STROM/PUCKETT DEBATE ON SABBATH
Bob Strom's Second Rebuttal
Proposition:
Resolved, that the keeping of the weekly Sabbath is not scripturally
binding on Christians today.
Affirm: James Puckett
Deny: Bob Strom
Second Negative: Summary
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This two part negative will be delivered in the following format.
1. This post will be a very brief summary - those not actually
interested in the details can read this and simply skip the rest.
2. A second post containing the dialogue details that prove the
points of the summary will follow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary -
Jim's affirmative has not been sustained so far - as each of his
points have been shown to fail when held up to closer review of
scripture. His affirmative's failure is outlined in the following
summary.
==============================
(2nd Rebuttal - segment 1)
A. Heb 4 - Jim maintains that the use of "TODAY" in Hebrews 4
indicates a new State of things (changes) since the cross - Jim
claims Sabbath is merely a Metaphor for "heaven".
This was shown to fail (in detailed review) in the last segment
of my 3rd affirmative and in the final section of this second
Negative Heb 4 shows clearly that the SAME Sabbath and the SAME
promises continue AS were IN EFFECT in King David's day Ps 95:7 -
NO change!. Heb 4 contrast obedience vs rebellion and says the
issue of the saints (of BOTH OT and an NT) remains the SAME.
----------
B. Jim claims God's failure to dictate the 10 commandments in the
Genesis (origins) account - invalidates them prior to Sinai -
especially Christ's Holy Seventh day - which Christ (the Creator)
made a Holy Day in Gen 2. He claims it disappeared after Gen 2
and does not reappear until after the Exodus.
As already stated in my first rebuttal (and still not actually addressed here in your reply)
1. God says the Gen 2 FACT is SUFFICIENT alone to ESTABLISH the
Holy Day to be kept - God confirms this FACT in Exodus 20. Mark
2 ALSO shows it refers to when MAN was MADE (not when Hebrews
were MADE).
2. You agreed with me in your 2nd negative that MAN needs rest
and therefor the Sabbath was MADE for MAN.
3. Your assumptions result in God forcing man to sin as in Ezek
22:26 by NOT being able to distinguish between the sacred and the
common
-------------
C. Jim claims the information provided in Gen 2 is insufficient
to establish Christ the Creator's Holy Day as a Holy Day man is
to care about. Jim claims that IF God was going to make the
commandment valid since Gen 2 He would need the idea that the
Holy Day is actually to be KEPT Holy to be "retroactive"
The illogic of Jim's position is apparent on the surface of it.
My detailed response is found in the first section of PART 2 of
this negative and has been emphasized in my last 3 posts. The
Exodus 20:11 language says that the Gen 2 facts ARE SUFFICIENT
AND that once we KNOW it was MADE HOLY we are obligated to comply
by KEEPING it Holy. Ezek 22:26 states that any other course is
sin.
Mark 2:27 Christ said it was MADE for mankind when MADE. Man was
not MADE (when MADE) for the Holy Seventh Day - Sabbath. All
referring to the Gen 1-2 MAKING of these on earth. Thus Jim's
affirmative point utterly fails here.
-----------------------------------
D. Jim claims that we do not find Christ the Creator's Holy
Seventh-day Sabbath applicable to ANYONE but Hebrews in the OT.
Gen 2 - Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day is established for
Adam WELL BEFORE the first Hebrew (Jim hopes Adam was kept in
ignorance of that fact) Is 56 and 66 ALREADY SHOW applicability
of the Sabbath COMMANDMENT to non-Hebrews - known in the OT.
Mark 2:27 shows that PRE Cross Christ considered it applicable to
all mankind "MADE for mankind". Details in part two of this
negative (again). Jim's point failed again.
---------------------
E. Jim argues that the commandments are negated pre-Sinai IF we
discover that the patriarchs were not a NATION before Sinai and
did not have the NATIONAL covenant. Jim switches instantly from
the NATION to the 10 commandments and says of Moses "he was
saying the ten commandments were not given to their fathers.
Therefore, the command to keep the sabbath, as part of the ten
commandments, was not given to the fathers of the Jews. The ten
commandments were not given until Sinai"
The argument to abolish Christ's Gen 2 Holy Day MADE for mankind
is based SOLELY on the fact that Sabbath is IN the 10
commandments!! Such illogic would destroy all the 10 - making
prohibition against coveting, lying, idolatry INVALID JUST
because they are IN the 10 commandments.
Jeremiah observes that it is the LAW is it is in OT that is
WRITTEN on the tablets of the Human heart in the New Covenant.
Same commandments Different location. Tablets of Stone - vs
"Tablets of the human heart" Jer 31:33 2Cor 3 all. See the last
part of my last Rebuttal (still unanswered).
-----------------------------
(Second Negative Segment 02)
F. Heb 7 - Jim claims that this chapter addresses the doing away
with the 10 commandments (that prohibit the worship of false gods
and tell us not to murder, covet AND tell us to honor Christ the
Creator's Holy Seventh day).
No such contrast is found in Heb 7 (as the second segment in part
II of this response will show in more detail). Rather it is the
law of the lineage of the Priesthood regarding HUMAN priests and
ANIMAL sacrifices being replaced by Christ our HIGH Priest. NO
reference at ALL in Heb 7 to the 10 commandments. (Already
pointed out in my previous negative).
-----------------------------------
G. Jim claims that (Deu 5:15 KJV) replaces the Exodus 20 REASON
(found in Gen 2) with the Exodus "God tells them that the reason
He commanded them to keep the sabbath day, was because they were
servants in Egypt ..."
Part II of this negative shows (in the 2nd segment) that in fact
the 10 commandments given at Sinai 40 years BEFORE Deut 5 are
NOT being replaced in Deut. RATHER Moses is giving ADDED reasons
why Hebrews should be even MORE enthusiastic in their obedience
to Christ the Creator's Holy Day than the rest of mankind.
----------------------
H. Jim claims that Is 56 shows no Sabbath commandment applicable
to foreigners - non Hebrews.
I show in part two of this rebuttal (second segment) that God
shows the Sabbath COMMANDMENT to be applicable to Foreigners and
BLESSES them as He blessed the Sabbath - in their honoring of
Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day.
Jim claims that non-Jews were required to become Jews by God
under the OT so any commandment applied to a non-Jew is void as
that non-Jew must become a member of the nation of Israel and be
circumcised etc.
No such thing is taught in EITHER the OT or the NT. RATHER God's
house (IN Is 56) is a house of prayer for ALL NATIONS.
--------------
I. Jim claims non-Jews must move to Jerusalem to comply with the
Isaiah 66 command to simply WORSHIP on Sabbath in Jerusalem
(Sabbath from OT to New Earth - valid).
Of course this is silly to assume that people would need to live
in Jerusalem in the New Earth in order to have a worship service
there on Sabbath. Mere speculation on Jim's part does not negate
the Is 66 fact of Sabbath APPLICABLE to ALL MANKIND. The fact
that it works - even without repeating the Sabbath commandment is
devastating to Jim's speculation here (I point that out in the
response to follow).
