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

[Carry_Your_Name]

Taking pride in what? I think it's "weak" to take a Commandment, which is one of the Ten Commandments, and then modernize it to fit how you wish to "obey it." That's completely arbitrary. Someone else may wish to modernize the Commandment to mean something else.

After all, there was much more to obeying the Sabbath than just resting from an occupation. It was a recognition that human works are tainted, and that God required human work to stop one day out of the week to give the land rest from human sin. That's how I look at it.

It was also to show respect for the entire Law, with all 613 requirements. That's how I look at it. So what's it matter what you think is important? God no longer requires that Israel obey the Sabbath Law because sin has now been legally dealt with through Christ's death and resurrection. Your wishing, arbitrarily, to resurrect an old law and modernize it is purely your jaded view of Christian theology.

I didn't "modernize" it into any form, I'm no legalist, I'm simply pointing out the context which you overlooked. Jesus said Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, whether you rest on Saturday or Sunday or both, it gives you regular work-rest pattern that you can adhere to. God doesn't need rest, we humans do, it was supposed to be a blessing, the Pharisees turned it into a burden, don't you see that? If you don't wish to "obey it", go work 80 hours a week to death, nobody's stopping you.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

So now you wish to "modernize" a "holy convocation" and an "animal sacrifice? You wish to rest from your job. But where is your "holy convocation?" If you're to modernize an assembly of an exclusive group of orthodox Jews, you might want to require a gathering of good Christtians--otherwise, you might not be keeping your version of the Sabbath?

And perhaps you need to make an offering, to replace the sacrifice? Maybe you need to take up an offering. Since the convocation was to last 7 days, perhaps you need to require a "camp meeting?"

Paul modernized "animal sacrifice" into living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1-2), don't point finger at me, your angry rant only makes yourself look silly. Also, how about you read Lev. 23 carefully, all seven feasts are feasts of the LORD, not feasts of orthodox Jews. Those are the significant events on God's prophetic calendar, spring festivals are about Jesus's first coming, fall festivals are about Jesus's second coming, and they'll be fulfilled regardless of your attitude, "holy convocation" is a drill practice or a dress rehearsal that gets you prepared, if you don't like it, then just forget about it, nobody's forcing you to celebrate these feasts.

So you just like the "rest" part? Perhaps we should require that our "leave days" work out to be on Saturdays? Or, does it matter what day it is to you? If it is once a week in the Bible, will once a year work out in my modernized version of it?

So what are you taking pride in? Does resting one day a week for God make you feel spiritual and holy? Does giving up time to serve God when you could be serving yourself make you feel special?

Well, I suppose it should. But if you think it makes you better than those who don't want to give up one day a week for God out of obedience to your "rules," then I think you have misplaced pride.

God doesn't require this of us. What He requires is humility, and to recognize that we are not spiritually-superior because we rest once a week. It is the attitude of the heart that causes us to conform to God and please Him. If you're demanding that all others obey the Sabbath because you think that's important then you need to adjust your attitude.

God didn't make you a prophet to the Church to tell them to obey an outmoded commandment belonging to an outmoded Law that Israel completely failed and Christ fulfilled! I wouldn't take pride in your works, if I were you, because you were saved by grace! Obeying the works of the Law did not save you.

You can fail to be like God even while you devote a day per week to the Lord. It is how you behave each day, Sabbath or not, that can please God--not any particular day you decide to take a rest!

Again, if you abhor Sabbath so much, go work yourself to death, go please your boss as your god. If you take rest on weekend, your action speaks louder than your words.

 

[RandyK]

I didn't "modernize" it into any form, I'm no legalist, I'm simply pointing out the context which you overlooked.

I didn't overlook anything. I know the Scriptures. We have a person on here who proclaims the eternity of the Law of Moses, "for all your generations," and quotes Christ, "until the universes passes away," and in the meantime you're arguing that we need to "keep the Sabbath." What am I supposed to conclude but that you're being "legalistic?"

Jesus said Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, whether you rest on Saturday or Sunday or both, it gives you regular work-rest pattern that you can adhere to.

You say you're not modernizing the old Commandment "Keep the Sabbath holy," and yet here you are again "modernizing it!" Can you just be honest about this?

If you're saying the Sabbath was made for us, and applying that today, then you're modernizing an old commandment for today! The statement of Jesus was stated while the Law was still in effect, but does not apply today, after the Cross!

