How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

To 'whip' is to try to inspire or to force with the Law. I hope I never do that! If Jesus Christ does not give the Sabbath's full meaning and obligation, I hope it's not for me - or for any Christian. To be a Christian implies two thing necessarily: 1, Christ is the Alfa and Omega in everything; 2, for His Church. If not for Christ's Church - that is, for the Believers in actual congregation of worship - it is neither of Christ nor to Christ's honour or glory. A Sabbath Day or a keeping of the Sabbath Day that does not come from Christ and realises to the honour of Christ, is against Him and therefore is against the Law of God. Therefore it is impossible to have one word of recommendation for Sunday.

 

Oh, I thought by 'whip' you just meant critical language. I didn't know you had such a particular meaning by it.
Whatever...

Acts 2:46.
And now, if we worship God every day, God would reject it? Where do you get that from? You criticize the SDA's for using the Law, and what you're saying here is worse!

I haven't been going on Sunday, and I'm not expelled. You're still lumping all churches together.

Also; I meant "Church of God 7th Day". That is a lesser known group that keeps the sabbath and Passover only. Armstrong (WCG) came out of this movement.

 

You haven't been going on Sundays, Eric, only because of your work? Then its inexcusable if not. A Christian isn't a Christian fully without worshipping TOGETHER, SHARING Faith, and in ONE voice glorifying and honouring God ON THIS EARTH AND IN THIS TIME - IN PRACTICE. "FEAST", Paul called it in Col2,16-17.
You haven't gone on Sundays if not because of your work then, because the CHURCH BY CONGREGATINGLY WORSHIPPING ON SUNDAYS, excluded you - excluded you you most brutally because ots so subtle it's irreristable! Shame on the Church (general/Protestant/Catholic/whichever)!

 

The Seventh Day Adventist Church is the great master at such tactics. They exclude me because if and when I go to Church (their Church) it is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus - and they simply won't permit! If I 'keep' the Sabbath - which I believe I am privileged to do and given the grace to do, it must be to the honour and glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and BOTH the SDA's and the rest them (the Church) WON'T hear of it! They ALL think the Sabbath hasn't got a thing to do with Christ! How pittiable!

 

The SDA's are the masters of this tactics - they stop one's mouth even before you have spoken - holding for a doctrine the Sabbath has got nothing to do with Christ. One is not allowed to speak contrary 'the spirit of prophecy' as they call their prophetess mrs White. So you know in advance you won't be received. You'r excluded mercilesly. Then they must feel so holy about it!

 

I shall believe the Sabbath for as long as I believe the Church; and I shall believe the Church for as long as I believe the Sabbath; which both I shall believe for as long as I believe in Jesus Christ our Lord - for the Church IN IT'S CONGREGATING, is, quote: "The Body of Christ's Own". "a Sabbath Day remaining valid for the People of God" - His, New, Testament "People"! "THEREFORE THEN do not you let yourselves be judged with regard to eating and drinking and eating and drinking of Feast of Sabbaths!"
(We have corresponded on this topic extensively.)

 

There's still the Tuesday prayer meeting.

 

I suppose I could point out that this is a lie - but I am not sure that you would get the point.

How about if we contrast what "you post" with the truth for a while.

#1. Non-SDAs attend in SDA services all the time. SOME of them are fellow Sabbath keepers from other denominations and SOME are in fact Sunday Keepers that are visiting or like to attend for some reason. NONE of them are "excluded" from the worship service.

But since GE "makes up" so much of his stuff on this topic "in general" why should church "attendance" stories be an exception at this point?

#2. HOW would a local congregation even KNOW enough about your wild-eyed story telling to even THINK about excluding you from a worship service??: What in the world are you DOING??!!

 

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Eric, I understand more than you do precisely because I DO rely on definitions that are universally accepted while you think you’re above them such as in the example of the definition of a circular fallacy! “Probably not even correct” translates into you haven’t even bothered to investigate EXACTLY what a circular fallacy really is, but then you presume to pontificate and argue upon it through your own definition; that’s presumption, shallow and inconclusive. And the same pertains to your arguments against my premise and its deductive support and that is why you cannot see that I have a superior argument that is backed by proper exegesis. You tend to pontificate and argue by your own definitions and standards rather than the truths in the scriptures. It is your arguments that are inconclusive and shallow (I turn these assessments around on you because this is clearly a case of the kettle calling the pot black).