-----------------
J. Jim claims that Matt 5:17-18 has Christ fulfilling "pleroo"
the law (Lev 19:18 love your neighbor and Deut 6:5 Love God) in
such as way that it LEAVES Them in place but ENDS the fulfilled
10 commandment law "Do not worship false Gods" and "Do not
covet" in such a way as to abolish them and replace them with
exact duplicates. He claims this happened at the cross. He then
claims the duplicate NINE can't be found as a list, and we need
Matt-Jude to get them collected and YET they were ALREADY clearly
stated PRE cross for John 14:15 to AVOID the 10 commandments and
speak only of the post-cross Matt-Jude duplicate 9.
I show where WE are commanded to "fulfill" PLEROO the law AS well
as "pleroo" every DESIRE for GOODNESS - and even that Abraham
ALREADY "pleroo" the OT scriptures when he obeyed God (James
2:23). So LIKE Christ - we TOO fulfill the law and it does NOT go
away. For the law is PLEROO "fulfilled" in US who do not walk
after the flesh but after the Spirit Rom 8:4
Rom 13:8 "the one who loves his neighbor has FULFILLED (Pleroo)
the LAW". 2Thess 1:11 "FULFILL (Pleroo) every desire for
GOODNESS"
------------
K. Jim wants to use Gal 3 for support again (ignoring the content
of my detailed response in my 3rd affirmative AND ignoring the
repeat in my first negative).
Gal 3 clearly shows all men STILL condemned under sin by the
INTACT LAW - and shows that it is when FAITH COMES that man is
free from the DEBT - see the post in my 3rd affirmative and first
negative and respond to the points currently negating your
supposition here.
------------
L. Jim proposes that John 14:15 "Keep my COMMANDMENTS" is about
the Matt-Jude Duplicate nine (which he claims are not listed but
seen if we read all of Matt - Jude).
Paul states that the NT Commandments were codified and in a list
- (the Exodus 20 list) such that the 5th commandment was the
"FIRST in the list WITH a promise" - Eph 6:1-2. As already noted
in my previous posts.
============================
M. Acts 15 - Jim claims that the when the Jewish Christian
leaders made their decision regarding Gentiles their decision can
be construed to mean that anything they omitted is was to be
ignored by Gentile Christians. And of course we see in Acts 15,
they omitted Sabbath, the Original NINE, the Duplicate NINE the
Law of Love for God AND the Law of Love for our neighbor.
As Jim points out --
Acts 15: {28} For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to
lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
{29} That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood
Gen 9:4(Lev 7:26-27 3:17) Deut 12:16,23-24, and from things
strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep
yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
They could do this BECAUSE the decision RELIED on the fact that
Gentile Christians in EVERY CITY would have access to scripture
each Sabbath for "in EVERY CITY Moses has those who preach him,
SINCE he is read EVERY Sabbath" - so through the study of God's
word WEEKLY - they would LEARN about love for God (Deut 6:5) love
for their Neighbor (Lev 19:18), in EVERY CITY.
The Jewish Christian disciples in Acts 15 therefore emphasize
only the OT Dietary law regarding blood and things strangled
along with the prohibition against fornication. (Also found in
the OT law of Moses).
---------------------
N. Jim repeats his old point regarding 2 NT incidentals on Sunday
(already responded to in depth in my 3rd affirmative) without
addressing the detailed response already given for this in my
replies so far. I repeat some of my unanswered reply here AGAIN
in case actual dialogue on the point is of interest after all.
-----------------------
O. Jim adds a new point - appealing to non-Biblical sources to
help establish the fact that as the centuries rolled by Sunday
keeping references become more and more common in historic
documents. Appealing in one case to a document "provided" us by a
Catholic Bishop in 1875 (not unlike the Donation of Constantine
document being provided centuries after the fact).
Suffice it to say that strong Sunday statements DO take place
centuries after the apostles but you don't see any of this in the
NT scripture. See section 3 of the next part of this rebuttal for
more detail.
However I did not go into the extra-biblical historical
references showing the increase in Sunday-replaces-Sabbath
literature over the centuries - due to lack of space in this
forum. Nor did I investigate the utter lack of first century
sources available today outside of scripture.
----------------------
J. Jim abandons his John 14:15 position that Christ's
commandments were in listed, known and place PRE-cross, and
switches to the MORE defendable position that AFTER the Cross -
at PENTECOST.
Unfortunately John 14:15 comes BEFORE Pentecost and MAtt 28:19
tells us we are to evangelize by teaching what Christ taught
BEFORE that time as well as afterward. The John 14 PRECROSS
commandments that were IN FORCE before the Cross and listed
BEFORE the cross are part of our message to NT saints to "KEEP my
commandments". See my response for the details.
----------
K. Jim points out that the first of day of the week tradition has
it's origin in the traditions of man - not a commandment from God
and should not REPLACE Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day - or
God's 4 commandment. We need to regard the commandments of God as
extinct-abolished and cling to the tradition of man instead -
according to Jim.
Mark 7:7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES
THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of
men.
9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside
the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition."
Jim has recommended that this very thing be done because keeping
the commandments of God - will send you to hell.
Mark 7:
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, "
HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother,
whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say,
given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his
mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you
have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''
Mark 7: "In vain do they worshipping me teaching for doctrine
the tradition of men"
---------------------
L. Finally Jim appeals to Heb 4 again and argues that the OT Jews
of King David's day (Ps 95) failed to go to heaven and that is
what is meant in Heb 4 by saying they did not enter into the
Sabbath rest.
I show in my response that this is ridiculous. Heb 11 shows us OT
saints that were not in rebellion and one who actually went to
heaven (2Kings 2 shows another one that went to heaven as well).
King David was IN the land of Canaan when he wrote the call in Ps
95 for God's people NOT to harden their hearts. Although this was
dealt with in my 3rd affirm I repeat much of the same material
here hoping it will finally get answered. Heb 4 shows that the
issues for David and for us are the SAME, the God is the SAME and
the Sabbath is the SAME - it REMAINS for the people of God. Heb 4
contrasts rebellion vs obedience and declares that the issues are
TODAY the SAME as in the TODAY of King David.
==========================
And so we have seen point-by-point that Jim's affirmative failed
on each point. Details for each summary point are available (for
those who actually care to read them) in the post to follow.
Jim's points (listed here as A through L) have been shown to fall
short of proving that Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day is
NOT part of Christ's PRE-Cross John 14:15 commandments.
Further we see that the Sabbath REMAINS for the people of God AS
IT DID for Ps 95 OT saints. AND we see the Isaiah 66 saints of
the New Earth keeping the Creator's Holy day that IS the Sabbath.
The day IN the COMMANDMENT that was MADE for mankind NOT mankind
MADE for the Sabbath - still calls out as in Rev 14 - for God's
people to "Worship Him (Christ) Who created the heavens the earth
the sea and the springs of water".
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim
My definition:
6. today: by "today," I mean the Christian dispensation, in which
we live, in other words all time between the first Pentecost
after the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the end of the world.
Bob notes objection from the context of Heb 4 and Ps 95
Partially true - since Heb 4 states that "TODAY" was ALSO a fact
in Ps 95:7 - the days of King David and going forward it would
ALSO INCLUDE the Christian dispensation as Heb 4 notes.. Result:
The exclusionary approach in Jim's definition section fails to
find support from Psalms 95 quoted in Heb 4.
