Saturday is Sabbath day...

James Forthwright said:

If you’d be so kind, Jiggyfly, please name me a single Christian church denomination that considers, worshipping other gods, making idols, using the LORD’s name in vain, murder, stealing, adultery, dishonoring parents, bearing false witness or covetousness as acceptable practices? (I won’t hold my breath. . .)

Click to expand...

So does that mean your source is your own speculation?

Surprise! I’ve never been one to shy away from a challenge. First of all, your choice of Bible versions (NLT) is a rather poor choice for study purposes. Most scriptural scholars prefer to use more precise ‘translations’ rather than relying on transliterations such as the NLT as proof texts. Such non-literal versions are fine for casual reading but merely paraphrase or utilize ‘dynamic equivalence’ of scriptural passages to convey concepts rather than represent literal word-for-word translations from the ancient languages and as such, are more susceptible to error or introducing personal doctrinal opinion.

Click to expand...

Well first off I didn't ask what you thought of the NLT and frankly it doesn't matter.
Secondly pick any translation you choose to make your argument with because I plan on referring to the Greek text for meaning.

Now let's try to stay on this one context of scripture and explain it correctly.
Are you denying that Paul included the ten commandments with the old covenant in this text?

jiggyfly said:

So does that mean your source is your own speculation?

Click to expand...

You're playing silly little "gotcha" games, Jiggyfly. Do you really expect that I'm supposed to do serious research to see if any Christian denominations condone the violation of any of the Ten Commandments (excluding the Sabbath)? I'm not going to supply you any proof that pigs can't fly either.

jiggyfly said:

Well first off I didn't ask what you thought of the NLT and frankly it doesn't matter.
Secondly pick any translation you choose to make your argument with because I plan on referring to the Greek text for meaning.

Click to expand...

You may be a proficient angler, but your skills in forensic argumentation and scriptural research leave much to be desired.

jiggyfly said:

Now let's try to stay on this one context of scripture and explain it correctly.
Are you denying that Paul included the ten commandments with the old covenant in this text?

Click to expand...

Another 'trick question'? There are many covenants and examples of God's Law in the Bible. Way back in The Garden of Eden, God commanded Adam to not partake of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, one of the later Ten Commandments also appears to be enforced as Cain was punished for the murder of his brother as well as the institution of the Sabbath. The Book of Enoch also delineates other early sacred laws. Noahide laws are mentioned in Jewish writings. The Abrahamic Covenant also preceded the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments. Some of those Old Testament laws are still valid in this New Testament era, some have been superceded. That's the focus of this discussion.

ALL of the other nine commandments are still readily being observed by Christians everywhere and their validity is not a subject of serious theological debate. Why single out the Sabbath to be annulled when there is such scant scriptural support for doing so?

James Forthwright said:

If you’d be so kind, Jiggyfly, please name me a single Christian church denomination that considers, worshipping other gods, making idols, using the LORD’s name in vain, murder, stealing, adultery, dishonoring parents, bearing false witness or covetousness as acceptable practices? (I won’t hold my breath. . .)

Click to expand...

James,
You are what's known as a legalist who is more concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit of the law. Jesus many times, and especially at the sermon on the Mount, revealed that God is more concerned with the spirit of the law. God made the law for man, not man for the law; and wants man to find his true, eternal rest, which the sabbath day can never give, no matter how many times it is observed. Only Jesus, the true sabbath, can give that rest.

James Forthwright said:

You're playing silly little "gotcha" games, Jiggyfly. Do you really expect that I'm supposed to do serious research to see if any Christian denominations condone the violation of any of the Ten Commandments (excluding the Sabbath)? I'm not going to supply you any proof that pigs can't fly either.

Click to expand...

Then this is simply your unfounded opinion

You may be a proficient angler, but your skills in forensic argumentation and scriptural research leave much to be desired.

Click to expand...

So then there should be no problem with us examining the scripture mentioned openly within this thread. Are you afraid?

Another 'trick question'? There are many covenants and examples of God's Law in the Bible. Way back in The Garden of Eden, God commanded Adam to not partake of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, one of the later Ten Commandments also appears to be enforced as Cain was punished for the murder of his brother as well as the institution of the Sabbath. The Book of Enoch also delineates other early sacred laws. Noahide laws are mentioned in Jewish writings. The Abrahamic Covenant also preceded the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments. Some of those Old Testament laws are still valid in this New Testament era, some have been superceded. That's the focus of this discussion.

ALL of the other nine commandments are still readily being observed by Christians everywhere and their validity is not a subject of serious theological debate. Why single out the Sabbath to be annulled when there is such scant scriptural support for doing so?

Click to expand...

I can see why you would try to label it as a "trick question" but it is not. If there is any trick or deceitfulness it is the deception that we are still bound to the law which includes the ten commandments just as Paul has said. Now let's look again at the text in 2 Corinthians 3:7-16, unless of course you are afraid.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

James,
You are what's known as a legalist who is more concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit of the law. Jesus many times, and especially at the sermon on the Mount, revealed that God is more concerned with the spirit of the law. God made the law for man, not man for the law; and wants man to find his true, eternal rest, which the sabbath day can never give, no matter how many times it is observed. Only Jesus, the true sabbath, can give that rest.

Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail square on the head that time HRFTD.

jiggyfly said:

Then this is simply your unfounded opinion.

Click to expand...

No, I made a fundamental statement of truth (something more or less taken for granted like “pigs can’t fly”), i.e., “There is no orthodox Christian church denomination (that I’m aware of) that in its creed or teachings condones the violation of any of the other Nine Commandments (excluding the Sabbath)”. The burden of proof rests on the one who would deny the validity of such basic Christian tenants such as “Thou shalt no murder, steal, bear false witness, worship idols, etc. That doctrinal ball remains in your court until you can cite some specific examples to the contrary.

jiggyfly said:

So then there should be no problem with us examining the scripture mentioned openly within this thread. Are you afraid?

Click to expand...

No, not at all. Hopefully, you’ve at least read my prior posts so I don’t have to repeat myself. I also have no problem, whatsoever, in examining the scriptures you mentioned in post #219 or any other passages you can find that appear to bolster your (IMO doctrinally weak) position. However, I do expect you to grant me the same courtesy and, as of yet, you’ve completely ignored responding to the scriptures and main counterargument I posted in response in post #220. Practice what you preach!

jiggyfly said:

I can see why you would try to label it as a "trick question" but it is not. If there is any trick or deceitfulness it is the deception that we are still bound to the law which includes the ten commandments just as Paul has said. Now let's look again at the text in 2 Corinthians 3:7-16, unless of course you are afraid.

Click to expand...

If we are to continue this discussion, I’d like to propose a few simple guidelines:

1. We both directly respond to the scriptures, as well as, any direct questions the opposition posts to defend their position.
2. Any response should be preferably on a point-by-point basis (I’ve no desire to exchange diatribes.) However, it’s OK to group a few lines together to summarize your views.
3. We stick to the topic at hand (no rabbit trails), maintain a tone of civility in our discourse and since I’m voicing the minority opinion (and you’re a Staff member), I’m not obligated to respond to every comment from others who support your views (especially those who pop in from the peanut gallery with one ‘attaboy’ post and then go back to lurk mode.)

You are welcome to add any other stipulations that might concern you. . .

Fair enough?

James Forthwright said:

No, I made a fundamental statement of truth (something more or less taken for granted like “pigs can’t fly”), i.e., “There is no orthodox Christian church denomination (that I’m aware of) that in its creed or teachings condones the violation of any of the other Nine Commandments (excluding the Sabbath)”. The burden of proof rests on the one who would deny the validity of such basic Christian tenants such as “Thou shalt no murder, steal, bear false witness, worship idols, etc. That doctrinal ball remains in your court until you can cite some specific examples to the contrary.




No, not at all. Hopefully, you’ve at least read my prior posts so I don’t have to repeat myself. I also have no problem, whatsoever, in examining the scriptures you mentioned in post #219 or any other passages you can find that appear to bolster your (IMO doctrinally weak) position. However, I do expect you to grant me the same courtesy and, as of yet, you’ve completely ignored responding to the scriptures and main counterargument I posted in response in post #220. Practice what you preach!




If we are to continue this discussion, I’d like to propose a few simple guidelines:

1. We both directly respond to the scriptures, as well as, any direct questions the opposition posts to defend their position.
2. Any response should be preferably on a point-by-point basis (I’ve no desire to exchange diatribes.) However, it’s OK to group a few lines together to summarize your views.
3. We stick to the topic at hand (no rabbit trails), maintain a tone of civility in our discourse and since I’m voicing the minority opinion (and you’re a Staff member), I’m not obligated to respond to every comment from others who support your views (especially those who pop in from the peanut gallery with one ‘attaboy’ post and then go back to lurk mode.)

You are welcome to add any other stipulations that might concern you. . .

Fair enough?

Click to expand...

Yes sir, I'm your huckleberry.

jiggyfly said:

Yes sir, I'm your huckleberry.

Click to expand...

Marvelous! Why don't you begin by responding to this key section of post #220:

What 2 Cor 3:7-15 relates is that the veil (a degree of spiritual blindness) has now been lifted and removed from reading the OT laws because we are now ‘in Christ’ and can see the God’s Law in its full glory, NOT that the laws themselves are removed or in any way superceded. Follow Christ and focus not upon what Paul directed largely to an audience of scripturally unlearned Grecian heathens but what the Lord Jesus re-iterated concerning the permanence and importance of the Law of God:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

Jesus didn’t abolish a single law of the Ten Commandments. Christ fulfilled all of the sacrificial and priestly laws AND demonstrated to us how we, likewise, should fulfill the moral laws contained in the Ten Commandments (which included ‘keeping the Sabbath holy’) by walking in the Spirit of the Living God.


