How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

I believe now that you are deliberatly closing your mind to plain English to maintain your charge of "contradiction". I never said the universal laws were cancelled, nor implied that being codified in the Decalogue was what defined them as universal. That is your cyclical fallacy. The universal laws existed BOTH in the Decalogue and outside of it before the Decalogue was even given. Maybe I should recite them again: (Idolatry: Gen. 31:19-36; Blasphemy: Gen. 3:1-4, Murder: Gen. 4.8-10-16, 6:11, 9:6, Theft: Gen. 3:6, Gen. 31:19, Forbidden sexual relationships: Gen. 19:5-7, 20.3, Establishing courts of justice: Gen. 19:1-9. (The Gates of a city were where Judges sat to convene Courts of Justice), Eating the Limb of a Living Animal: Gen. 9.4-5 was the only one not in the Decalogue, but was elsewhere in the Law). So no one is saying that any universal laws were ever cancelled.

It is not comparing apples to oranges, because the issue was not the children, but the use of the term "the least". In that case, it was a figure of speech. If you want to prove the standing in the Law, that is not the place to do it, because even the SDA's here do not agree that "the least" shall ever pass.

No, there is nothing here but a liberal concept of the sabbath. You are supposed to be resting your mind. Jesus would not have typed on a computer all day; instead, he went out and was directly involved in people. Being on a computer is indirect, and can be done any other day. And is is very mentally draining, and once again, it is not essential work for that day. This is RECREATION. You are not healing me or saving my soul or anyone else. (and once again, if you are trying to, that is against the BB rules). It is not like plucking grains. If you can't see that, then I would like to ask then, what is OK on the sabbath? I'm wrong for working, but then it seems you can do anything else you want to.

Childish? So you expect me to just chew on your words, I guess, because you think you're so right, right? You have no excuse for the accuatory tone and some of the things you have said you have come out with. We've been talking about the magnification of the Law, but then what does Jesus and the rest of the Bible say about the tongue? There are ways to have a civil dscussion, and you used my responses to you as an excuse, so I pointed out that you are the one who set the tone here by coming in an such accusatory judgmental fashion. Children may often say "he started it", and we call that childish but then that does not mean it is right for people to start things, and the other one has to just "have a stiff upper lip" all the time. These are very serious charges you are bringing against me and the rest of us before God. Don't forget that He is the real audience, and every idle word you speak you shall give account for.

So now you're the one saying "He [they] did it first", and this is the second time (the first being "I'm only doing what you are doing", which you repeat below, and then another mention of people accusing sabbathkeepers somewhere). But the difference is, that I am directly rersponding to your accusations of me, not to what some other people said in some other thread in the past. I was in that thread, and it is the same thing. It is the sabbatarians who were doing the accusing, and back then, spamming new threads everyday, posting volumes of EGW material on a Sunday Conspiracy, and people got tired of it, and lashed back. You're lucky, because several Catholics were banned for much less proseletyzing. Still, it was mostly the SDA side doing the accusing, and people responded in the defensive. I would not have named that thread that, but just because others may hurl accusations does not give you the excuse to. That is the childish response, because you are not discussing this with them anymore in this thread, you are discussing with me, and I have not made the accusations of sabbatarianism that they have.

Yeah, you're trying to rebuke, but many people do not know how to do this right. They just attack. Once again, many of the things you are saying are not just. Calling me antinomian, and stuff like that, which challenges my own inward motives (ad-hominem). I feel like I am on trial, and that is not right. You cannot call just any harsh language "rebuking" in the Biblical sense. That's what all of those KJV fundamentalists do, plus those who condemn all sabbathkeepers as legalists believing in a false "galatian" gospel". I do not do that, and it is not a biblical rebuke. Once again, if we were having this duiscussion with soene opely advocating homosexuality or murder, then you would have more of a case. But even then, if the person is not a Christian, we should be careful, and do it in a more gentle spirit. PEople don;t understand the other's view. You are approaching this as "You know you;re wrong, and I'm here to set you straight". That is not the right attitude, because we are all human and can be wrong and have our own biases.