Jim
Bob ... says my definitions are exclusionary. Actually, my
definition of today is more inclusive than what is needful for
this debate. What we are debating is that today, January, 2001,
whether or not Christians are obligated to keep the sabbath. The
debate is not concerned with centuries ago, although that time
period has come up in the discussion. I'll stick with my
definitions for use in this debate, since he has given no reason
why they do not suffice.
Bob
I did give the reason they don't suffice - the context of the
chapter shows that it is not focused on the year 2001 or even
1501. Rather it is arguing that TODAY is the SAME - UNCHANGED
since the DAYS OF DAVID. It is actually looking BACK to David's
day and saying the NT saints of Paul's day are under the SAME
conditions as DAVID with respect to Christ the Creator's Holy
Seventh day AND the call "TODAY" (Kind David's day) to turn back
from rebellion and enter that SABBATH PROMISE. The contrast as
stated IN Heb 4 - is REBELLION vs OBEDIENCE. Rebellion always
results in failure, OBEDIENCE always resulted in success
regarding the SABBATH rest.
I save the rest of the problems with Jim's use of Hebrews 4 - for
part 2 of this negative - in the mean time suffice it to observe
that Jim's the response above does not address the objection in
my first negative.
----------------------------------
Jim
A. The keeping of the weekly Sabbath is not scripturally binding
B. on Christians today because in the Bible record God did not
relate the seventh day to man as a memorial or a day to be kept
at the creation, when He sanctified and blessed it. ...
"Thus God made the seventh day holy. He set it apart from the
other six days. What did this mean for man? We are told nothing
to relate this to man at this time."
Bob
As already stated in my first rebuttal (and still not actually
addressed here in your reply)
1. God says the Gen 2 FACT is SUFFICIENT alone to ESTABLISH the
Holy Day to be kept - God confirms this FACT in Exodus 20 Mark 2
ALSO shows it refers to when MAN was MADE (not when Hebrews were
MADE).
2. you agreed with me in your 2nd negative that MAN needs rest
and therefor the Sabbath was MADE for MAN.
3. Your assumptions result in God forcing man to sin as in Ezek
22:26 by NOT being able to distinguish between the sacred and the common
Jim avoiding the points above
he (Bob) made me seem to say that God never related the seventh
day to man, which is neither true, nor what I said.
Bob
I have never stated that you have excised Exodus 20 out of
scripture or that you do not think God gave man the information
in Exodus 20 at Sinai. No point in going there. The actual points
of my first negative regarding the explicit reference to
Christ's Holy Seventh day at creation in Gen 2 - REMAINs as we
see above.
------------
God tells us what this Gen 2 FACT means for mankind - in Exodus
20:11 and again we see it affirmed in Mark 2:27 - it was MADE for
mankind, mankind was not MADE for the Holy Seventh-day that "IS"
Sabbath.
Jim
Bob thinks that when God gave the sabbath commandment to the
children of Israel in Exod. 20:11, it was retroactive to the
creation and included all mankind.
Bob
Wrong - I have repeatedly stated that INSTEAD of making Sabbath
"retroactive", (As IF the Holy Seventh day of Gen 2 DISSAPPEARED
after Gen 2 and then Reappeared in Exodus 20) - God's Word
explicitly REJECTS your own assumption that the Gen 2 facts are
themselves meaningless in ESTABLISHING the Holy Seventh day as a
Holy Day for keeping Holy. Please note the actual language of
Exodus 20:11 contradicting your assumptions so far.
Clearly you don't agree with my arguments - but you should at
least understand them - exodus 20 was NOT intended to create a
law that was then to be made retroactive and I have never said it
was.
The point I made above emphasizes Christ's focus on the MAKING of
MANKIND vs the MAKING of His Holy Seventh Day as a Holy Day.
Clearly that was a Gen 1-2 focus - because no Hebrew was MADE at
Sinai. You have consistently ignored this salient point raised
repeatedly regarding Mark 2:27 and you did it here again.
Jim
He has not explained why God would wait until he commanded the
sabbath of the Hebrews before telling us that it was a command
all of the time
Bob
Already refuted in my previous posts. I pointed out that Genesis
is NOT a book of law but a book of origins that tells us LAW and
COMMANDMENTS existed but does not detail them for THE READER until
Exodus. The EXCEPTION being that it STARTS off telling us about
the HOLY DAY made HOLY by God (Christ). You have yet to respond
- my point has always been that He did NOT wait to inform us of
the Holy
Jim
Also, he says that Jesus affirms his argument.
(Mark 2:27-28 KJV) "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the sabbath: {28} Therefore the Son of
man is Lord also of the sabbath." Bob says Jesus means that the
sabbath was made for mankind to keep, but he ignores that man was
not created for the sabbath. If man were created for the sabbath,
then he would be liable to keep it always.
Bob
Not a very convincing re-work of the text Jim. God already stated
in Exodus 20 that they were to "Remember to keep" Christ's Holy
Seventh day. Christ says that it was a blessing "FOR MAN" when it
was MADE a Holy Day - NOT that MAN was MADE for the Holy Day.
Jim
He showed that the sabbath was not meant to control or subjugate
man, but to benefit him.
Bob
Indeed Christ's Holy Day - His Holy Seventh day of Creation was
MADE to benefit MANKIND. Thanks for keeping this in the same
global terms Christ used referring to the MANKIND and the benefit
of "MAN" as in MANKIND.
Jim
Bob is assuming here that when Jesus said the sabbath was made
for man, that he applied its keeping to all mankind.
Bob
Indeed - "Made for MAN" is never a phrase in scripture used for
"made for HEBREW ONLY". And the statement "MAN was not MADE for
Sabbath" PROVES the point (as already stated in previous posts
and STILL unaddressed in your response).
---------------------
Jim
B.the first time in the Bible record that anyone was commanded to
rest on the seventh day was in Exodus 12 when the children of
Israel were told to rest on it as they prepared for their flight
from Egypt.
Bob said:
Jim assumes that God (who declares that failure to distinguish
between the sacred and the profane Ezek 22:26) FAILED and forced
early mankind to sin by actively hiding from mankind the TRUTH we
find IN Gen 2 - the Holy 7th Day.
Jim
I don't know where Bob got this idea, but it is totally false. He
says I assume that God forced early mankind to sin. That is an
outrageous accusation!
Bob
That was a non-answer again Jim. Another reply that does not
address the point raised.
The point was regarding Ezekiel 22 states clearly it IS A SIN to
FAIL to DISTINGUISH between the Holy - sacred - sanctified - AND
the COMMON ordinary. Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that man was kept in
IGNORANCE by God regarding Christ's Gen 2 HOLY DAY and man could
not HELP but IGNORE the DISTINCTION between the HOLY day and any
other COMMON day of the week - NOT set ASIDE (sanctified).
------------------
Jim
C. the first time in the Bible record that anyone was commanded
to observe the seventh day of the week as the sabbath is in Exod.
16:23-26.... "This is the first time anyone was commanded to
observe the seventh day of the week as "the sabbath," or "a
sabbath unto the LORD."