Mat 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

The last time I checked, heaven and earth have not yet passed away and the Law is still to be enforced. Idolators and blasphemers, perjurers, murderers and thieves etc., still are being punished and likewise, await their eternal judgments . . . that is, unless they repent of their transgressions of God’s Law. And even if the sinner repents and believes in Christ he is not free to continue to ignore the Ten Commandments at will. (John 5:14, John 8:11)


Mat 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Take careful notice Jesus’ warning in Matt 5:19 to those who would attempt to annul one of God’s commandments (such as the Sabbath). No, it doesn’t specifically say you’ll be damned, just considered ‘the least in the Kingdom of God’ (not a goal to which I’d wish to aspire).

Mat 5:20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

We are to be MORE righteous than the Jews who obey the letter of the law but NOT the spirit of the law. We are to ‘follow Christ’s example’ who never transgressed a single commandment in His entire life and walked in the Spirit as well. Yes, our righteousness is ‘in Christ’ but we are still obligated to follow the Father’s commandments. (John 15:10)

Mat 5:21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
Mat 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." –NASB

Notice: Instead of removing God’s commandment of “Thou shalt not murder.” Jesus AMPLIFIES the Law to include even becoming angry against our brothers without cause. The scribes and Pharisees fully understood the basics of the commandment etched in stone but were oblivious to the higher command which should have also been etched in their hearts. (Deut 32:46, 1Ki. 8:58)


2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

We are to be living, breathing, walking New Testaments examples of Christ’s faithful walk obeying God’s Law which is written on our hearts, not upon tablets of stone. Sure, we do have a measure of liberty in Christ but we should never use that liberty as an excuse for lawlessness (1Pe. 2:16). We recognize that our salvation is strictly a byproduct of Christ’s fulfillment of God’s Law and we, likewise, obey the heavenly Father’s commandments because we love to serve Him and are truly appreciative of the grace He has bestowed upon us through faith in His blessed Son, and our savior Christ Jesus.

James Forthwright said:

If you’d be so kind, Jiggyfly, please name me a single Christian church denomination that considers, worshipping other gods, making idols, using the LORD’s name in vain, murder, stealing, adultery, dishonoring parents, bearing false witness or covetousness as acceptable practices? (I won’t hold my breath. . .)




“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Your forensic logic is flawed and is a textbook example of an “Argument from ignorance” see link below:
http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance

Just because the writer of the Book of Acts doesn’t mention the traditional Ten Commandments does not, necessarily mean that they were not previously instructed in the Law of God. Do you really believe that it’s permissible for Gentile Christians to blaspheme, murder, lie, steal, practice idolatry, etc., in the First Century or in any century, for that matter? The apostle Paul certainly addressed these same transgressions in other epistles directed to the very same Gentile Churches.

Click to expand...

Hi James,

Actually, Acts 15 makes an affirmative statement. This is not an argument from ignorance.

Acts 15:28-29 ESV
(28) For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
(29) that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

No greater burden than these. These things, and these alone.

And you need to consider the reason given for even these.

Acts 15:21 ESV
(21) For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

They've grown up all their lives hearing the Mosaic Law.

No greater burden than these.

Love in Christ,
Mark

mark s said:

Hi James,

Actually, Acts 15 makes an affirmative statement. This is not an argument from ignorance.

Acts 15:28-29 ESV
(28) For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
(29) that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

No greater burden than these. These things, and these alone.

And you need to consider the reason given for even these.

Acts 15:21 ESV
(21) For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

They've grown up all their lives hearing the Mosaic Law.

No greater burden than these.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Click to expand...

Hello Mark,

Your comments are addressing a post I made specifically to Jiggyfly. He and I have recently agreed to some formal debate rules. If he so wishes to discuss the issues you raised I'll gladly answer his inquires. I'm voicing the minority opinion on this topic and I'm outnumbered. I can't respond to everyone asking about a post not addressed to them, let alone, ten posts ago.

Post #218 was my response directed at your previous post, yet you didn't care to follow up on our discussion. . .

Feel free to answer this question that I posed to Jiggyfly in post #220:

Do you really believe that it’s permissible for Gentile Christians to blaspheme, murder, lie, steal, practice idolatry, etc., in the First Century or in any century, for that matter?

James Forthwright said:

Hello Mark,

Your comments are addressing a post I made specifically to Jiggyfly. He and I have recently agreed to some formal debate rules. If he so wishes to discuss the issues you raised I'll gladly answer his inquires. I'm voicing the minority opinion on this topic and I'm outnumbered. I can't respond to everyone asking about a post not addressed to them, let alone, ten posts ago.

Post #218 was my response directed at your previous post, yet you didn't care to follow up on our discussion. . .

Feel free to answer this question that I posed to Jiggyfly in post #220:

Do you really believe that it’s permissible for Gentile Christians to blaspheme, murder, lie, steal, practice idolatry, etc., in the First Century or in any century, for that matter?

Click to expand...