My original premise on this thread had little to do with the placement of the fourth, in the first place, although I addressed it in support of my premise. My original premise was upon the change of the law and that the fourth did not fall under the criterion, which you have NEVER overcome with any proper exegesis. Standing and placement of the fourth were in support and even your protest against these are clearly shallow and inconclusive. If this were not so why do you continue to use the antinomian argument that the 613 were “ALL the same ‘unit’" because they all hung together? This is a superfluous argument because of STANDING; the law WAS NOT to be looked upon as all equal and the same according to Yahshua and even Hebrews declares that some law was weak and intended to be cancelled, which supports that some part of the 613 was greater and not intended as the aforementioned.

Thank you for the example of “incest” because it further illustrates and supports my deductive arguments concerning the change of the law and not yours. And I NEVER stated anywhere that ONLY the ten were perennial—only that they hung IMMEDIATELY, which made them greater than those that hung below. There is no repetition of many of the laws that hung on the greatest commandments, which is your foremost argument against the fourth, but that does not mean that they were not part of the New Covenant. While we have the repetition concerning lying with one’s father’s wife in first Corinthians chapter five there is no repetition of uncovering the nakedness of OTHER kin (Leviticus 18:6); yet we know that the laws concerning uncovering the nakedness of all kin are STILL profitable and perfect even though there is no explicit instruction or repetition in the New Testament and Covenant. Moreover, the standing of the fourth is further supported by the truth that it carried the penalty of capital punishment for its transgression, like incest, while the ceremonial involved no such penalty.

Nevertheless, we are NOT to look upon the seventh commandment as hanging upon the GREATER laws that prohibit incest, but the other way around, because Yah wrote the seventh with his own finger and required that it and the other nine be kept in the ark and separate from the precepts concerning kin. Your OPINION that incest is a greater offence than adultery continues to make Yah’s elevation of the seventh by writing it Himself and requiring that it be kept separate from the precepts concerning incest capricious, superfluous and arbitrary.The precepts concerning “incest” hang upon the seventh commandment because it hung IMMEDIATELY to the second and greatest commandment written by the finger of Yah and kept separate from the precepts concerning incest.

To add my “incidental” element to the issue, man’s social contracts are likened unto Yah’s covenant, which further illustrates the truth above. The codes and statues of governments (constitutional governments) must conform or hang to the constitution, not the other way around. Social contracts require that statues or codes conform to the FIRST written instrument or the constitutions, because the FIRST instrument or the constitution is GREATER than the statues and codes that are written afterwards; this is another example of standing concerning law. In conformance to this perennial principle, since Yah had the people of the covenant REMEMBER the Sabbath before they were even given the tables of stone written by His own finger, the moral standing of the fourth was established by Yah’s priority in giving it FIRST.

Again, at the top of this rank or order were the laws that IMMEDIATELY hung to the FIRST and greatest commandment: thou shalt not have any other gods; nor make any graven images; nor take His name in vain, and remember the Sabbath. These are the laws that IMMEDIATELY hung upon the FIRST and greatest commandment according to Yahshua and it is totally deceptive to suggest that the fourth commandment was NOT to be taken with the UNIT because the New Covenant had not even been ratified by the cross when Yahshua declared the aforementioned! Further, Yahshua upheld that it would continue to have the same standing even after his departure in the Olivet Discourse when he warned the disciples to pray that their flight from the destruction of Jerusalem would not be on the Sabbath (Matthew 24:20).

The point is that you attempt to circumvent that the change in the law did not concern what was written upon the heart of the heathen but concerned the Old Covenant law! It’s transparent that you import the frivolous matter of “Noahide” law and the “original universal seven laws” to avoid determining whether the fourth commandment falls under the criterion of the cancelled law in Hebrews and the standing of the Decalogue upheld by Yahshua. Moreover your import avoids the truth that the New Covenant is still to Israel and that Yahshua upheld the standing of the fourth in the Olivet Discourse.