Bob's response in first negative
Indeed - the absence of the NAME SABBATH PRE-Sinai as it was
later added to the Holy Seventh-day does not prove that Christ's
Creation Holy Day was IGNORED. Rather - Christ himself states
that when the DAY was MADE Holy IT was MADE (at
that TIME) for mankind Mark 2:27. Exodus 20 itself says SABBATH
was MADE Holy at creation week in vs 11.
Jim
As proof of this, I quoted the following:
(Deu 5:1-3 KJV) "{2} The LORD our God made a covenant with us in
Horeb.
{3} The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers
Bob replied:
Notice the content of the NATIONAL covenant at Horeb
Exodus 19: " 5 "Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and
keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all
the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;
6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.''
This NATIONAL text - regarding a KINGDOM of PRIESTS and HOLY
NATION was not present reality for the patriarchal families that
existed PRE Sinai.
Jim
God was just now preparing to give it to them
Bob
Agreed - and since they were NOT a NATION before it was hard to
give the covenant of their being "A HOLY NATION" until they
actually WERE one.
Jim
The law of Moses, including the ten commandments, was part of
this covenant that God was preparing to make with them.
Bob
As the 10 commandments are ALSO a part of the NEW COVENANT made
with INDIVIDUALS Jeremiah 31:33 shows IT. (that would be PRE
cross). And 2Cor 3 makes it clear that THEY are written on the
TABLETS of the human heart INSTEAD of remaining EXTERNAL on
tablets of stone only. Already pointed out in my previous
negative.
Jim
How did Israel break the covenant that God was making here? They
violated the law of Moses. They did not keep the ten
commandments. They practiced idolatry and God therefore accused
them of adultery, spiritual adultery. They were not faithful to
their husband, God, but they worshipped idols...
Bob
By your willingness to AGREE that the LAW of God (in the CONTEXT
of JEREMIAH 31) is the 10 commandments - THEN you are forced to
agree that the NEW covenant PROMISED by Jeremiah was one that
wrote THAT SAME LAW on the tablets of the human heart - as
Jeremiah stated Jer 31:33
Jer 31:33 AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO
THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL
BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
(Quoted also in Heb 8 and 10 - as it REMAINS in the NT)
Jim
So, when Moses said the covenant was not made with their fathers,
he was saying the ten commandments were not given to their
fathers. Therefore, the command to keep the sabbath, as part of
the ten commandments, was not given to the fathers of the Jews.
The ten commandments were not given until Sinai.
Bob
Wishful hoping - already proven false when we discover that the
10 commandments DO contain the commands against worshipping false
Gods, coveting, adultery, murder etc The made up idea that SINCE
the 10 commandments are part of the covenant with Israel - the
NATION - THEN no commandment (like Sabbath) could have existed
before Sinai (since the NATIONAL covenant was not given to the
patriarchs) and hence (according to you) THE TEN (not just the
ONE) can not have been a sin prior to that time -- is simply a
hollow argument that does not hold water for a minute - I suspect
you already realize that as we see below.
Jim
Nobody said nor believes that those who lived before Sinai were
... free to worship false gods without penalty.
So, when Moses said the covenant was not made with their fathers,
he was saying the ten commandments were not given to their
fathers.
Therefore, the command to keep the sabbath, as part of the ten
commandments, was not given
Bob
Indeed - a self-conflicted argument if ever there was one. The
Sabbath commandment COULD not exist - according to the fallacy
above - SIMPLY because it WAS in the 10 commandments. And of
course the OTHER NINE would also be condemned under that same
strained and so very strange logic - but you trip up there
nicely.
Jim
God has never left man without some law to which man was
responsible. Adam was commanded to not eat of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil. That was part of the law he was
responsible to keep.
Bob
And could he Lie - kill Eve, Covet? Your argument is that SINCE
this is NOT YET recorded for us by Gen 3 - it MUST be ok - and
it's an argument that falls flat. Instead God SAYS His LAWS and
COMMANDMENTS DID exist in Gen (Gen 26:5) you simply "want" them
to be OTHER than He reveals them to be in the book of Exodus when
He provides the LIST for the READER. (Remember Gen and Exodus
SAME author - he KNOWS what is to be recorded for the READER
next).
-------------------------
Jim
D. The keeping of the weekly Sabbath is not scripturally binding
on Christians today because no people other than the children of
Israel were ever commanded to keep it
This would be an easy point for Bob to refute if God had
commanded anyone other than the Israelites to keep the sabbath.
However, I'm sure the readers failed to find any scripture that
Bob quoted in which is found a command for anyone other than the
children of Israel to keep the sabbath.>>
Bob
Isaiah 56 and 66 have both been given repeatedly - Refusal to
address the "FOREIGNERS" and "ALL MANKIND" mentioned there does
not negate the text sufficiently to support your case.
Jim
(Deu 5:15 KJV) Here, God tells them that the reason He commanded
them to keep the sabbath day, was because they were servants in
Egypt and He had brought them out by a mighty hand.
Bob
As ALREADY posted and yet to find a response - Deut 5 comes 40
years AFTER Sinai. God SPOKE the 10 words at Sinai (and He added
no more). The ADDED reason appealing for OBEDIENCE given in Deut
5 has NOTHING to do with a SEVEN day CYCLE nor does it REPLACE
the text at Sinai. Nothing in the Exodus involved SEVEN DAYs nor
is it cited in Deut 5 as such. Rather (as already noted in
previous posts and yet to be answered) He was ADDING reasons why
Hebrews would be even MORE inclined to OBEY Christ the Creator on
this point.
--------------
Jim
Now, let's address the verses Bob has repeatedly mentioned that
he believes supports his case and refutes this point, Isaiah 56
and 66.
Bob
What a fantastic change!! - to actually see these REPEATED posts
actually get a addressed.
Bob says:
Wrong again. As already pointed out the (and you have yet to
respond) - the Sabbath was clearly applicable to Gentiles (Isaiah
56) and even is stated to apply to all mankind continuing through
to the new earth (Isaiah 66).
Jim
Isa 56:1-8: In the first place, Isaiah here records no command
for anyone to keep the sabbath.
Bob
The 5 short verses that you choose not to quote here are
devastating to your assertion - and have been quoted REPEATEDLY
quoted in my posts. Here they are AGAIN.
Isaiah 56:2 ""How blessed is THE MAN who does this, And the SON
OF MAN who takes hold of it; Who keeps from profaning THE
SABBATH, And keeps his hand from doing any evil.''
3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,
""The LORD will surely separate me from His people.'' Nor let the
eunuch say, ""Behold, I am a dry tree.''
4 For thus says the LORD, ""To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant,
5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give
them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.
6 ""Also the FOREIGNERS who join themselves to the LORD, To
minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His
servants, every one who keeps from profaning THE Sabbath And
holds fast My covenant;
Jim
He (God) is BLESSING those that do keep the sabbath (COMMANDMENT)
and refrains from doing evil...
Bob
Notice - BLESSING them (approving) for their OBEDIENCE to the
Sabbath - COMMANDMENT. Hard to miss.
Jim
We know there were proselytes to Judaism among the Gentiles.