Hi James,

I apologize . . . I did not mean to intrude. I simply noticed something in the course of the discussion.

Regarding our previous discussion, I'll look back at #218, and also consider your current question. Concerning your comment of being outnumbered, would you prefer to simply discuss this with jiggyfly alone?

Love in Christ,
Mark

-----------------------------------------------------

Hi James,

I decided to answer your previous post. Should you find that it is not convenient to carry on this conversation with me at this time, I understand.

You wrote:

Every possible instance of the Law of God is not spelled out directly in the text of the Bible. For instance, there's no specific laws against abortion, contraception or drug use, etc. We are now largely under New Covenant rules and we should rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit within to direct our lives where the scriptures are silent. However, no one ever disputes the validity of the other Ten Commandments. Why should the fourth commandment be subject to debate?

Click to expand...

My statement had been that there was no exception to the law of the Sabbath concerning having a job in which you were regularly scheduled to work, with the exception of the preist.

Your reply is that there are exceptions to the Law that were not “spelled out”. You gave as examples that there were not laws against abortion (though I disagree), contraception (I do agree), and drug use (by which I am to assume you mean non-medical?).

However, the law of the Sabbath was clearly laid out, so what exactly is the relevance in the fact that other things might not have been clearly laid out?

My objection to this position, that we are to keep the Sabbath except if we think the only job we can get requires us to work on the Sabbath, is that exception is not given in Scripture, is actually specifically disallowed both in rule (the Law), principle (manna), and practice (gathering sticks/Nehemiah).

So then, while we might say that there are grey areas in Scripture, I don't see how this is one. Either you keep the Sabbath, or you do not, by either not working, or working on that day.

You wrote:

Yes, the faithful shop keeper would not have the same exclusion as the priests. There's no reason a store owner couldn't post a sign "Closed on Saturday for the Sabbath". It bears repeating that the NT does do away with some of the carnal punishments of the law. No one is going to stone you for working on the Sabbath, however, God did originally declare such transgressions as worthy of captial punishment.

Click to expand...

Where does the NT modify the punishments under the Mosaic Law? I read that it actually affirms them:

Romans 2:12-13 ESV
(12) For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
(13) For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

And again, why would not God provide supernaturally that all His people could actually keep the Sabbath, as He did while the OT Covenant was in affect? Extra manna and it's preservation, extra crops for the Sabbath year (you have to do this too, btw), there is no reason for us not to trust God for His provision to enable us to keep His Law, just as He did then.

OK, switching to the 10 commandments in toto.

Your argument is that we affirm the other 9 of the 10 commandments, why do we not affirm this commandment?

The simple answer is that I do not affirm the other 9, just the same that I do not affirm this one. As new covenant Christians we are not governed by the 10 commandments.

Let's use a simple example. Jesus explained the commandment against adultry to include lust within the heart. I have not committed a physical act of adultry, but as a Christian, I have in fact lusted in this way.

Now, is there anyone who debates this issue who condones this act? I would expect not. I certainly do not. However, is this act governed by the 10 commandments, the Mosaic Law? What would your answer be? If you answer yes, then listen to what the Law says. The one who does these things shall live by them.

What is the penalty under the law for the adulterer? Is it not to be stoned to death?

Do you really want to be under the Mosaic Covenant of Law? Remember – the 10 commandments, along with the rest of the Law, was a covenant between God and Israel.

But why are we not to lust in this way? Because the 10 commandments say You shall not commit adultery? No, because love does not seek its own. And if I am lusting in this I am not living love. I am not living the Christ life, thinking with the mind of the spirit, the mind of Christ.

You wrote:

The Ten Commandments IS the moral law. And it's universally agreed in all Christian churches that every other commandment still stands. Jesus calls Himself "The Lord of the Sabbath". Is Jesus the Lord of a day that His followers largely ignore?

Click to expand...

I am saying that the Mosaic Law was a covenant between God and Israel, which did not specify a certain portion of that Law, but rather required the entire Law to be kept.

If you say we must keep the Sabbath, then by all rights you should equally be saying we must keep the feasts, we must not harvest the corners of our fields, but let others come in and glean, we must not eat shellfish, and all the rest.

You are saying that I am the one singling out the Sabbath for non-observance. In fact, I am asserting that we do not keep any of the Law, as we are not in that covenant, we are in a different covenant.

You are saying that we are to keep parts of the Law, but not other parts (if I understand you correctly – please correct me if I am mistaken!), and these can be subjectively determined.

I am asserting that the Bible presents the Mosaic Law as a codified whole, to be observed in its entirety.

OK, this is getting lengthy enough . . . I'll close with addressing the specific question you raised:

Feel free to answer this question that I posed to Jiggyfly in post #220:

Do you really believe that it’s permissible for Gentile Christians to blaspheme, murder, lie, steal, practice idolatry, etc., in the First Century or in any century, for that matter?

Click to expand...