 

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Again, you’re attempting to elevate your personal experience against others, which is an extremely poor argument based upon emotion! Part of conversion is to read the covenant and many who read the covenant come to the conclusion that the fourth commandment is still a part of that covenant, which counters your experience. Their experience is that the fourth commandment is being written upon their hearts by the same finger that wrote it on the tables of stone. You arguments are inconclusive and shallow because they continue to take heathen perspectives of the law and at the same time the legalist’s arguments of antinomianism.

You still don't get it. We don’t have to fulfill the letter or the spirit of what the Mosaic ceremonial laws prefigured under the New Covenant. Yahshua did or is doing that for us. The ceremonial ordinances under the Mosaic covenant were nailed to the cross and we are not to let anyone judge us on them concerning sprit or letter. This precludes the imported and untenable idea that the Mosaic ceremonial law was “relaxed” and we now keep the “spirit” while its “letter” was done away in the New Covenant.

When you respond with substance and not mere denials then I will do likewise.

As to the civil law of the Mosaic covenant (Leviticus 12:3), my point was that it wasn’t enforceable civilly since they were subject to Rome at the time of Paul; that doesn’t mean that they did not carry it on as tradition. This is why Paul states he was circumcised the eighth-day. It is highly significant that the Gentiles that were opposed to circumcision, which inhibited Paul ministry to them, where not eight days old so the civil ordinance was not applicable them. It becomes clear that the ordinance that the Judaizers were attempting to impose upon the Gentiles was the requirement of circumcision bound to the shadow of Passover. Again, the issue of circumcision is either covered by the shadow law of Passover and is addressed in the criterion in Hebrews, or the civil law that lost its standing when the crown was taken from Israel.

Your point that the law is written on the heart stems strictly from an emotional personal experience and is an extremely poor argument based upon emotion! Part of conversion is to read the covenant and many who read the covenant come to the conclusion that the fourth commandment is still a part of that covenant, which counters your experience. Their experience is that the fourth commandment is being written upon their hearts by the same finger that wrote it on the tables of stone. (It’s sad that I have to repeat because you merely rehash the same poor arguments.) Consequently, some of the best and truly productive arguments stem from the criterion of the law that was cancelled and STANDING in the law, which you show you know little of and so the quote in Timothy really pertains to your attempt to teach on the law. Your arguments are emotional and based on the typical antinomian point of view and must rely on legalism in order to gain a psychological edge.

My arguments don’t resort to emotionalism or personal experiences but center on which law was cancelled and the standing of the law, which is the rank or order of importance in the law as it is perceived from Yah’s perspective. Contrary to your shallow and inconclusive arguments, Yahshua gave us this rank or order concerning the Decalogue at his declaration of the two greatest commandments. At the top of this rank or order were the laws that IMMEDIATELY hung to the FIRST and greatest commandment: thou shalt not have any other gods; nor make any graven images; nor take His name in vain, and remember the Sabbath. Yahshua upheld that the fourth would continue to have the same standing even after his departure in the Olivet Discourse when he warned the disciples to pray that their flight from the destruction of Jerusalem would not be on the Sabbath (Matthew 24:20).

Clearly, your position that the letter of the law has been canceled but not the spirit is a myopic import because, while the focus changed to the spirit, the letter is still valid: the letter of “thou shalt not kill” is still written in the heart as well as the spirit of “love thy neighbor as thyself” and etcetera; that is how the law is magnified. That there was always a spiritual intent that was greater than the letter did not change from one covenant to another. That the NT’s focus is upon the spirit simply does not address “how the law changed” either since the letter of the laws that were not cancelled is magnified concurrently.

Your position is clearly exposed for its legal egoism when you interpret my upholding the Sabbath on the Sabbath as “a silly internet DEBATE like… a hobby and recreation, even if it is "ABOUT" God.” Clearly, you are the one attempting to uphold that ONLY YOU can determine what is lawful and what is not concerning the fourth commandment! If you can’t see that this is sheer legal egoism and impudence then the quote from Timothy surely applies to you and not me. And let’s not overlook that it is you that is imposing restrictions on the fourth commandment (exemplified by twiddling my thumbs), while I’m upholding the liberty that was a result of Yahshua magnifying the fourth commandment to show that it was lawful to do well. What greater good can there be than to testify of the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, which you twist into “work” with your antinomian legalist argument.