God doesn't need rest, we humans do, it was supposed to be a blessing, the Pharisees turned it into a burden, don't you see that? If you don't wish to "obey it", go work 80 hours a week to death, nobody's stopping you.

We need rest and don't need the Law of Moses to tell us that! The Sabbath Law was not given because human beings require 24 hours of rest out of a 7 day week! It was a *religious law!* And if you're not a legalist then you should just be straightforward and admit the Sabbath requirement is not for today, not in its original form and not in any invented modernized version of it?

The Sabbath was not given to teach men that they need rest. We already learned that since Eden, when men were forced to do a kind of "hard labor." We do rest with no resort to a 7 day week with 1 day off.

 

[RandyK]

Paul modernized "animal sacrifice" into living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1-2), don't point finger at me, your angry rant only makes yourself look silly.

I'm not angry. Sorry that you find someone disagreeing with your theology or statements has to be "angry."

Paul compared animal sacrifice with yielding up our lives as a living sacrifice for Christ. He did not "modernize" the law of sacrifice as if being a living sacrifice for Christ was actually *obeying* the law of animal sacrifices!

Do you understand the difference? One pretends to obey the old law. The other just finds a similar principle under the New Covenant.

But those who say we have to obey the Sabbath Law by doing something similar in the NT era is not just comparing--they are claiming to be "obeying the law!" Or perhaps you wish to explain your view better?

Perhaps you are the one who is angry, and needs to calm down and adjust your position to that of the Scriptures?

It does become imperative to me--not a matter of anger, to not let you bind others into a required rest day on Saturday. Jesus himself condemned the Pharisees who tried to tie men up in burdens of the Law.

Matt 23.4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

Also, how about you read Lev. 23 carefully, all seven feasts are feasts of the LORD, not feasts of orthodox Jews.

I was not speaking of Orthodox Jews today, but of Jews who were orthodox in their doctrine and practice. The Feasts of Israel were for all Israel, and all were to be faithful to the Law, or orthodox in their beliefs and practices.

Those are the significant events on God's prophetic calendar, spring festivals are about Jesus's first coming, fall festivals are about Jesus's second coming, and they'll be fulfilled regardless of your attitude, "holy convocation" is a drill practice or a dress rehearsal that gets you prepared, if you don't like it, then just forget about it, nobody's forcing you to celebrate these feasts.

Perhaps you're trying to impress Christians with the need to observe "feasts" now too?

Again, if you abhor Sabbath so much, go work yourself to death, go please your boss as your god. If you take rest on weekend, your action speaks louder than your words.

I don't abhor a law that I'm not under. But if you love it so much, you will find no basis for doing so in the Christian Bible. That is what I intend to defend, as I see it.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I didn't overlook anything. I know the Scriptures. We have a person on here who proclaims the eternity of the Law of Moses, "for all your generations," and quote Christ, "until the universes passes away," and in the meantime you're arguing that we need to "keep the Sabbath." What am I supposed to conclude but that you're being "legalistic?"

I'd rather be legalistic than lawless. Jesus rejected those who practice lawlessness (Matt. 7:23), he asked his disciples to keep his commandments (Jn. 14:15), if you know the bible so well as you claimed, how come that you don't even know that?

You say you're not modernizing the old Commandment "Keep the Sabbath holy," and yet here you are again "modernizing it!" Can you just be honest about this?

If you're saying the Sabbath was made for us, and applying that today, then you're modernizing an old commandment for today! The statement of Jesus was stated while the Law was still in effect, but does not apply today, after the Cross!

If nothing applies, why do you bother to read this ancient book and go rant like a maniac on this Christian forum? Why is any of these relevant if there's nothing "modern" about it? Haven't you read that the word of God is living and active?

We need rest and don't need the Law of Moses to tell us that! The Sabbath Law was not given because human beings require 24 hours of rest out of a 7 day week! It was a *religious law!* And if you're not a legalist then you should just be straightforward and admit the Sabbath requirement is not for today, not in its original form and not in any invented modernized version of it?

Do you rest and go to church at weekend? If you do you're already engaged in a "modernized" form of it, how about you calm down and be honest to yourself?

 

[RandyK]

I'd rather be legalistic than lawless. Jesus rejected those who practice lawlessness (Matt. 7:23), he asked his disciples to keep his commandments (Jn. 14:15), if you know the bible so well as you claimed, how come that you don't even know that?