Romans 6:1-4 ESV
(1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
(2) By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
(3) Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
(4) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Are we to do those things? No. But in the terms of your question, I would have to ask you, permissible in what sense? Permissible under the Old Covenant Law? That question is moot, since we are not under that covenant, we are under the New Covenant, which is not based on the Mosaic Law.

It's just like saying that in Fictitious Country, its against the law to smoke. But wait, we're not governed by their law, that's for them! What! So you're saying it's OK to smoke? No, but because its not good for you, not because it's illegal somewhere else!

James Forthwright said:

Do you really believe that it’s permissible for Gentile Christians to blaspheme, murder, lie, steal, practice idolatry, etc., in the First Century or in any century, for that matter?

Click to expand...

No, of course not.

Now answer my question: Why were the priests in the temple who profaned the sabbaths blameless?

mark s said:

I decided to answer your previous post. Should you find that it is not convenient to carry on this conversation with me at this time, I understand.

Click to expand...

Thanks Mark, I appreciate your patience and understanding. My other Sabbath-keeping friend, Truthseeker2012 used to help me handling a number of Sabbath questions but unfortunately he has resigned from the Christianityboard.com. Your reply was rather lengthy, so I hope you don’t mind if I trim it down to a more reasonable size. I’ll try not to cut out the main points of your position.

mark s said:

My statement had been that there was no exception to the law of the Sabbath concerning having a job in which you were regularly scheduled to work, with the exception of the priest.

Your reply is that there are exceptions to the Law that were not “spelled out”. You gave as examples that there were not laws against abortion (though I disagree), contraception (I do agree), and drug use (by which I am to assume you mean non-medical?).

Click to expand...

OK, I’ll concede that abortion was a terrible example and I did mean to write “drug abuse”. My point was that there were other “exceptions to the hard fast rule” in the OT on other aspects of the Law and Jesus specifically mentioned King David unlawfully partaking of the showbread. (Mark 2:26)

In the NT there are additional ‘exceptions’ to the hard-fast rule as well: Jesus telling the crippled man to ‘pick up his bed and walk’ on the Sabbath. Permitting His disciples to pick a few ears of corn on the Sabbath. Peter’s vision of the descending heavenly sheet filled with unclean animals, which did not represent food (as many are falsely taught) but a foreshadowing of the purification of the Gentile nations to receive the Word of God. (Acts 10:11)

Though the Pharisees were incorrect in criticizing Jesus for fraternizing with tax-collectors and sinners or not adhering to washing his hands before eating, they were jealous, hyper-critical pests looking for the slightest transgressions of their religious teachings and hypocritical in their judgments of others while not personally following their own legalistic rules of conduct.

mark s said:

However, the law of the Sabbath was clearly laid out, so what exactly is the relevance in the fact that other things might not have been clearly laid out?

Click to expand...

The relevance is that we have Jesus’ example of ‘walking in the Spirit of the Law’ rather than always paying attention to the strict confines of the written statutes, plus Christ’s further exceptions mentioned earlier in the Gospels. We know that Jesus lived a perfect sinless life, yet He was accused of violating the Law on a regular basis by the legalistic Pharisees. Therefore, everything obviously was NOT so ‘clearly laid out’ in the Law or was largely perverted by the addition of the Babylonian Judaic Oral traditions which were not yet codified in the First Century but were nevertheless readily observed by the Pharisees. Jesus condemned the Jews over-zealous legalism as ‘making the commandments of God of none effect’, i.e., perverting and distorting the pure Laws of God and its actual pure divine intent.

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

mark s said:

My objection to this position, that we are to keep the Sabbath except if we think the only job we can get requires us to work on the Sabbath, is that exception is not given in Scripture, is actually specifically disallowed both in rule (the Law), principle (manna), and practice (gathering sticks/Nehemiah).

Click to expand...

We are to follow Christ’s example. He sinlessly and perfectly observed the traditional Sabbath while also demonstrating that the Law was spiritual in nature and flexible enough to permit His disciples to gather a few ears of corn or command a healed man to lift a burden e.g. ‘pick up his bed and walk’ or ‘pull a donkey from a ditch’ on the Sabbath. These are ‘technical violations’ but no gross offenses of the Law. This reveals to us that we also have a degree of liberty ‘in Christ’ WITHOUT nullifying or transgressing the basic tenants of the Father’s commands. In other words, we should obey the Law but don’t sweat all the details because we have the Holy Spirit to guide us (just as Jesus did).

mark s said:

Where does the NT modify the punishments under the Mosaic Law? I read that it actually affirms them:

Click to expand...

Again, for the moment, forget what Moses wrote or what you’ve been told the Apostle Paul taught and instead observe Jesus’ example. Jesus is the perfect example of ‘walking in the Spirit’.

The OT punishment for adultery was absolutely crystal clear: The punishment was to be stoned to death. However, what was Jesus’ pronouncement to the woman caught in adultery? Christ deliberately ignored the foaming at the mouth for blood Pharisees, as well as the strict dictates of the Word of God and pardoned her sin and said, “Go and sin no more!” In other words, the commandment against adultery was not abolished it would continue to be a sin until the present day and beyond but the punishment was removed (at least temporally) for this woman by the grace and mercy of Christ.