In reference to gathering sticks for fire and restrictions on travel, you continue to show your legalist perceptions of the Old Covenant. The restrictions on travel were a misconstruence of the prohibition to collect manna on the seventh-day (Ex.16:29) in the wilderness—which the Jews used to broaden their authority over the people. This is clearly an example of legalism and you construe it as a lawful ordinance under the Old Covenant. And you’ve missed the object of the lawful right to glean a small portion of corn to eat on the Sabbath for the benefit of man and not the Sabbath. In like manner the restrictions on fire should not restrict man in his attempt to stave off cold for health reasons in less temperate climates than the Middle East, for the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around. As I stated the instructions are there but you look through the eyes of the antinomian and the heart of the Pharisee in your arguments. Yahshua upheld the lawful standing of the fourth commandment even after his departure to sit at the right hand of the Father.

Michael

 

It’s not “my own definition”, it’s the common uderstanding of the term, and you are trying to escape by getting technical, but I’m not speaking technically, but according to the common usage. (I said “probably not correct” because I didn’t have to time to look up your technical definition, and when I do, your position will still fall into it.)
You’re playing games here, denying that the “placement of the fourth commandment” was your original premise, but rather “the change in the Law”, which revolves right around to what else; but “the placement of the fourth”. So it still stands, by your own definition: it relies upon its own proposition (The “change in the Law” according to Michael’s own concept of “Standing”) in order to support its central premise. (That the Sabbath is perennial because it is not “Ceremonial”). You can claim the former is your real premise all you want, but your whole argument has been to prove the Sabbath. You started this thread to continue where another one left off, where you were trying to prove the Sabbath. You trying to be slick and think that is forgotten, now? No one is arguing that the Law did not change. No one is saying there is no standing. If we did, we would be keeping ALL the laws. So that is not what you are ultimately getting at. You gloss over my statements now, and have not even answered this point!

The way you argue, on “standing”, even down to the “fourth being at the center”, makes it look like you are claiming that those are what were perennial. Then, the repeated arguments about them being in the ark, written with the finger of God, etc. So if that was not what you were tying to say, then all of this has been yet another red herring to throw the discussion off and hide the holes in your doctrine. My argument has been all along, that YES, the Law has standing, but the TEN are not the perennial unit. You have gone to great lengths to show that “the ten are GREATEST”, but here is the clincher” greatest DOES NOT EQUAL “perennial”! Once again, your discussion of “constitutions” still says nothing about us today. The problem is, we ask for proof the Sabbath is binding today, and you give us proof it was greater than other commands given to Israel. You still have not proven it goes beyond that first covenant.
I even acknowledged that the Sabbath DID have a very high position in that covenant! But what you keep avoiding is the fact that that Law was given to ISRAEL under the OLD Covenant, so it doesn’t matter how great those laws were in comparison to each other. You have been going around in these circles proving nothing; sidestepping the real heart of the matter.

I don’t actually insist that incest is worse, because “if you break one, you have broken them all” (which right there ought to caution you about taking this “they are not equal” thing too far.) I was basically using your line of reasoning on “greater” to show you something, but apparently, you still don’t get what “hanging on” really means, when you treat adultery and incest as two totally separate commands, with one being “greater” because it was written with the finger of God.
Now to illustrate the utter absurdity of that, if an unmarried person sleeps with a child and/or unmarried close blood relative, but never a married adult; can you say he is “only” guilty of “incest”, but NOT “adultery”? I wouldn’t say something like that! Yet, if he commits adultery with an adult, he is guilty of “adultery” but not “incest”, because one Is simply a specific DETAIL of the other. However; he is not to think he is “not as bad as” someone committing incest before God, because he has still sinned (guilty of the whole Law) and will be judged by God for it. The Seventh commandment is basically a broad UMBRELLA covering ALL “sexual immorality”. So “incest” is APART OF, and NOT “Separate and inferior to” Adultery! You show your ignorance with flying colors to claim otherwise.
The truth concerning the Law is not “arbitrary”, “superfluous” etc because it doesn’t fit into your neat little box. It is quite easy to understand and follow the meaning of, if you don’t approach it with some preconceived agenda, such as using it to judge other believers as “antinomian”; in which case, you are judging the law itself, and thus NOT a DOER of it!!! (James 4:11)
So likewise, we know that the laws against incest carry over, because they HUNG ON the law against adultery, and we all agree that that does carry over, and it is still engrained on our consciences that that is wrong. It is universal, and even known to unbelievers.