Obviously, proselytes were obligated to keep the sabbath, as well
as the whole law of Moses.
Bob
Well all mankind was obligated to keep Christ's Holy Day Holy -
it was MADE for MANKIND.
But you are wrong about the proselytes being required to BE
members of the Hebrew nation and bound by it's NATIONAL laws -
God repeatedly calls His house a "house of prayer for ALL
NATIONS" as we find in chapter 56.
God did not demand that those nations BE circumcised members of
the NATION of Israel. God's emphasis has always been to extend
salvation to other nations but not to make them Hebrews or to
make them priests in the line of Aaron OR even to hold them
accountable to the national laws of the Hebrews while in their
own nation (should their nation turn to God). They were obviously
accountable to the 10 commandment moral laws - as was Cain - but
did not have to BE a Jew. Not murdering - did NOT make you a Jew
neither does keeping Christ's Holy Seventh day Sabbath.(As any
Jew will confirm as well).
Jim
What is he promising them? "{7} Even them will I bring to my holy
mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt
offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar;
for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all
people."
Bob
As already pointed out - God's plan was to evangelize all nations
in the OT via his nation church - it was NOT a plan to make
Jews/Hebrews out of them. Just as Isaiah 66 shows ALL MANKIND and
ALL NATIONS coming in to worship "FROM SABBATH TO SABBATH". The
PLAN was stated clearly in the OT.
Jim
What is his holy mountain? It is Jerusalem. What is his house of
prayer? It is the temple in Jerusalem. So, how can these people
receive the promise he is making? They must be in Jerusalem. This
shows us that Isaiah is not putting any requirements on Gentiles
to keep the sabbath. Jerusalem as the center of religion for
God's people is no longer. It was finished in AD 70 with the
destruction of Jerusalem. So, this passage does not support Bob's
contention, as he would have to move everyone to Jerusalem.
Bob
You seem to have completely fallen off the wagon here - the point
of this chapter was to show FOREIGNERS in the OT (not yet
addressing New Testament) - and showing that Sabbath was APPLIED
to FOREIGNERS. A fact that can not be excised out of the text -
agreed? Obviously.
--------------
Jim
Isa 66:10-24: As in Isaiah 56, the setting here is in Jerusalem.
Also, there is no command in it for keeping the sabbath.
Bob
Are you making my point or yours? Clearly Is 66 states that ALL
MANKIND "SHALL come before Me" "From Sabbath to Sabbath".
Assuming you agree - GOD is RIGHT, we have the fact of weekly
Sabbath observance for ALL MANKIND without the NEED to REPEAT the
commandment's TEXT - it is FACT without the REPEAT of the text -
merely the REFERENCE to the COMMANDMENT being kept is sufficient
thus it is ESTABLISHED with GLOBAL compliance MERELY by
reference. Your argument that reference is INSUFFICIENT and the
COMMANDMENT form must be REPEATED before global compliance is
expected - falls flat. Your affirmative fails again.
Jim
Does Bob really expect all Gentiles to move to Jerusalem? I don't
think so.
Bob
Because neither text stated that they would "MOVE to Jerusalem" -
your argument that they could not GO there without picking up
their possessions and MOVING in there - is without merit. It is
simply a wild speculation not called for in the text. I presume
you make it in an effort to attack Christ the Creator's Holy Day
not because you normally treat scripture in such an eisegetical
fashion.
----------------------
Jim
this scene (in Isaiah 66) is of the new heavens and new earth,
according to verse 22.
Bob
Exactly - it proves my point that the Sabbath REMAINS applicable
to ALL MANKIND EVEN to the FUTURE point of the NEW EARTH.
Jim
So, using the prophecies of Isaiah to try to prove that people
besides the Jews were commanded to keep the sabbath is a misuse
of the scriptures.
Bob
Again - the point of Isaiah 56 was NON-Jews IN the OT. The point
of Isaiah 66 was NON Jews AFTER the OT and INTO the time of the
New Earth. See?
-----------------------
Jim
E. Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses and took it out of the way so
that men living today are no longer amenable to it.
Bob
Actually if you would respond to the negatives already posted on
this point to date it would be shorter. I have exposed your error
on this point in triplicate so far - noting that Christ Fulfilled
the law of Moses Lev 19:18 (love your neighbor) and Deut 6:5
(Love God) - but THESE (like the 10 commandments) are
PRESCRIPTIVE laws that do NOT END simply because one actually
LOVES God. UNLIKE the PREDICTIVE laws that PREDICT the LAMB of
God being slain - and END once that happens.
Jim
This point should really be a separate complete debate itself.
There is too much material and too many issues in it to permit it
to be treated properly.
Bob
At least you agree that it is very difficult to adequately cover
even ONE doctrinal dispute well in a debate let alone all
doctrines jumbled in at once. Voyd pretends not grasp that basic
concept.
Jim
(Mat 5:17-18 KJV) "Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
{18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled."...Bob wants to change the meaning of Jesus by saying
that fulfill means to OBEY (keep) it.
Bob
Read your OWN confession in this case ---
Jim
Affirm 1 B. What did He do with regard to the Law of Moses?
Bob
During His ministry, Jesus KEPT the Law of Moses PERFECTLY.
Although the Jews accused him of violating the law, he did not.
He may have violated their traditions, but not the law
Bob
Jim then pronounces his own fault -
Jim
This is another case of trying to make scripture mean what you
want it to mean, rather than what it does mean.
Bob
Obviously even Jim agrees Christ did OBEY the law PERFECTLY and
so He FULFILLED it's prescriptive requirements - but He also
followed the PREDICTIVE law to the letter FULFILLING it's
PREDICTIONs of the LAMB of God slain for our sins. (Points
already made in past posts).
---------------------
(James 2:8 KJV) "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the
scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:"
However, he ignores the fact that James used a different Greek
word than Jesus did. In James, the word is:
5055. teleo, tel-eh'-o; from G5056; to end, i.e. complete,
execute, conclude, discharge (a debt):--accomplish, make an end,
expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform.
James 2:23 states that BEFORE the Cross - when Abraham ACTED "the
SCRIPTURE WAS FULFILLED (Pleroo) that said Abraham BELIEVED God
and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness". Are you ready to
end-complete-finish-EXPIRE the OT scripture in Genesis before we
get to Exodus??
Jim
So, we see the difference is that James does mean to execute or
to obey it, as Bob says.
Bob
Pleroo - OBEY - "fully carry out" - FULFILL "did NOT come to
ABOLISH but to FULFILL" 4137 (NASB) Pleroo including "supply" and
"Amply Supply" "Fully CARRY OUT" the requirements.
Rom 13:8 "the one who loves his neighbor has FULFILLED (Pleroo)
the LAW".
Rom 8:4 For the law is PLEROO "fulfilled" in US who do not walk
after the flesh but after the Spirit Rom 8:4
2Thess 1:11 "FULFILL (Pleroo) every desire for GOODNESS", (End
destroy expire abolish "every desire for Goodness" and done by NT
saints so now we are free of that?
Jim
However, Jesus is not saying that He came to obey the law of
Moses, but to fill it full.
During His ministry, Jesus KEPT the Law of Moses PERFECTLY.