Clearly, I know more than you think I know! It is striking to me that those who wish to promote the Sabbath Law do so by quoting Jesus while he was still in the era of Law! That clearly doesn't apply to the NT era of Grace!

But there are "New Commandments" that Jesus and his Apostles later spoke of, a "Law of Liberty." They weren't the same as the 613 requirements of the Mosaic Law, but the 2 commandments of love were in common with them. You need to take note of that!

If nothing applies, why do you bother to read this ancient book and go rant like a maniac on this Christian forum? Why is any of these relevant if there's nothing "modern" about it? Haven't you read that the word of God is living and active?

As I said, I'm merely disagreeing with you--not ranting. I wish I did not come across like this to you! I have no hostility to you except that I get defensive when someone says I'm proud about something I take no pride in, when someone says I hate the Sabbath when I don't even feel I'm under the Sabbath, when someone claims I'm angry and ranting when I'm not.

If you wish to be spiritual you should consider what other Christians say, particularly when they've spent a lifetime in the Scriptures. That doesn't make me right, but I think you could learn something from me, if you realized I am not "ranting?"

I benefit not just from the NT Bible, but also from the entire Bible because God is the same God throughout. Even the Old Covenant given to Israel is relevant for us today because its principles are comparable with the life of Christ, which we are to pattern our own lives after.

The morality of the OT saints is the same kind of morality we are under today. From the time God made mankind in His image to today, the standard to "live in God's likeness" has remained essentially the same.

It's only the particular covenant Israel was under before the Cross that changed. Before the Cross Israel had not yet been redeemed from death. After the Cross we no longer need emblems of the sacrifice we all need to cover our sins forever.

Do you rest and go to church at weekend? If you do you're already engaged in a "modernized" form of it, how about you calm down and be honest to yourself?

"Resting" is not a modernized version of the Law. It is not a form of "keeping the Sabbath holy." I wish you'd understand that?

Pagans rest, animals rest, we all rest because we get tired--not because we think we're observing a Jewish requirement under their covenant from Sinai!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I'm not angry. Sorry that you find someone disagreeing with your theology or statements has to be "angry."

Say you who burst out a string of exclamation, question and quotation marks in an aggresive attitude.

I was not speaking of Orthodox Jews today, but of Jews who were orthodox in their doctrine and practice. The Feasts of Israel were for all Israel, and all were to be faithful to the Law, or orthodox in their beliefs and practices.

Yes you were, you singled out orthodox Jews. Are you an antisemite? What does their religious observance have to do with you?

Perhaps you're trying to impress Christians with the need to observe "feasts" now too?

No, I'm only trying to impress you that ignorance is not strength. I don't observe any of these feasts, I'm just explaining to your their meanings, but it seems you're not only in a foul mood and you're cowardly denying it.

I don't abhor a law that I'm not under. But if you love it so much, you will find no basis for doing so in the Christian Bible. That is what I intend to defend, as I see it.

You keep accusing me of "modernizing" the law, so I ask you again, do you rest and go to church on Sunday? If you do, you're already "modernizing" it by moving your own sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, this work-rest pattern applies to you as an objective fact, whether you consider it a "religous law" or not.

 

[RandyK]

Say you who burst out a string of exclamation, question and quotation marks in an aggresive attitude.

If you don't want an exchange of ideas, why do you post here on a controversial subject like Sabbath Law? I always feel it an obligation to respond to public statements that I feel contradict the Scriptures.

I'm not interested in discussing anything more than the points in agreement with or not in agreement with the Scriptures. If you wish to correct my spelling, that's fine too.

Yes you were, you singled out orthodox Jews. Are you an antisemite? What does their religious observance have to do with you?

Now you're calling me a liar. I was *not* referring to Orthodox Jews, which is a kind of Jew today. I was speaking of a gathering of Jews who were "orthodox" in the sense that they believed the Law, and didn't just gather to observe the Sabbath in honor of Molech. Shame on you for calling me a liar!

No, I'm only trying to impress you that ignorance is not strength. I don't observe any of these feasts, I'm just explaining to your their meanings, but it seems you're not only in a foul mood and you're cowardly denying it.

I'm in a good mood today. Perhaps I'm a little strong with you because I'm familiar with the subject, and know that so many misunderstand it. I want to help those who wish to be helped--not those who despise any correction.