 

What in the world are you talking about? You are saying the SDA Church thinks the Sabbath has nothing to do with Christ?

I just have to say that you really do post some weird stuff about the SDA Church.

 

The continuing mixup here, on your part, is because you are trying to argue for the perennial nature of the Sabbath, and to do that, you try to make the Law given to Israel the “perennial” (universal) commands, and dismiss the Laws God instilled in the rest of man (you forget those “heathen” you keep deriding were still made in the image of God, like the Israelites, who were no less sinful, as was illustrated by the Law they were given and failed to keep!)
So to do all of this, you must build this system where The Ten were perennial, and the rest either perennial or weak based on their “standing”. Standing is in there, but you still have not shown that all Ten were universal; you only assume it, and once again, your starting premise becomes its own support.
You then assume that since God intended this Law to spread to all men, then it must have been perennial. But you forget that this covenant was BROKEN by the people, and God started a NEW covenant. But again, because we are called the “spiritual Israel”, then the old Covenant Law simply transfers to us, and now to break the Sabbath is to be just as “against the name [Christian]” as a murderer or adulterer.
To “hang upon” means is is “SUMMED BY”, as Jesus showed that even the Two themselves which the WHOLE LAW hung on; hang upon ONE: “Love”. (MAtt.7:12, Rom.13:9). The Ten were a SUMMARY, and THAT’s why they were given such a prominent place, in the ark, written by God, commanded from the mountain, etc. But that still was TO ISRAEL ONLY, and does not mean that they all carry over to us. The NT repeatedly deprecates the Ten in favor of the Two and the One, and what that shows is that instead of focusing on the letter precepts given to the congregation of Israel; we are supposed to look at the broader concept of LOVE (The One) towards God and man (the Two). Everything below that were DETAILS given to a particular people in a particular covenant; and we have to discern now which of them are perennial commands given to all, and the Bible shows us the Seven that were expected of all men, plus them being written on our hearts.
(Those He was telling to pray that their flight was not on the Sabbath were Jews who would continue to keep the Sabbath, as the NT does not tsay they had to stop keeping it. Only not judge others, such as the gentiles coming in over it, which proves it was not expected of all).
.
The Sabbath hung directly on the command to love God due to its placement, and that is universal, but that does not prove it is automatically perennial, because the whole law hung on the One->Two->Ten->, so if you try now to insist that everything that hangs on the Two or Ten is “perennial”, then YOU are the one giving the whole law “the same standing”!

And you’re making an extremely poor argument based on intellect. “reading” something and then “making a conclusion” from it is intellect, NOT “written on the heart”.
All this time you keep ignoring the fact that there are universal commands men automatically know about, and Christians further are convicted of, and you sneer at this as a “heathen perspective of the Law”; and instead insist on reading the Old Covenant Law, applying it to ones self (especially after being indoctrinated by Galatianizers) and then mistake that as “The Law written on the heart”.

