietary Laws were given for purposes of health, nor was the specific prescription for Sabbath rest, one day per week, a specific recipe for healthful living in all times and in all places.

The Mosaic Law utilized symbolism and ritual to teach Israel to know the difference between good and evil. These rituals and symbols were attached to actual Moral Laws, designed to reproduce God's likeness in men.

I'm not sure Israel had to be given the Mosaic Law in order to instruct the nation that they need to rest from work regularly or to eat healthfully? Though people oftten ignore these needs, they likely know what they should be doing without any need for a covenant relationship with God or a Law that teaches these things symbolically.

The primary purpose of the Mosaic Law was to reinforce the need for Israel to remain separate from pagan nations in preparation for Christ's Salvation. They could then, in that way, witness to other nations the way to receive Salvation, which ultimately came through Christ.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I'm not "blind" for thinking of the Sabbath as Mosaic Law. By definition that is what it is. You call me "blind," it seems, simply because I don't agree with you that Sabbath restrictions exist today along with the other 9 Commandments. Or, correct me if I'm wrong?

By definition in the original ten commandments in Ex. 20:8, Sabbath is a day of rest, and the title of this thread, quote from Mark 2:27 proves that Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a curse. You're disagreeing not with me, but with the word of God.

If you are the "listener" who is disinterested in "any theological subject," then clearly we're done here? And no, I do not believe Dietary Laws were given for purposes of health, nor was the specific prescription for Sabbath rest, one day per week, a specific recipe for healthful living in all times and in all places.

The Mosaic Law utilized symbolism and ritual to teach Israel to know the difference between good and evil. These rituals and symbols were attached to actual Moral Laws, designed to reproduce God's likeness in men.

Then that's your own disbelief. I'm interested in theology, in the origin, meaning, purpose, benefits and prophetic significance about the Sabbath, but so far you've not contributed a single word on those aspects, all your long passages of argument are focused on your disgruntlement against the Sabbath as "Mosaic law", when I brought up those aspects, you shot them all down as irrelevant; and the conversation hasn't moved anywhere, you keep pounding on the same point without going anywhere, from your very first post in this thread to this one you've been framing the Sabbath as "the Law of Moses", that I'm not interested in.

 

[RandyK]

By definition in the original ten commandments in Ex. 20:8, Sabbath is a day of rest, and the title of this thread, quote from Mark 2:27 proves that Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a curse. You're disagreeing not with me, but with the word of God.

No, I'm not disagreeing with God that Sabbath was meant to be a blessing in its time. It is no longer a blessing because God created a brand new covenant, nullifying the old one. Trying to please God by obeying Sabbath Law as if still under the Old Covenant only earns God's contempt.

Heb 6.4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Then that's your own disbelief. I'm interested in theology, in the origin, meaning, purpose, benefits and prophetic significance about the Sabbath, but so far you've not contributed a single word on those aspects, all your long passages of argument are focused on your disgruntlement against the Sabbath as "Mosaic law", when I brought up those aspects, you shot them all down as irrelevant; and the conversation hasn't moved anywhere, you keep pounding on the same point without going anywhere, from your very first post in this thread to this one you've been framing the Sabbath as "the Law of Moses", that I'm not interested in.

In other words, you disagree with what I believe to be sound NT Theology. According to the NT Scriptures, Sabbath Law is no longer a law to be lived by. If at all, it is something to indulge in so as not to offend the Jewish culture when one is among Jews. But it is not a "blessing" for the Christian. On the contrary, it is a "bondage."

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, I'm not disagreeing with God that Sabbath was meant to be a blessing in its time. It is no longer a blessing because God created a brand new covenant, nullifying the old one. Trying to please God by obeying Sabbath Law as if still under the Old Covenant only earns God's contempt.

Is Mark not in the NT? Are the Lord's own words null and void? Didn't Lord Jesus himself make the new covenant (Matt. 26:28)? You're challenging his own words which clearly indicates that Sabbath is a blessing.