You keep accusing me of "modernizing" the law, so I ask you again, do you rest and go to church on Sunday? If you do, you're already "modernizing" it by moving your own sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, this work-rest pattern applies to you as an objective fact, whether you consider it a "religous law" or not.

You don't understand the argument. At any rate, I don't think you are capable of arguing this subject without accusing me of things. It's better to give light than create heat. With that I yield....

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Clearly, I know more than you think I know! It is striking to me that those who wish to promote the Sabbath Law do so by quoting Jesus while he was still in the era of Law! That clearly doesn't apply to the NT era of Grace!

But there are "New Commandments" that Jesus and his Apostles later spoke of, a "Law of Liberty." They weren't the same as the 613 requirements of the Mosaic Law, but the 2 commandments of love were in common with them. You need to take note of that!

Well that's strange, there was the rich young ruler who asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life, Jesus quoted the ten commandments, he didn't tell him to either love God or your neighbor, I wonder why is that? Wasn't he supposed to preach the "law of liberty"?

You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ”(Lk. 1:18)

And by the way, both "love God with all your heart" and "love your neighbor as yourself" are from the Torah, Jesus didn't invent either, he simply summed up the ten commandments with these two.

As I said, I'm merely disagreeing with you--not ranting. I wish I did not come across like this to you! I have no hostility to you except that I get defensive when someone says I'm proud about something I take no pride in, when someone says I hate the Sabbath when I don't even feel I'm under the Sabbath, when someone claims I'm angry and ranting when I'm not.

If you wish to be spiritual you should consider what other Christians say, particularly when they've spent a lifetime in the Scriptures. That doesn't make me right, but I think you could learn something from me, if you realized I am not "ranting?"

You're the one who falsely accusing me of "moderning" the Sabbath and "demanding" it, when all I did was simply explaining the reason and meaning behind the Sabbath. I'm being defensive as much as you are.

I benefit not just from the NT Bible, but also from the entire Bible because God is the same God throughout. Even the Old Covenant given to Israel is relevant for us today because its principles are comparable with the life of Christ, which we are to pattern our own lives after.

The morality of the OT saints is the same kind of morality we are under today. From the time God made mankind in His image to today, the standard to "live in God's likeness" has remained essentially the same.

It's only the particular covenant Israel was under before the Cross that changed. Before the Cross Israel had not yet been redeemed from death. After the Cross we no longer need emblems of the sacrifice we all need to cover our sins forever.

Then what is this tirade about? You don't seem to believe any OT law is relevant since you're so vehemently against the "religious law" of Sabbath. Well, actually, the term "Torah" itself primarily means teaching or instruction, not law - as in the kind of law drafted by lobbyists, passed by congress, approved by the senate and signed by the president. God's law is written in the hearts of his people who do his will.

"Resting" is not a modernized version of the Law. It is not a form of "keeping the Sabbath holy." I wish you'd understand that?

Pagans rest, animals rest, we all rest because we get tired--not because we think we're observing a Jewish requirement under their covenant from Sinai!

Pagans and animals don't worship God through Jesus, Christians do. Sabbath is not defined by what you don't do, but what you do.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

If you don't want an exchange of ideas, why do you post here on a controversial subject like Sabbath Law? I always feel it an obligation to respond to public statements that I feel contradict the Scriptures.

I'm not interested in discussing anything more than the points in agreement with or not in agreement with the Scriptures. If you wish to correct my spelling, that's fine too.

I post here because I don't think Sabbath should be a controversial topic. If you work a regular 40-50 hour job and rest at both Saturday and Sunday, you're already taking the Sabbath, it doesn't matter how you phrase it, whether you rest in observance of a "religous law" or not. And I'm not contradicting any Scripture, I explained what "work" means in the fourth commandment, it is you who's not interested in it at all, as you ridiculed me as a legalist, perhaps even a judiazer. You're the one who's incorrigible with no intention to exchange any idea, not me.

Now you're calling me a liar. I was *not* referring to Orthodox Jews, which is a kind of Jew today. I was speaking of a gathering of Jews who were "orthodox" in the sense that they believed the Law, and didn't just gather to observe the Sabbath in honor of Molech. Shame on you for calling me a liar!

Show me in which of my post did I call you that. You accusing me of "modernizing an assembly of an exclusive group of orthodox Jews" in post 159, I never called you a liar, and rephrasing a simple weekly rest as "my version of keeping the Sabbath", even though you admitted in post 163 that you need rest as well. Now who's really a liar bearing false witness of his neighbor?