Although the Jews accused him of violating the law, he did not.
He may have violated their traditions, but not the law
Bob
The meaning you are stretching for in Matt 5 only really works
for the PREDICTIVE laws regarding Christ substitutionary
SACRIFICE - predicting that he would SUPPLY the PAYMENT that the
INFORCED LAW demands.
Jim
Jesus came to offer himself up as a perfect sacrifice, to pay the
price for sin once for all, and at that point the law had served
its purpose and so was taken out of the way. It was not
destroyed, but completed. This is made clear to us by Paul is his
epistle to the Galatians.
Bob
Only works for the law PREDICTING Christ's death and sacrifice -
the HEB 10 Sacrificial laws.
Already seen in the Heb 10 post and in the Gal 3 post (yet
unanswered by you).
-------------------------
Jim
Gal 3:16-27: A careful study of this passage will show clearly
that the law is no longer in effect...
Bob
Already replied to IN DEPTH in my final segment of my 3rd
affirmative - still waiting a response from you -
Gal 3 clearly shows all men STILL condemned under sin by the
INTACT LAW - and shows that it is when FAITH COMES that man is
free from the DEBT - see the post.
Jim
Thus we know that faith has come in Christ
Bob
Nice words - no text says it. When FAITH comes refers to the
moment when the INDIVIDUAL accepts Christ - see the post, reply
to it.
-------------------------
Jim
... the book of Hebrews. Bob, as with Galatians, ignores the
obvious teachings here.
Bob
As already pointed out in my last negative - that is precisely
what you did in ignoring the fact that Heb 10 deals explicitly
and exclusively with the animal sacrifices Heb 7 dealt explicitly
and exclusively with the CHANGE in the Law regarding the
PRIESTHOOD not regarding our WORSHIP of God (have no other God's
before the ONE true God) or our duty to man (No murder, no
Coveting). It deals with the law of genealogy of the priest
SHOWING that Christ had NO Aaronic Genealogy and was a Priest IN
HEAVEN and the LAW regarding ANIMAL sacrifice and HUMAN priests
is replaced by the high priestly work of Christ and Christ's
blood. NO ref to the 10 commandments.
Heb 7:26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest,
holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted
above the heavens;
27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up
sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the
people, because this He did once for all when He offered up
Himself.
28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the
word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made
perfect forever.
NOT ONE sentence in Hebrews can be found contrasting the 10
commandments of God with some imaginary DUPLICATE set in the NT
short one commandment - that of CHRIST the Creator's Holy Day.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from
Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing
concerning priests.
15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according
to the likeness of Melchizedek,
16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical
requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible
life.
17 For it is attested of Him, "" YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.''
18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former
commandment because of its weakness and uselessness
In true eisegetical style some who have us believe the former
commandment regarding the lineage for the HUMAN priesthood should
be forgotten here and the 10 commandments should be stuck in here
when it suits you.
Not one vs of Hebrews contrasts "the 10 commandments and Jesus
Christ".
Jim
In chapter 7 he starts off talking about Melchisedec, ...and
later we see how Christ is a parallel to him and is a priest
after the order of Mechisedec.
Bob
(Heb 7:11-12 KJV) "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical
priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what
further need was there that another priest should rise after the
order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
{12} For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity
a change also of the law."
Here the writer of Hebrews points out that the laws regarding
sacrifices - officiated by earthly priests - change as the
priesthood changes. NOW the sacrifice is the one in heaven -
"Christ's blood" -- and is officiated by our High Priest -
Christ. This is NOT a discussion of the 10 commandments and
whether we really need to worry about taking God's name in vain.
Jim
Here he tells us that since the Levitical priesthood did not and
can not bring perfection and so there was needed a change of the
priesthood. And therefore there must also be a change of the law.
This is probably what Bob finds onerous, in that he cannot deny
that the law was to be changed.
Bob
I assume you're simply not reading my post at this point. My
statement was that the law regarding the priesthood and animal
sacrifices is clearly the subject - NOT the moral issues of
whether we can worship other Gods OR whether we can violate
Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh-day.
Jim
I may address more of Bob's first negative on this point in my
third Affirmative, if I have space
Bob
Indeed - so much of the material that refutes your position
remains unaddressed that I find myself simply repeating what has
already been posted and unaddressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I said:
(Heb 7:18-19 KJV) "For there is verily a disannulling of the
commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness
thereof. {19} For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing
in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."
The commandment (ten commandments, law of Moses) was/were weak
and unprofitable, so a better hope was brought in, a better
covenant based on better promises.
Jim
This statement of mine drew a quite severe comment from Bob, even
though I was basically quoting scripture, as follows:
(Heb 8:6 KJV) "But now hath he obtained a more excellent
ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better
covenant, which was established upon better promises."
Bob's comment:
It is hardly possible to imagine a more corrupt abuse of Heb 7
than the one stated above. Heb 7 is speaking of the fact that
priests were to come from among the Levites BUT Melchizedek LIKE
Christ has NO lineage from Levites - the COMMAND that one must be
a Levite to be a priest is SET ASIDE and CHRIST is the ONE TRUE
Priest (who would NOT be a priest by the command of God regarding
priests). God set aside that Levitical requirement and sets
Melchizedek AND Christ up as priests - where Melchizedek is a
TYPE of Christ. (according to chapter 7).
NOTHING is HINTED at that the prohibition against Murder and
against worshiping false gods is WEAK and needs to be SET ASIDE
so that Christ can be our High Priest.
Your effort above is classic eisegetical injection of what you
wish the text talked about. I appeal for some attention to detail
here, not merely defensive snippet texting hoping that some
portion of sentence will suit your purposes.
Jim
Bob needs to observe his own advice to pay attention to what the
scripture says. He was basically criticizing the scriptures by
his comment above. The "snippets" to which he referred are: Heb.
7:18,19; Heb. 8:6-9; Heb. 9:11-23; Heb. 10:1-10.
Bob
Still not addressing the obvious fact that Heb 7 is NOT speaking
of the commandments regarding our duty to worship God (1-4) or
our duty to our fellow man (6-10) - INSTEAD it is speaking of the
LAW regarding the PRIESTHOOD and ANIMAL SACRIFICES - vs Christ's
PRIESTHOOD and His OWN blood sacrifice. Get it - exegesis - not
eisegesis.
Jim
My guess is that he cannot stand the teachings in these
scriptures which show conclusively that the law of Moses had
passed away
Bob
Only that portion dealing with the animal sacrifices is addressed
in Heb 7-10 and ONLY that portion is stated as ENDING. The fact
remains.
---------------------
Jim
F. The keeping of the weekly Sabbath is not scripturally binding
on Christians today because people living today are amenable to
the gospel of Christ, not the law of Moses.
Bob replied:
Interesting that in all this - you have yet to show Christ - (pre
cross John 14:15) or post Cross giving his DUPLICATE commandments
and declaring the 10 to be dead.
Jim
Apparently, Bob, either is not aware or does not accept that the
gospel of Christ, is the same as the law of Christ and is
contained in the New Testament. Bob, you will have to read
Matthew-Jude to find those commands.