In other words, you disagree with what I believe to be sound NT Theology. According to the NT Scriptures, Sabbath Law is no longer a law to be lived by. If at all, it is something to indulge in so as not to offend the Jewish culture when one is among Jews. But it is not a "blessing" for the Christian. On the contrary, it is a "bondage."

I disagree with what I believe is antinomianism and hypocrisy which you have been actually promoting. He who practices lawlessness will be rejected from the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 7:22. Paul upheld the law in Rom. 7:7-12, you don't.

 

[RandyK]

Is Mark not in the NT? Are the Lord's own words null and void? Didn't Lord Jesus himself make the new covenant (Matt. 26:28)? You're challenging his own words which clearly indicates that Sabbath is a blessing.

The Gospel of Mark is indeed part of the NT Bible, but the story contained in Mark largely takes place within the OT era.

I disagree with what I believe is antinomianism and hypocrisy which you have been actually promoting. He who practices lawlessness will be rejected from the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 7:22. Paul upheld the law in Rom. 7:7-12, you don't.

Belief that we are no longer under the OT Covenant is perhapt anti-Mosaic Law, but not antinomianism. There is "law" under the NT Covenant system. It is the eternal Moral Law that existed from the creation of Man, made in God's image and likeness, and continuing until the present day, long after the Covenant of Law ended.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The Gospel of Mark is indeed part of the NT Bible, but the story contained in Mark largely takes place within the OT era.

No it doesn't, Mark begins with the baptism of Jesus, it was chronologically more advanced than the other gospels that begin with the birth of Jesus.

Belief that we are no longer under the OT Covenant is perhapt anti-Mosaic Law, but not antinomianism. There is "law" under the NT Covenant system. It is the eternal Moral Law that existed from the creation of Man, made in God's image and likeness, and continuing until the present day, long after the Covenant of Law ended.

The "law" is primarity for instruction, not restriction. Regular Sabbath and the seven feasts are directly tied to God's prophetic schedule, at the end Jesus will fulfill all of them. Contrary to conventional belief, he didn't fulfill all of them in his first coming, many were left for his second coming. All the "holy convocations" are instituted for training purposes, they give you an idea of what to expect, God doesn't want his people to be ignorant.

Indeed Christians are supposed to be under the NT Covenant system, but that's only for spiritually mature believers who're expected to discern good and evil; for those who're immature, go back to school and get tutored.

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Gal. 3:24-25)

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Heb. 5:12-14)

 

[hawkman]

A number of posts are condescending and disrespecting of others. Any further such posts and additional members will be removed from this thread.

Did everyone see this notice ?

 

[JLB]

Wow, learn some historical context, it could help you better understand.


The Talmud or oral law given to jews by Pharisee's and priest, not By God, has been written well before Jesus took the stage, but it is still called the oral law, or the Talmud or the teachings of men, or the traditions of men.

The handwriting of requirements refers to that which is written.

The law of Moses was a witness against them.

Paul was directly referring to the law of Moses.

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.


The New Covenant is what the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a part of.




JLB

 

[RandyK]

No it doesn't, Mark begins with the baptism of Jesus, it was chronologically more advanced than the other gospels that begin with the birth of Jesus.

We can't even discuss this if we're not on the same page. The book of Mark covers Jesus' life and earthly ministry. The book basically ends where the NT age begins, when the New Covenant takes effect at the death and resurrection of Christ. This is non-controversial.

The "law" is primarity for instruction, not restriction. Regular Sabbath and the seven feasts are directly tied to God's prophetic schedule, at the end Jesus will fulfill all of them.

Deal with the above point, and then I can deal with this? In a nutshell, NT Law is certainly restrictive in that it prohibits our "walking in the flesh."

And "fulfillment of feasts" is not the Law of Moses, but your version of Jesus "fulfilling" the Law. Again, explain how you think Mark is not largely about the OT era?