Sometimes there’s no hard-fast rules to follow regarding the Law. It’s not an ‘all or nothing’ affair. Follow the dictates of the Holy Spirit within. Jesus also changed the Laws concerning Marriage & Divorce, however, in this case amending Moses law making the rules stricter regarding divorce. (Mark 10:3-9)

mark s said:

OK, switching to the 10 commandments in toto.

Your argument is that we affirm the other 9 of the 10 commandments, why do we not affirm this commandment?

The simple answer is that I do not affirm the other 9, just the same that I do not affirm this one. As new covenant Christians we are not governed by the 10 commandments.

Let's use a simple example. Jesus explained the commandment against adultery to include lust within the heart. I have not committed a physical act of adultery, but as a Christian, I have in fact lusted in this way.

Now, is there anyone who debates this issue who condones this act? I would expect not. I certainly do not. However, is this act governed by the 10 commandments, the Mosaic Law? What would your answer be? If you answer yes, then listen to what the Law says. The one who does these things shall live by them.

Click to expand...

Yes, as in the case of divorce, Jesus actually stiffened the Law regarding adultery to even include sinful thoughts and lusts of the heart. In other words, the commandment against adultery wasn’t abolished in any way shape or form. Now instead of only being wary of the overt commission of adultery, we are likewise, now commanded also to continually ‘walk in the Spirit’ and govern our carnal thoughts and desires.

mark s said:

What is the penalty under the law for the adulterer? Is it not to be stoned to death?

Click to expand...

I dealt with this question earlier in this post with the woman caught in adultery.

mark s said:

Do you really want to be under the Mosaic Covenant of Law? Remember – the 10 commandments, along with the rest of the Law, was a covenant between God and Israel.

Click to expand...

1Tim. 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

As Paul wrote. The Law is good and something that should be embraced rather than shunned, once we learn to ‘walk in the Spirit’.

mark s said:

But why are we not to lust in this way? Because the 10 commandments say You shall not commit adultery? No, because love does not seek its own. And if I am lusting in this I am not living love. I am not living the Christ life, thinking with the mind of the spirit, the mind of Christ.

Click to expand...

Our viewpoints are really not as divergent as you might think. I whole-heartedly agree with that entire paragraph. Once we are ‘walking the Spirit’ we don’t have to be concerned with the Ten Commandments as, after a while, it begins to become second nature to want to please the Father. And it’s to our benefit to follow God’s Commandments including the Sabbath.

There are associated divine blessings for our obedience for many of the Ten Commandments. Don’t steal or murder and you won’t have to worry about going to jail. Don’t commit adultery and you don’t have to worry about contracting STD’s. Don’t lie and you’ll have a clear conscience? Honor your parents and we’re promised longevity (Exo. 20:12) Count the Sabbath as ‘all joy’ and you are likewise promised to be blessed. (Isa. 56:1-7, Isa. 58:13-14, Psa. 112:1)

mark s said:

I am saying that the Mosaic Law was a covenant between God and Israel, which did not specify a certain portion of that Law, but rather required the entire Law to be kept.

Click to expand...

I happen to consider myself an Israelite Christian or at least grafted into the branch of Israel. And I’ve already stated that many portions of the Law (especially those regarding blood sacrifice and the priesthood) have now been totally eliminated or radically modified. We are to fear God, not his eternal Laws concerning morality aka The Ten Commandments which were instituted not as a punishment for mankind but for our benefit.

mark s said:

If you say we must keep the Sabbath, then by all rights you should equally be saying we must keep the feasts, we must not harvest the corners of our fields, but let others come in and glean, we must not eat shellfish, and all the rest.

Click to expand...

No, not exactly. We are to study God’s Word, observe Christ’s example and follow the dictates of our hearts in such matters. My personal belief (for what it’s worth) is that keeping the scriptural feasts seems like a vast improvement over following Catholic traditions of Christmas and Easter. I’m studying the biblical feast days in greater detail. Since I’m not a farmer I don’t have “corners of fields” to concern me. I’ve also come to the realization that it makes perfect sense to obey the biblical food cleanliness laws. Thousands of people each year are killed or sickened by ingesting tainted shellfish and bottom feeder fish or get trichinosis from pork. Pigs are filthy creatures and will eat just about anything. It’s really not much of a sacrifice, Mark. These days they make imitation crab, turkey ham, turkey sausage, etc.

mark s said:

You are saying that I am the one singling out the Sabbath for non-observance. In fact, I am asserting that we do not keep any of the Law, as we are not in that covenant, we are in a different covenant.

Click to expand...

I’m saying you’ve been sold a counterfeit bill of goods regarding God’s Law, keeping the Sabbath holy and what the New Covenant entails. Legalism isn’t the problem, Anti-nomianism (rejecting God’s Law) is the real danger to the Christian church. We demonstrate our love of God by keeping His Commandments as the beloved disciple stated in his epistle:

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

mark s said:

You are saying that we are to keep parts of the Law, but not other parts (if I understand you correctly – please correct me if I am mistaken!), and these can be subjectively determined.