I keep telling you, YOU are the one who keeps using that word “relaxed”. Stop infusing your own straw man rhetoric into the discussion; because that is not the issue. All I have said is that they were “fulfilled”; just as you have just said. That means that it is a spiritual fulfillment. Because of one act, done in the past, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. And He is the propitiation (PAYMENT under THE LAW) for our sins…” (1 John 2:1,2) That’s all I’m saying, and it’s what the Bible says! And the letter was “done away”, wasn’t it? The fact that you have to twist my statements like that shows you have no other recourse in the debate.
Just because the letter and spirit of SOME LAWS coexist doesn’t mean they ALL did. You seem to think you have such a big argument there, but you still have not shown how the Sabbath is magnified, then. You assume it just carries over. What you refuse to do is look at each law, and ask “what is the purpose (INTENT) of this? How is the intent spiritually fulfilled? Does the Letter fulfill it, or a greater application of the letter, or is there are greater preinciple that supersedes the letter, as written in the command? That’s how we can discern this. But you want to take an easy way, and just say “OK, it’s all Ten are perennial in letter and spirit, so that’s just it”. But just because the letter of one law continues in the spirit (with added meaning in the “magnification”) does not mean that another is not cancelled in the letter. Once again, you have to ack what is its purpose. What was the purpose of the Sabbath? You swing back and forth between it is “rest”; but no, it is to do good works for God. The scripture says it was a physical SIGN for the nation of Israel. Then you try to transfer that to us, yet we are not a physical nation with physical laws different from everyone else. Where we’re different is that we desire to keep the perennial laws that all of man knows are good, yet rebel against themselves.

 

#1. WE are not evolutionists - we don't believe that God made a Garden and then "placed the heathen into it".

#2. WE PAY ATTENTION to God's Word when HE SAYS "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Isaiah 66.

We don't say -- "God you can't do that - what about the heathen"?

#3. WE pay attention to the words of Christ in Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was MADE for Mankind NOT mankind MADE for the Sabbath".

How hard is that to understand?

 

If you have some way to show that "ALL MANKIND" does not mean "universal" or "mankind" then show it.

Otherwise you may want to drop that "NOT all mankind" argument.

 

Oh, no you don’t! All you do is throw back recycled statements I have earlier said, and you’re the one rehashing the same things you have said.
I am NOT the one Timothy is talking about, and you try to hurl it back so fast, you don’t even think about the CONTEXT. Paul is warning about people coming arguing in favor of the Law, and trying to impose it on Christians. That is what YOU are doing; not me. I am the one on the defensive here, like Paul was. Yet to do that, they do not even understand what they are preaching. They too failed to realize that they broke their old covenant, and the laws that were signs of it like the Sabbath and circumcision were not perennial, to be imposed on the New Covenant. Even the Jews, as I linked earlier, then had to come up with some new cockamamie way to abolish (or even discredit) the ceremonies, (without Christ), since the Temple was destroyed. And now, you do not know what you are teaching either, because you have stocked yourself with all of these slick arguments, conjured up out of nowhere, and not even taught by anyone else, instead of coming to the scriptures and letting them speak for themselves.