Bob
The Gospel of Christ is the Gospel that He came and died for our
sins. That in itself is not a command - but more pointedly - John
14 takes place BEFORE anything is ENDED even by your theology.
You are proposing a REPLACEMENT in John 14 before Matt - Jude has
been given BEFORE the Cross BEFORE the Gospel story is even
complete.
Jim
They are not codified in the same way as the law of Moses.
Bob
Paul states that the NT Commandments were codified and in a list
(the Exodus 20 list) such that the 5th commandment was the FIRST
in the list WITH a promise - Eph 6:1-2. As already noted.
Jim
Part of them can be found right here:
(Mat 15:18-20 KJV) "But those things which proceed out of the
mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
{19} For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
{20} These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with
unwashen hands defileth not a man."
That is the result of the different emphasis of Jesus. He wants
us to make our hearts right, and then our actions will also be
right.
Bob
Wrong again - that was PRE cross and was NOT in anyway a contrast
between God's Word in the OT vs Christ's Word. RATHER even in the
OT God stated that the evil in man springs from the heart - God's
Word never stated that sin was something you "get on your hands"
by touching something with sin on it. MAN's TRADITION invented it
- MANs tradition has caused many such contradictions with God's
Word. Think about it.
Jim
What you keep forgetting is that God has always had law to
describe the boundaries of man's actions. Under the gospel of
Christ, the boundaries are placed on the contents of the heart,
rather than on man's outward actions.
Bob
Scripture actually says "on the TABLETS of the human heart" vs
the "TABLETS of STONE" 2Cor3. The SAME 10 commandment UNIT on the
TABLETS of the human heart under the NEW Covenant Jer 31:33.
Can't miss it. It is the law of Jeremiah's DAY that is spoken of.
Jim
Remember the two greatest commandments? Those are the only
commands that are the same under the gospel as they were under
the law of Moses. Read 1 Cor. 13 as a starter.
Bob
You already said that NINE of the 10 commandments are in fact in
force today as duplicates (the SAME) as 9 of the 10 commandments
in Jeremiah's day.
Now you have the Royal Law REMAINING - though you declare it was
fulfilled "pleroo" EXPIRED. and ENDED. (By Christ) You do so
again with NINE of the 10 commandments.
Your position is compromised on that point beyond remedy. The
laws you want expired and ended - seem to live on EXACTLY as they
were before. And of course - I agree with you there - except I
don't try to gut Christ's 4th commandment - of His Creation Holy
Seventh day from the list.
-------------------------
(Mat 5:44 KJV) "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"
Notice - Christ did NOT say "Moses said Love your neighbor - but
I say love your enemies" - Christ rather ENDORSED the command to
love your neighbor and showed it to be of infinite strength and
meaning. (as are all the commandments). And Matt 5 does not
contrast-replace ANY of the 10 commandments in that way.
Further - Matt 5 takes place long before ANYTHING could be ENDED
or FULFILLED or REPLACED - long before THE CROSS.
(Mat 22:35-40 KJV) "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked
him a question, tempting him, and saying,
{36} Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
{37} Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
{38} This is the first and great commandment.
{39} And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
{40} On these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets."
Interesting HERE we find that BOTH Christ and the HEBREW teachers
AGREED that this law was FOUNDATIONAL and SUPPORTED all the OT.
-------------
Jim
A. The keeping of the weekly sabbath is not scripturally binding
on Christians today, because the apostles did not bind it on
Gentiles when given the perfect opportunity to do so.
When the church at Antioch of Syria was troubled by Jews who
insisted on the Gentiles being circumcised, they sent Paul and
Barnabas and others to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders to
resolve the problem. At Jerusalem some of the Pharisees also
said it was needful that they should be circumcised and they
should keep the law of Moses.
...
Acts 15: {28} For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to
lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
{29} That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood
Gen 9:4(Lev 7:26-27 3:17) Deut 12:16,23-24, and from things
strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep
yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
Here, the apostles had the perfect opportunity to tell the
Gentiles that they must keep the ten commandments, if that were
the case. However, they did not tell them to do this. They did
not even tell them that they must keep the sabbath. Their failure
to tell the Gentiles to keep the sabbath proves my case that
Christians today are not bound to keep the sabbath.
Bob
Jim I am not sure you actually believe or follow your own
argument. Here the Disciples did not tell the gentiles to keep
the NINE commandments or the TEN commandments or (as you like to
work it) Christ's duplicate nine commandments that just so happen
to be identical to the REAL nine actually listed in scripture.
Neither do they tell them to keep the law of love (Deut 6:5, Lev
19:18) to Love God or Love their Neighbor - non of it is
mentioned! Period.
Your argument is that whatever they do not mention - is not to be
kept. Hard to believe you are really willing to jump off that
cliff. They are told nothing about Murder, lying, coveting,
loving God, worshipping idols, false gods etc... hmm Jim you
argue that this PROVES they are free to commit all these sins
just as Sabbath breaking. Hard to believe you really endorse that
kind of eisegetical approach. I think you are just doing it in
this case to diminish Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day.
Think it through.
Acts 15:21 shows that the decision in Jerusalem relied on the
fact that "in EVERY CITY" Moses has "those who preach him, SINCE
he is read EVERY Sabbath" - so through the study of God's word
WEEKLY - they would LEARN about love for God (Deut 6:5) love for
their Neighbor (Lev 19:18), the command to worship ONLY the TRUE
God (Exodus 20:1-4) and of course - all this would be learned on
the Exodus 20:8-11 Seventh-day Holy day of Christ the Creator
(John 1:1-2, Col 1:16, Gen 2:1-4, Mark 2:28)
With that in mind they had no need to speak of the 10
commandments, or the supposed duplicate nine etc - all of which
would be read EACH Sabbath. Rather they just needed to emphasize
those Jewish dietary laws about eating meat with the blood in it
etc that might be violated by some gentile practices. The
decision was that Gentiles need not be circumcised (BECOME
JEWS) but they should have weekly study of scripture (on Sabbaths
as the chapter mentions) so they will follow the moral law of God
and they should pay close attention to those dietary restrictions
MENTIONED in Lev and in ACTS 15 that they were accustomed to
violating.
------------------
Jim
B. The keeping of the weekly sabbath is not scripturally binding
on Christians today, because the church assembled on the first
day of the week rather than keeping the sabbath.
Bob
No text mentions their replacing Sabbath with Sunday (as already
noted in past unanswered posts).
Two unrelated incidentals do not show a "new" day of worship
replacing Christ the Creator's Holy Day EXPLICITLY stated by God
to be a day of worship. (As already noted in my third
affirmative). It would help if your work on this point would
take the previous arguments related to it in consideration and so
- advance your position.
The ONLY WEEK after WEEK day of Bible teaching recorded in the NT
is Sabbath (as noted in my 3rd affirmative).
(1 Cor 16:1-2 KJV) "Now concerning the collection for the
saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so
do ye.
{2} Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by
him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no
gatherings when I come."
Jim
Paul tells the Corinthians he wants them to do as he told the
Galatians to do.