I'm in a good mood today. Perhaps I'm a little strong with you because I'm familiar with the subject, and know that so many misunderstand it. I want to help those who wish to be helped--not those who despise any correction.

And here you go again, you who burst out a string of exclamation, question and quotation marks in an aggresive attitude - and now on top of that, falsely accusing me of something I never intended.

 

[Humblepie]

I always feel it an obligation to respond to public statements that I feel contradict the Scriptures.

Deut 7:9
9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Lev 23:14
14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

Lev 23:21
21 And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.



It obvious you ate the one eliminating scripture, and are in error, to make it fit your belief.
You claim to know the word but you only believe some of it is true.
I know the whole Word is truth like David said.

It isn't law or no law, it is law to be saved, or saved by grace.

Your preconceived belief blinds you from the truth of the word.

Grace and law are not contrary to one another, they are in harmony with one another.
The law shows your sin, and grace removes your sin. It's quite simple.

There are too many scriptures that contradict your belief and I don't buy into your way of explaining it away.


The prophets would have foretold the abolishing of the law, and they are silent.

 

[hawkman]

The bickering needs to stop or Thread bans are next . ?

TOS 1.2 Those who identify themselves as Christians will be held accountable to conduct themselves as such. If they are truly governed by the Holy Spirit, they will not continually engage in goading, mocking, insulting, trolling, berating or inciting other members to anger and resentment. They will post in a Spirit of kindness and respect, even if there are doctrinal disagreements, and be quick to reconcile if differences of opinion should get heated. Disciplinary actions will be taken against those whom staff regards to be naming the name of Christ and yet are holding the truth in unrighteousness.

 

[Humblepie]

Amos 7
7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

 

[Humblepie]

Those who identify themselves as Christians will be held accountable to conduct themselves as such. If they are truly governed by the Holy Spirit, they will not continually engage in goading, mocking, insulting, trolling,

About time.

 

[Humblepie]

Many Christians want to separate the church from Israel, but is that what scripture tells us?
Are we not graphed into the original tree?
We are not a tree of our own, and the Jewish beliefs and customs a tree of their own.

If we are brought into the nation of Israel, the Old saying that the law was only written for the nation of Israel can't apply to the Church, because the church, or Gentiles to be more precise, actually become citizens of the Nation of Israel.

Ephesians 2:11-12
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:




We were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.


Ephesians 2:19
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but ((((fellowcitizens)))) with the saints, and of the household of God;


We are citizens of Israel once we enter the faith.

Church theology separates us from Israel, but scripture actually says the opposite.

 

[hawkman]

Because God proclaims it.

Because the law was never abolished.
Not until the two witnesses are gone, Heaven and Earth, and ALL The law and prophets are accomplished.

I'm standing on the Earth as I type this.

The law is accomplished .

We are justified by our faith as Christians . Our sins are covered by the blood of Jesus .
We are no longer need a priest to sacrifice animals on our behalf to cover our sins !

Do you ?

12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


And


4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

 

[Humblepie]

I supposed to conclude but that you're being "legalistic?"

I call it obedience to all of scripture.


The only difference in what I believe, and what you believe is this.


Before any of Paul's writings or any of the NT writings were canonized,

2 Timothy 3:16 states:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

When this was written there was only the OT scriptures.
There wasn't a NT.

All OT scripture is valid, every last bit of it.
I also believe every word of the NT scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” and that both testaments have no contradictions in them.

Satan is the author of confusion, and contradictions cause confusion.

You can't say that everlasting means temporary,
or that 1000 generations doesn't really mean 20,000 to 30,000 years.

If God only meant 2000 - 4000 years he would have said 100 generations instead of 1000.

The scripture shows us that Grace, Faith and the law all are in harmony.

It says where there is no law sin is not imputed


Romans 4:15: "Where there is no law, neither is there violation".
Romans 5:13: "Sin is not imputed when there is no law".


When we enter the faith, we are no longer under the penalty of the law. (Which is death) because we have grace, the law still stands, but because we are not under the law of sin and death because of our faith and the grace, we don't have to worry about eternal death for our sin.
The law still stands, it defines sin.
Without a law, there is no sin and sin is not imputed, which means we wouldn't even need a savior anymore.
You make void his sacrifice for sin.

He also ask us if we abolish the Law because we have faith, his answer is we establish the law because of our faith.