Click to expand...

Almost, Mark! Change “subjectively” to “spiritually” and you’re beginning to grasp the concept more perfectly.

mark s said:

I am asserting that the Bible presents the Mosaic Law as a codified whole, to be observed in its entirety.

Click to expand...

Well then, that’s where we differ. You’re choosing to follow popular modern interpretations of what the Apostle Paul is supposed to have said in his epistles primarily directed to pagan Gentile nations regarding the Law rather than following Christ’s example. I prefer to follow Christ!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My response to HeRoseFromTheDead begins with his answering a fundamental question:

Do you really believe that it’s permissible for Gentile Christians to blaspheme, murder, lie, steal, practice idolatry, etc., in the First Century or in any century, for that matter?

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

No, of course not.

Click to expand...

God Bless you, HeRoseFromTheDead! Getting Jiggyfly to answer this simple question was like pulling teeth.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

Now answer my question: Why were the priests in the temple who profaned the sabbaths blameless?

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? Matthew 12:5​

Click to expand...

mcorba said:

Perhaps some one should start a new topic as some have diverged somewhat away from specific Sabbath points into 10 Commandments disputes generally.

Click to expand...

Not necessary, IMO, we'll eventually get the train of thought back on track.

The Sabbath is 1/10 of the Ten Commandments and I'm trying to establish the fact that (most) Christians, instinctively, know in their hearts (despite Pastor Stumblingblock's feel-good sermons) that the other nine commandments have not been abolished and should be obeyed by all faithful believers in Christ Jesus. The pertinent question I'm raising in this discussion is; 'Why should the fourth commandment be held in lesser esteem than the other nine'? It just doesn't make rational or doctrinal sense, especially, when there is so little scriptural support for the Sabbath's annulment.

If you have any specific issues concerning the Sabbath that you'd like to see addressed, mcorba, feel free to speak up (after all, you did originate this thread).

James Forthwright said:

Good question. To the best of my understanding, the priests had a higher command which superseded normal Sabbath observance which entailed attending to the work of the altar, preparing the many sacrifices, washing & purifying themselves, burnt offerings, wave offerings, sin offerings, anointing the sacred vestments, and holy places, etc. God, in effect, commanded them to NOT rest on the Sabbath with the other Israelite brethren by their sacred commission and innate nature of their consecrated priestly duties.

Click to expand...

I think it is fair to call the higher command you refer to, a higher law, which by virtue of the priestly position was a law of life. Separated to YHWH, the priests received no inheritance among the children of Israel; so, in effect, they had died to the world, yet were alive in YHWH to bear the sins of Israel.

From the beginning, God wanted the children of Israel to be a kingdom of priests.

But they broke the covenant and God instituted the temporary Levitical priesthood instead. Now, in fulfillment of his original intent, God has separated unto himself in Christ a kingdom of priests to serve him in his temple in heaven.



If the priests serving in the earthly temple were blameless for profaning the sabbath, so are also those priests who serve in the greater, heavenly temple.

James Forthwright said:

The Sabbath is 1/10 of the Ten Commandments and I'm trying to establish the fact that (most) Christians, instinctively, know in their hearts (despite Pastor Stumblingblock's feel-good sermons) that the other nine commandments have not been abolished and should be obeyed by all faithful believers in Christ Jesus. The pertinent question I'm raising in this discussion is; 'Why should the fourth commandment be held in lesser esteem than the other nine'? It just doesn't make rational or doctrinal sense, especially, when there is so little scriptural support for the Sabbath's annulment.

Click to expand...

It's not a question of whether the 10 commandments have been abolished or not. The real issue is that all in Christ have died to the law. When works of faith accomplish the righteousness demanded by the law, what is the point or benefit of obsessing with law that can't work righteousness?

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

I think it is fair to call the higher command you refer to, a higher law, which by virtue of the priestly position was a law of life. Separated to YHWH, the priests received no inheritance among the children of Israel; so, in effect, they had died to the world, yet were alive in YHWH to bear the sins of Israel.

From the beginning, God wanted the children of Israel to be a kingdom of priests.

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Exodus 19:6​

But they broke the covenant and God instituted the temporary Levitical priesthood instead. Now, in fulfillment of his original intent, God has separated unto himself in Christ a kingdom of priests to serve him in his temple in heaven.

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:5​

But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 1 Peter 2:9​

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Revelation 1:6​

And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. Revelation 5:10​

If the priests serving in the earthly temple were blameless for profaning the sabbath, so are also those priests who serve in the greater, heavenly temple.

Click to expand...