 

Are you following the discussion with Michael? It is your side that makes the Ten a universal code. I believe it is part of the Law of Moses, and that there were universal Laws outside of the Law of Moses, some of which were included in it. So it is not "picking one out of the Ten" or "singling" it out, even though, unfortunately, many Christians have expressed it that way. Like I've just said above, the problem is, we drag too much baggage from past rhetoric by others into these discussion.

 

Eric,

I think you are right about that, we should all have a more gentle spirit and I am sorry if I havent been doing that. It was unintentional if I did.

 

The Bible says NOTHING about "universal law TRUMPS the Word of God spoken at Sinai". The Bible says NOTHING about man-made-tradition being an "Acceptible excuse" for editing God's Word or trashing His Word!

Those who make up such stories do so at the expense of sound Bible exegesis and a faithful rendering of the text.

IF ANY law is to be accepted as UNIVERSAL to mankind from our very MAKING it is the "SANCTIFIED" Holy Day of Christ our Creator in Gen 2:3 "MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 AND it is the Law regarding Marriage that we see in Gen 2 ALSO made for MANKIND!

But those who imagine "universal law that edits or abolishes" the Word of God spoken at Sinai - will not admit to this obvious fact "either".

THEN when we have the future World with "ALL mankind coming before God to WORSHIP from Sabbath to Sabbath" Isaiah 66 in the NEW Heavens AND in the New Earth - we have the most obvious excuse removed for those who imagine that this LAW given at creation week FOR MANKIND is not to be CONTINUED for all eternity!

 

Hebrews is giving ONE eaxample of a part of the law that has ceased. That still does not say that ONLY sacrifices have ceased. I gave you examples of others we do not keep which are not sacrifices.

Still the fallacy of "all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue is made up of universal commands."

So what you're doing id denyint that the world outside Israeal had ANY law at all; only Israel. So NONE of the Law was actually "universal", but it becamse eternal when God established them fro Israel, and then TRANSFERRED the covenant to the rest of man after Christ.
Sorry, but that is the frivolous and eisegetical fabrication. God always expected certain behavior of man, long before Sinai. That's how man sinned. God condemns man because of his behavior all throughout Genesis.
And you twist my words by saying "COVENANT Law existing outside the covenant", or even "Law of MOSES outside the Law". That's NOT what I said! I specidfically said it existed OUTSIDE the covenant, so then how is that saying they were "covenant Laws". They were universal laws included in the covenant.
And that covenant ended, and was replaced by a spiritual one, hence the "spirit vs letter" you keep denying, as opposed to the "Same exact law as Moses with only the sacrifices removed". In other words, yes, Israel was to reveal the Law, but they didn't even keep that law, so God changed the covenant alltogether, not simply transferred it to a greater number of people.

 

I deny that the law of the Philistines trumps,edits, abolishes the Words of God spoken at Sinai.

I deny that on the Seventh-day of Creation week - there were "Philistines outside the Garden keeping their own natural law". I CLAIM that Adam and Eve WERE MANKIND -- ALL MANKIND at that time and they were AWAKE and IN HARMONY with God as HE gave them His Holy Day AND Marriage "MADE FOR MANKIND".

Just the obvious - that comes from sound Bible exegesis.

I CLAIM "The Gospel was PREACHED TO ABRAHAM" Gal 3:7.

I CLAIM the "GOSPEL was preached TO US JUST as it was to THEM ALSO" Heb 4:1-2.

I DENY the "TWO GOSPEL" fallacy that would place Israel under a false Gospel of no-grace and all-works!

I DENY a false Gospel that tries to abolish the Word of God at the Cross OR in 70 AD!

I DENY a false Gospel that would EDIT the Word of God in FAVOR of the Law of Philistines!