 

[Humblepie]

The law is accomplished .

We are justified by our faith as Christians . Our sins are covered by the blood of Jesus .
We are no longer need a priest to sacrifice animals on our behalf to cover our sins !

Do you ?

12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


And


4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

I disagree according to scripture.

 

[RandyK]

I call it obedience to all of scripture.
The only difference in what I believe, and what you believe is this.
Before any of Paul's writings or any of the NT writings were canonized,

2 Timothy 3:16 states:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

We both believe in the inspiration of all Scriptures.

You can't say that everlasting means temporary,
or that 1000 generations doesn't really mean 20,000 to 30,000 years.

I do understand the confusion behind "the Law is for all of your generations." But there is no confusion, in my thinking, with the temporalness of the Law.

I've given you my proofs, and you can do with them as you please. What you cannot say is that the evidence doesn't exist--you just apparently disagree with it?

1) Hebrews and Galatians argue for a NT displacing the OT.
2) Heb 7 and 10 specifically and explicitly state that the Law was *temporary.*
3) Jer 31.31 etc. predicted a different covenant, displacing the OT one.

This is the way the Church has always argued it. Stating that the Law is still in play is heterodox. Those who promote Sabbath Law are creating NT equivlencies with it so as to be viewed as "Scripturally compliant."

And that's fine, except that it is traditionally viewed as "Legalism" to state that Sabbath Law is, in its original form, required of Christians. We may or may not agree on these things?

If God only meant 2000 - 4000 years he would have said 100 generations instead of 1000.

The scripture shows us that Grace, Faith and the law all are in harmony.

It says where there is no law sin is not imputed

The Law of Moses was given to make clear God's Law in the context of pre-Christianity, to show that Man is a helpless, hopeless sinner who is always to be condemned without being covered by sacrifices. The sacrifices of the Law were a temporary "band-aid." They portrayed the need for the final sacrifice of Christ.

Israel was to be strapped with this perennial condemnation for sin, lasting for "all your generations." That's because apart from Christ's sacrifice, the sin of men would always be exposed, and without Christ's sacrifice would always be shown to need sacrifices.

Sacrifices under the Law, however, never hoped to bring Eternal Life--just national blessings. They looked forward to a "better sacrifice," which Christ brought to supply Eternal Life.

Romans 4:15: "Where there is no law, neither is there violation".
Romans 5:13: "Sin is not imputed when there is no law".


When we enter the faith, we are no longer under the penalty of the law. (Which is death) because we have grace, the law still stands, but because we are not under the law of sin and death because of our faith and the grace, we don't have to worry about eternal death for our sin.
The law still stands, it defines sin.
Without a law, there is no sin and sin is not imputed, which means we wouldn't even need a savior anymore.
You make void his sacrifice for sin.

He also ask us if we abolish the Law because we have faith, his answer is we establish the law because of our faith.

I'm not at all saying we abolish God's Law, in its generic sense. I'm saying that the Law of Moses has been abolished due to Israel's unfaithfulness and failure, as a nation, to remain faithful to that contract.

A contract is broken when one of the parties fails to meet the terms of the contract. This contract required a national majority to remain faithful to it, or it would be viewed as a failure.

Christ, however, fulfilled the contract by keeping his end of the bargain and then reworking the agreement in a new contract to forgive Israel's failure, contingent upon a return to a contractual relationship with God.

Thanks for your time.

 

[RandyK]

It obvious you ate the one eliminating scripture, and are in error, to make it fit your belief.
You claim to know the word but you only believe some of it is true.
I know the whole Word is truth like David said.

I'm trying to make our discussion less "personal." I don't wish to be the subject of the discussion. I believe the Bible--all of it. I've studied for a long time--that doesn't make me right. Let's talk issues, and not each other?

It isn't law or no law, it is law to be saved, or saved by grace.

Actually, to me these are the issues. Is the Law of Moses still in effect, either literally or in some modified NT form? And does being under the Law of Moses disqualify us from Salvation by Grace?

I believe that those who are trying to be both Christian and under the Law of Moses are not necessarily disqualified frrom Grace and Salvation. It is a matter that had to be dealt with in Early Christianity. The outcome vs. the Ebionites exposed the pro-Jewish Law position as not sound Christian theology. That is my position too.

Since I've made my arguments against any notion we are still under the Law elsewhere, I won't repeat here. Have a nice day...