Bob
Indeed these TWO church (as opposed to ALL the Christian church)
were commanded to have members INDIVIDUALLY set aside savings at
the start of each week "Let EACH ONE of you PUT ASIDE AND SAVE as
HE may prosper" 1Cor 16:2 NASB. So that when Paul arrives at
Corinth to COLLECT the offering - they would not have to press
EACH ONE to suddenly decide to make a sacrifice - but rather Paul
urges that EACH ONE put ASIDE and SAVE on a regular basis BEFORE
coming to COLLECT the offering.
Paul is remiss in finding NO OTHER reason for honor to be given
to the first day other purpose OTHER than EACH ONE having the
chance to PUT ASIDE and SAVE.
-------------------------
Jim
In addition to these Biblical examples that the early church
assembled on the first day of the week rather than on the
sabbath, we have historical accounts by the "church fathers" of
the same. While these are not inspired accounts, they do
corroborate what the scriptures tell us and thus contribute to
our proof.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
Chapter LXVII, page 186. (1st century)
Bob
While it would be interesting to review these 2nd, 3rd and 4th
century documents (and in the case of the quote above - the text
is "provided" by a Catholic Bishop Bryennios, bishop of Nicomedia
in 1875) some of which remind us of the "Donation of Constantine"
in their authenticity - I am afraid space prevents it.
Suffice it to say that strong Sunday statements DO take place
centuries after the apostles but you don't see any of this in the
NT scripture. The error appears to be more pronounced as the
centuries roll by. But I have no objection that as the centuries
passed - the practice of uplifting the first day as man's
tradition replacing Christ the Creator's OWN holy day - created
and BLESSEd and SANCTIFIED by Christ Himself Gen 2 . (As even you
agreed it is Christ acting in Gen 2).
----------------
Jim
C. The keeping of the weekly sabbath is not scripturally binding
on Christians today, because there is no command in the New
Testament for Christians to keep the sabbath after the church was
established on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of
Christ.
Bob
Congratulations! While your position can be shown to have
problems - it is still a much more consistent position than
arguing that the pre-cross pre-nailed pre-ended commandments of
John 14:15 (Keep My COMMANDMENTS) WERE NOT the 10 commandments.
I applaud your change in tactics - though it would have been well
to show it as change and mention how it negates your previous
assertions that John 14 PRE-Cross is where Christ fully replaces
HIS commandments at Sinai - with a duplicate set that he
supposedly does not codify or list in any form - but we get bits
and pieces of - from Matt through Jude (as you say).
But this new approach fails because once you admit that the pre-
cross commandments (BEFORE Acts - Jude are given) - ARE God's
Commandments - then John 14 references the STILL EXISTING
commandments of God - and obviously - what is the Father's IS
Christ's John 17:10 - THEN you get into direct contradiction of
the POST cross statement of Christ in Matt 28
Matt 28:19 "" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe ALL that I commanded you; and lo, I
am with you always, even to the end of the age.
Matthew (writing decades AFTER the cross - shows that the WORDS
that Christ COMMANDED were those of Matt 4 through Matt 28 - the
PRECROSS ministry of Christ. John does the same in his book -
written decades AFTER the cross and emphasizing that the WORDS
Christ COMMANDED were those of his ministry - PRECROSS.
God wins again - His commandments are THOSE commanded by Christ
PRE-Cross and endorsed POST cross.
Jim
Jesus gave to the church the only memorial that He wanted us to
observe when He instituted the Lord's Supper on the evening of
His betrayal by Judas Iscariot. In this memorial we are to
remember his death until He comes again when we partake of the
bread and the fruit of the vine, the cup.
Bob
Indeed - Christ died on Friday evening - and so - we are to
celebrate the death of Christ (via the Lord's Supper) - on
Sabbath (Friday evening - Saturday evening).
Thanks for bringing that up.
-----------------------
Jim
I should make a statement to eliminate confusion. The early
church did not keep the first day of the week as a day of rest
like the sabbath. It was not a substitute for the sabbath.
Bob
Indeed - God's Word says the Sabbath was blessed BY God
explicitly - Sanctified by God Explicitly (Gen 2:4) AND God's
Word says it is a day of assembly and worship (Lev 23:1-4). No
such statements are found by God or Christ (God the Son)
regarding ANY other day.
Jim
It has its own significance and importance
Bob
No day can "bless itself" or "sanctify itself" or declare "itself
to be a day of holy assembly" - but the traditions of man may
certainly do that for a day.
Mark 7:7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES
THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition
of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside
the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
Jim has recommended that this very thing be done because keeping
the commandments of God - will send you to hell.
Mark 7:
10 "For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, "
HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother,
whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say,
given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his
mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you
have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''
Mark 7: "In vain do they worshipping me teaching for doctrine
the tradition of men"
Jim
John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day when he received the
visions of the Revelation.
Bob
Agreed and scripture states that Christ's DAY is Sabbath "Lord of
the Sabbath" Mark 2:28 - He does NOT make that statement about
ANY other WEEDAY in scripture. Period.
-------------
Jim
D. The keeping of the weekly sabbath is not scripturally binding
on Christians today, because there is a sabbath for Christians
after they have completed their work.
In Hebrews 4:1-11, the writer talks about the promised rest that
Israel looked for, which the original Hebrews lost due to lack of
faith. He proceeds to discuss this, even mentioning the seventh
day rest in verse 4. He goes on, even quoting David in verse 7.
Bob
Had you bothered to read the details of Heb 4 presented in the
last part of my 3rd affirmative. So if you have genuine interest
in how/if Heb 4 provides support for your POV and IF you don't
simply want a re-post of that same Heb 4 material included here -
then read the last segment of my 3rd affirmative and actually
respond to the points where it shows Heb 4 to refute your
position.
If you had INCLUDED that with your reply here - in order to
sustain your case - we could actually move the dialogue forward.
(As if moving the dialogue forward actually had some value)
In summary - Heb 4 SHOWS us that the SAME SABBATH rest is
offered TODAY as was offered to the Sabbath keeping Saints of
King David's day Ps 95. David says "Today if ye will hear his
voice, {8} Harden not your heart" - Heb 11 shows a few of the
many OT saints that accepted that scripture and chose not to
rebel (including King David himself - who authored scripture).
Psalms 95 did NOT say "we need to abolish Christ the Creator's
Holy Seventh day Sabbath so you can go to heaven as a Christian"
as you propose.
Heb 4 says they FAILED to enter - BUT does not point to LACK of
the 2nd coming as the problem, or too closely following the 10
commandments (that you say will send you to hell if you obey
them). By making the SABBATH refer to heaven alone - you make the
text say that they FAILED to go to heaven due to disobedience and
have the text asking us not to fail to be in heaven due to the
same. Using that logic all those Heb 11 Sabbath keeping saints
DID Obey and so the rule is the SAME for us - keep Sabbath,
following faith as the Heb 11 model and - Heb 4 Go to heaven.
Anyway. As already shown in my 3rd affirmative - Heb 4 provides
the SAME Sabbath and the SAME issue (obedience vs rebellion) in
BOTH OT and NT times.
(Heb 11 in fact shows some who DID go to heaven even without
dying).
This concludes the DETAIL portion of my 2nd negative for those
who wanted the detail behind the single summary post.