It’s an astonishing logical somersault how you have flipped everything around so that you have the gall to be coming here with such a judgmental spirit, calling us “antinomian” and yet then have the utter NERVE to call us “legalist” “Pharisee“, at the same time! Wow, do YOU have it made! That is just the same thing and the flipside of adulterers and murderers lashing back at Christians who preach to them, by trying to dig up some flaw they (or other Christians) havem and calling them “sinners” or “”I‘ll get to heaven before you do“. They do it all the time; especially when they see us being judgmental like you are, and ask “where’s the love at, Christian?” See; I’m a better person than you are”. So it’s typical human nature.
I have used the example of your inteet debate, because remember, you and others have tried to argue for the perennial nature of the Sabbath based on “rest”, and I have tried to show you that you are not getting rest by engaging in this stuff. That right there proves that the original command in the LETTER is weak. There is good we need to do, including feeding ourselves, and that takes PRECEDENCE over the SIGN given to the physical NATION of Israel in the letter of the Law given to them. And as I have said you are certainly not doing good, by coming here and calling names (which are not even true, as you have yet to even address the fact that we are not living “against the name“ Christian, and you are the one judging over the Law like a true legalist Pharisee), and using slick arguments and misconstruction of the other side (straw men),-- all dishonest, to try to prove your point.
The letter of the Law always begged the question of where “the line” is. So when they were told not to gather manna, and then not to do “any work”, they had to take “the safe side” and say gathering of sticks was forbidden. That is precisely the same “err on the side of Law” as you have been claiming, and you’re too blinded to even see it! (2 Cor.3:14,15) Why you think it is different, and then have the temerity to try to project that on me, is byond me. So this is why I point out the double standard of you using the internet to argue in a debate on the Sabbath. Remember; I am not the one who thinks it is wrong to do anything like that on the Sabbath. But then, the issue becomes when I ask why you are judging some of us for working to support our families, and not quitting (which makes one unemployed and not able to support their family) until they find a job with the day off, then you come with the letter of the Law, (“REST”) but with “commerce” added, which it did not specify. (Once again, just like circumcision and “the crown”, that was a physical nation, where every employer was required to honor the Sabbath and not make their employees work. We do not have that now. You just attrinute thet to “the sin of the nations” for making us work, but where have they ever been commanded to honor the Sabbath?)
You just try to extend the Law of Israel to all. When you’re questioned as to whether you are really keeping this, then, you claim you have “liberty“. So you are basically playing both sides of the fence; using “the letter“ and “liberty” at your own convenience, switching back and forth from one to the other when it suits you. So, it’s ONLY YOU who can determine what is lawful and what is not concerning the fourth commandment. Your internet time is OK, but not working in a job that requires weekends. You keep telling me “the instruction is there”, but you are not showing it. I have to take your word for it. If I take the instruction from the original commandment in the Law, then it says “no work”. It does not say how extensively this applies, so can I use the computer, can run to the store to pick up something, etc.? You call this a “legalist argument”, but from using the “letter” ALONE, that is all I know, “to be on the safe side”. You then speak of liberty. But in order to understand that better; I have to come to the New Testament, where Jesus and the apostles address it. But they show that the letter was weak, and the the Jews even knew themselves at fact, when they lifted oxen out of the ditch, and overlooked David eating the showbread. So they were being selective about what they would restrict, and had drawn up their own list. That is what you are doing, but the only difference is that you have added less restrictions they they have, so now you have the audacity to try to call someone else “legalist. But all of your arguments are like theirs, even down to the shiftiness, and the loopholes you construct, to be able to judge others, while you do what is convenient for you.-- Just enough to judge, but not enough to be too “restrictive” to your tastes. Sorry, but do no come here and judge me based on that. You are not God. And now you claim Jesus “upheld” it from the right hand of God, but where do we see that at? He is mentioned as departing to the right hand of God at the end of Mark, and in Acts, but the Sabbath is not mentioned in either raccount. Are you adding more stuff?
You deny circular argumentation, so then prove that “standing” means what you are saying here it means. Who else even makes thse “best and most productive arguments“? The SDA’s don’t. The Armstrongs don’t. It sounds like you just made these concepts up off the top of your head, hoping they would get by because they’re slicker than the more common arguments.

 

I don’t see any scripture that lays all of this down; that circumcision was just a “tradition” ever since they lost the Crown. God should have had one of the Prophets tell us that, then. Man does not have the power to change God’s Law, so just because they were in captivity doesn’t mean they were absolved from it. They could no longer stone people, but they could cut them off from the people, which was the penalty for many such laws. And you claim “it becomes clear”, which is often a statement used to fill in for evidence when there is none. Paul warns the Gentiles in several places about those trying to circumcize them to “glory in their flesh”, but does not mention Passover ceremonies in connection with it. You just add that out from nowhere! And they did not have to be 8 days old to be circumcised. When a gentile joined Israel, he was circumcised however old he is when he joined. Else, only less-than-one-week-old children could be circumcised, and not “all the males”, yet the law on strangers joining the nation did not say that! If comeone is born into Israel, they would be circumcised at 8 days old. Otherwise, whatever age they are when they join. Do you not know even that much about the Law you try to teach on?And the fact that you say “either”. Are you not sure which? Make up your mind before you speak so authoritatively on the subject.
And I deny things, because all you are doing is shooting out a lot of nonsense, and phony baloney accusations. No, maybe when you say something of substance, and not a lot of hot air dressed in “educated” sounding garb, then I’ll be able to do likewise.