Some very astute insight on the priesthood, HeRoseFomTheDead! In the OT there were thousands of adult males in the tribe of Levi. Every Sabbath only a portion were excused from from regular Sabbath obligations because of their duties to the temple. Now, as a kingdom of priests serving the heavenly kingdom we do not receive a tithe from all the other tribes for our subsistence and can't be 'about our Father's business' 24/7. We still require natural as well as spiritual rest which the Sabbath continues to supply for those willing to partake of these divine blessings.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

It's not a question of whether the 10 commandments have been abolished or not. The real issue is that all in Christ have died to the law. When works of faith accomplish the righteousness demanded by the law, what is the point or benefit of obsessing with law that can't work righteousness?

Click to expand...

There's one fine distinction that's missing in your analysis. Being 'in Christ' we are, indeed, dead to the law UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS (not 'dead to the law itself). It's true, we are not required to do specific works to attain righteous, our righteousness is a entirely a gift of grace through Jesus' perfect fulfillment of God's Law. However, we are still required to obey the Ten Commandments as your earlier confession plainly stated and our hearts bear witness that the Law of God is written upon them.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

What is the point or benefit of obsessing with law that can't work righteousness?

Click to expand...

The answer to that question is simple: Because we love God and pay homage to Christ Jesus' sinless obedience to the Father's every command. We can manifest our abiding love by continuing to obey His heavenly commandments to the best of our rejuvenated 'in Christ' ability (and Christ pledges His Holy Spirit as a surety to help guide us in our spiritual endeavors). We 'count it all joy' to honor our Father's commandments and willfully obey from the depths of our hearts. There's no need to be 'obsessed' in our divine servitude but we should always be 'good and faithful servants' just as our Master was attentive to all of God's commandments:


Mat.10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. --Jesus Christ, our Master

Luke 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luke 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds
.
Luke 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)


Luke 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

Take careful notice that Jesus uses the number 10 repeatedly in this parable and that it is being associated with the works of His most faithful of servants.

I affirm that this is not a 'coincidence'!

James Forthwright said:

Now, as a kingdom of priests serving the heavenly kingdom we do not receive a tithe from all the other tribes for our subsistence and can't be 'about our Father's business 24/7. We still require natural as well as spiritual rest which the Sabbath continues to supply for those willing to partake of these divine blessings.

Click to expand...

The tithe has nothing to do with our spiritual service under the new covenant. What an irrelevant distraction. And the 24/7 attempt at relevance doesn't align with the reality of new covenant service. Here are a few scriptural examples:

James Forthwright said:

However, we are still required to obey the Ten Commandments as your earlier confession plainly stated and our hearts bear witness that the Law of God is written upon them.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that. You're trying to put your words in my mouth to further your own agenda. We are required to obey the voice of God through faith, not through labor in the works of the law. It is apparent that you don't know the difference.

James Forthwright said:

Mat_10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. --Jesus Christ, our Master
Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds
Luk 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
Luk_19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
Take careful notice that Jesus uses of the number 10 repeatedly in this parable and that it is being associated with the works of His most faithful of His servants. I affirm that this is not a 'coincidence'!

Click to expand...

All this 'coincidence' demonstrates is the threshold required to delude your mind.

What's with all the sudden hostility, HeRoseFromTheDead? The entire tone of your last post was troubling.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

The tithe has nothing to do with our spiritual service under the new covenant. What an irrelevant distraction.

Click to expand...

No, you spoke at great length on the Levitical priesthood and I merely mentioned that those priest's subsistence was provided by tithes collected from their Israelite brethren. It was not my slightest intention to distract from the topic at hand. We, on the other hand, have a heavenly priesthood but must work for a living to provide for our earthly families, the OT priests did not have this particular burden.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

And the 24/7 attempt at relevance doesn't align with the reality of new covenant service. Here are a few scriptural examples:

Pray without ceasing. 1 Thessalonians 5:17
I thank God, whom I serve from [my] forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day; 2 Timothy 1:3
Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; Ephesians 1:15-16
We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3​

Click to expand...

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

No, I didn't say that. You're trying to put your words in my mouth to further your own agenda.​

Click to expand...

HeRoseFromTheDead previously answered a simple question of mine (which others have skillfully avoided):


Do you really believe that it’s permissible for Gentile Christians to blaspheme, murder, lie, steal, practice idolatry, etc., in the First Century or in any century, for that matter?

"No, of course not." was your response. And a fine forthright honest response it was, sir!

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

We are required to obey the voice of God through faith, not through labor in the works of the law. It is apparent that you don't know the difference.

Click to expand...

I'm in complete agreement with the first sentence and kindly point out where I ever stated a contrary opinion!

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

All this 'coincidence' demonstrates is the threshold required to delude your mind.

Click to expand...

And God bless you as well, HeRoseFromTheDead!

James Forthwright said:

What's with all the sudden hostility, HeRoseFromTheDead? The entire tone of your last post was troubling.

Click to expand...

You should be troubled. I am bearing witness against your false teachings.

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

You should be troubled. I am bearing witness against your false teachings.

Click to expand...

"And blessed are the witness-bearers for they shall huff and puff and blow real hard. . ." - -James Forthwright 3:16