It was not right before the cross - it is not right after the cross!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'm not bearing false witness, because while you did mention "civil laws", briefly, you basically glossed over them, and spoke as if it was only the Decalogue and the sacrifices. Now you add this new criteria that wasn't mentioned before. The civil laws are neither cancelled nor continue on, but were "rendered moot" (suspended) because Israel does not have its own Kingdom. So I guess they weren't weak and unprofitable" like the sacrifices, and would continue if Israel had a kingdom. So there are three divisions of the Law; one which is eternal, one which is cancelled, and another suspended only for a time. Where do you see that at?
We could still keep laws like the ox and the donkey (for those of us who have farms), and many of the other principles you are calling 'civil', as well as circumcision which is not even 'civil' (are you going to come up with another category?).
Also, if you were consistent on this, you would realize that the sabbath would fall into the same category, (civil) then. It is given solely to the physical nation of Israel, as their national sign.

Yes, the new covenant pertains to SPIRITUAL Israel, so you cannot transfer their physical sign over to us. That's why it is replaced by the spirit (rest in Jesus, plus LOVE for one another: "by THIS shall you know you are my disciples") In contrast, the sabbath is still associated by the world with the Jews, and even among those "Christian" or "messianic" groups that keep it, they still reject each other as false for other reasons. So it is PROVEN not to be even A sign for the true people of God today. That's why it's unprofitable. Anyone can keep it, and still not be a child of God. It is not even naturally on people's hearts, meaning we are automatically compelled to keep it out of love for God, apart from "just because the Law tells us to". That's what a Law being on the heart means. But no one can feign the love of God and rest in Christ. Just like I point out to the Church of Christ people here, physical signs like that are of the OT, and do not equal the spiritual realities.
Notice, the "oracles" you speak of include circumcision. NOT just the decalogue. So passages like this cannot be used to say we are under the law, with the exception of sacrifice rituals "offered daily and yearly". And notice hiow in Heb.9:4, "the tables of the covenent" placed inside the ark are apart of the whole "tabernacle" system that the writer is describing along with the ceremonial shadows. Rather than their place there proving the Decalogue was eternal, it proves that it was art of that whole "law" system being described there.

You're still repeating two errors here. Nowhere does it say that ONLY "laws that were offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin" were cancelled. Even you admit now that the civil laws were set aside, and whether or not they shall be reinstituted in the Kingdom does not pertain to us now.
Also, as I pointed out, your still mistaking the spiritual rest of Heb.4 with a literal physical rest.

 

[Note what those textbook style quotation marks do to a post when I post with the phone. (And the long dash, and the three periods in one character as well). I spent all day during breaks trying to delete them, but still missed one. Could you possibly use keyboard characters " ' -- instead? (I would think it would be easier, as they are ALT codes).]

What in the world are you talking about?

Once again, the sabbath does not "point out" sin. Not keeping a
sabbath is not the same as blasphemy, idolatry, or the laws governing
man's relation to his neighbor, which are universal in nature. God never
condemned the "ethnos" for not keeping it.

I have also explained to you that the Ten Commandments were not simply
the "first ten" of the 613. It was a summary of the whole law(which is
why it was given such prominence), which broke down into all the other
details. Just like the Ten break down the two.

You just claimed above that the Law was given specifically to Israel.
In any case, since there were the seven universal laws I have been
discussing, and you denying, these are the "commandments" Abraham kept.

Yes, we always had spiritual rest, which is faith, as well as all the
rest of the spiritual principles of the Law, like lust equaling adultery
in the heart. But because of sin, God added and focused on the "letter"
until the new covenant. Now, the true spiritual intent of the Law is
focused again. I never said that SPIRITUAL rest was a "shadow" or
"weak", but rather have always pointed to that as the true spiritual
reality the literal rest was to point to. You seem to be confusing the
spiritual spoken of in Hebrews for the literal.
I haven't failed to show this, you just choose not to recognize it.

Something can be a parallel and contrast at the same time. The fact that
it is a parallel, shows that it is somehow DIFFERENT from what it
is paralleling. Two lines that are parallel are different lines, not the
same line. I can have a red line and yellow line be parallel, and still
"contrast" them to one another. Even you used the term
"similarities", and things that are "similar" are still
different.

So God's rest from Creation parallels the literal sabbath rest of the
Law of Moses, as well as the spiritual rest of faith. Yet these are
still three different items, which can still be "contrasted" with each
other. The problem is not me confusing "allegory" or "parallel" with
"contrast", but rather you making parallel equal "identical". And you
are still to quick to throw out accusations.