Regardless; because I said they were all the same unit, doesn’t mean I deny standing. Once again, if I did; I would be keeping ALL, or NONE, and I’m tired of you speaking as if I keep none with the derisive term “antinomian” (“Against the name ‘Christian’”; NOT against the Sabbath of OC Israel)
The argument here is the WAY we determine what is perennial (or universal), and what was weak and cancelled. Not WHETHER any were weak. This whole “antinomian” thing is a straw man non-sequitur because you can’t answer my real arguments, so you must misconstrue them to what you can easily dismiss based on “oh, well, he’s just a lawless sinner believing the whole law is equal and falls together, so it all has passed”. That basically seems what you are trying to cast my “belief system“ as, by calling it “antinomian“. Thus YOU are the one using psychological, emotionally charged egotistical arguments. “Don’t listen to him, he’s completely without Law!” And “impudence”? impudence
Rude and disrespectful, especially towards someone who is in a more important position.
an impudent remark
an impudent child
Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impudence"
If that is what you are calling me, then are you thinking of yourself as “in a more important position”? I was not disrespectful to you, you are the one consistently rude; hurling names and accusations at me and the rest of us, from your very first posts. (which right there is bad netiquette, but you’re the holy prophet correcting all us lawless “antinomians”, right?)
What you need to do is stop judging others, and you yourself look into the perfect Law of Liberty and you yourself be a DOER, and not judge the Law by focusing on where you think we‘re breaking it. You obviously do not know what you are talking about, have made up your own theology of the Law, and try to disguise it with big, strong speech. But some of us are well versed in the Word of God, and we will not be tossed to and fro by your wind of doctrine, as well as all the others who come here claiming we are doing something wrong. (Church of Christ, Catholics, SDAs, separatist fundies, etc).

 

You're still lumping together widely separated passages that do not add together for a command for us. We are not in the New Milennium. There was no command mentioned in the Garden, just like the heathen were never condemned for not keeping it. Adam wasn't creating, and God did not go back to work the next day, so it wasn't something he could copy. If it's made for us, and NOT US MADE FOR IT, stop turning it into something "binding" that we are wrong for not quitting our jobs tomorrow just to "keep" it.

 

You have as a doctrine, that 'the Sabbath has no symbolic significance, and does not, like the 'ceremonial laws', point to Christ, and therefore, was not fulfilled by Christ' - or in many different versions or arguments - your literature is permeated with it, and your sermons are delivered by their thousands to the same effect from the pulpits. When I visited my brother some time ago who lives far from me, and had to attend church with them, I had to sit there an hour long receiving a drill in this doctrine, of a soulless, dead, verbal alvalanche of words. Many other time too - never an exception.
Ande try tell them Jesus rose from the dead on the Sabbeth Day and so gave every possible meaning that Day could have for a believer in Jesus to celebrate as the Day of Christian worship-rest, they tell you in face you're talking nonsense, disturbing the peace, unsettle believers, is an heretic, teach diobedience, deny the 'Spirit of prophecy, etc. Endless denials of the most obvious and basic expectancies that the Sabbath Day would be and was the Day God finished all His works on, and rested to the exceeding greatness of His attainment through Jesus Christ, "in Sabbath's-time". They say I wrest the Scriptures, when I tell them literal, pure, word for word Scriptures - with one conclusion, that the Sabbath hasn't got anything to do with Christ.
Don't deny, and react as if your holiness has been questioned. I dare you like I dare all Adventists, to rather acknowledge, and repent, and accept the truth of the Scriptures, that Jesus today since His resurrection from the dead, is the believers' Sabbath-Law in Person, and to keep the Sabbath for His sake and for reason of Him, and not like the Jews, to make of the Sabbath and its keeping, a religion of works and self-righteousness - a religion, which God despises!

 

I don't see what the to gentlemen are engaged in a war of words about!

The law of the Bible - every one of them - was nailed to the cross in the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ - and since naturally never again will apply to any man in the same form as they had been before, but since the resurrection of Jesus Christ are applicaable in toto and to every man through HIM! "That's why a Sabbath-Day's rest is still applicable for the People of God (Christian believers today)". Can it be more simple?