You're still confusing the spiritual rest taught in the chapter with the literal rest that pointed to it.

Still, "least" in Matthew does not correspond to the "weak" of Hebrews.
You are reading too much into that. Just because you see two words that
may hypothetically be parallel like that, you can't just paste them
together if the context doesn't demand it. Yes, we both agree that some
parts of the Law were weaker than others, but the point is, Jesus is
not discussing that there. The future cancellation of ceremonial
Laws is not the subject of that statement.

You're just repeating that same sentence over and over. You have no
defense for this liberal view of the sabbath. The sabbath is not for
personal recreation, and this discussion is personal recreation, not a
vital work of the kingdom. ESPECIALLY when you reassert that the Law is
magnified! How does that allow for one to spend the day on the
internet? You keep calling my view of the sabbath legalist, but I asked
you last time what was allowed on the sabbath. How does being on a
computer all day square with Isaiah 58? What is the difference between
non-vital mentally exhausting "work" that does not earn a paycheck, and
non-vital work that does? Why are you bugging us about the sabbath if
you can do all of this stuff on it? If you think personal recreation is
allowed, and falls under the testimony and example of Jesus, then you
have to show me from the scripture where it is allowed, not continue
repeating that phrase which says nothing.

 

My tone was "accusatory" from the beginning,
because you just suddenly came out here out of nowhere tossing
accusations of "antimomianism". That is a serious charge, and most of us
are already stressed out from dealing with Bob and others who use
similar tactics. You keep excusing your behavior as "challenging unsound
doctrine and methodology" but what you have been doing is erecting straw
men, projecting them at me, and then "rebuking" your own caricatures of
our doctrines. I am not going to stand for that. I wasn't trying to
change the issue; only pointing out that your argumentation tactics were
getting very tiring, and are uncalled for.

OK, I accept. I was trying to start toning down last week, esp. after
the 'truce' of sorts with Claudia (above), which I was hoping you would
see and follow suit.
But this means no more accusations of what you THINK my "belief system"
implies. We have a difference of viewpoint. I am not trying to
obfuscate, evade, lie, feign, be frivolous, or any so-called "ploy". Address
the issue, not my motives, which all of these statements are attacking.

 

No one said that the universal laws "trump" or themselves "abolish" the Law given at Sinai. The law of Sinai passed with that covenant, (so it was the new covenant that abolished them) and the universal laws continue.

Your theory about Adam in Genesis and the Kingdon in Isaiah is no proof that the sabbath was a universal law. Give us a scripture that commands US TODAY to keep it, not vague indirect inferences. God rested from the work of creation the seventh day, but He did not then go back to work for the next six days, week after week, and Adam was not creating, and he was required to work week after week, so once again, God's keeping of a sabbath then is not something that all of man was expected to do at that point.

So now, you did more thinking, and come with this "law of the Philistines". That is a deceptive misreading of what I said. Why do you have to keep recasting what people say like that? The universal laws of God are not the same as the law of one heathen nation. The laws of one nation can be corrupt, incomplete, etc. but we do see laws that God always expected man to follow, and condemned nations for breaking, including the Philistines. But never the sabbath.

 

Michael,

Thank you, I really appreciate you saying that to me

 

obfuscate?

Could somebody please take a moment to explain to me what the word "obfuscate" means?

 

I had to look that one up myself. From what I remember, it means something like the hide or obscure the truth or a pertinent fact in the matter.

 

Christ said - "The Sabbath was MADE for mankind" in Mark 2:27 just as we see it made in Gen 2:3 as THE HOlY day for MANKINd in creation week. JUST as we see in Gen 2 Marriage also MADE for mankind.

Obviously there are NO pagans OUTSIDE the garden NOT honoring marriage and NOT knowing about the Holy Seventh-day MADE for mankind!



But of course Eric says "Adam in Genesis and the Kingdon in Isaiah is no proof that the sabbath was a universal law" -- (I don't want to SEE it says Eric so it does not exist).

What a great argument!

 

Good you mentioned marriage in this vein, because all are not obligated to be married, so "made for mankind" does NOT mean "All mankind are OBLIGATED".