STROM/PUCKETT DEBATE ON SABBATH
Bob Strom's Third Rebuttal
Proposition:
Resolved, that the keeping of the weekly Sabbath is not scripturally
binding on Christians today.
Affirm: James Puckett
Deny: Bob Strom
Summary -
Heb 4 -
Deut 5 - National Covenant argument
Silence in Genesis Argument
Heb 7 -
Is 56
Is 66
Retroactive law argument
Fulfilling the LAW argument
Gal 3 argument
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim
Bob's rebuttal sounds like Bob has not read either of my two
Affirmative speeches very carefully at all. Else how can I
explain his constant misrepresentation of my arguments? Many of
his statements as to what I say or claim or maintain are totally
false. I do notice that he does not quote what I said, but rather
characterizes what I have supposedly said in a way that makes his
arguments look good. Rather than answer what I have actually
said, it seems he would prefer to answer what he wishes I would
have said. I can only surmise that since he couldn't successfully
refute my arguments, he twisted them to make it seem that he
could
Bob
Jim has already stated that it was his approach NOT to respond to
each point made in my posts. Further Jim's primary complaint has
been the length of my posts - not the lack of quoting Jim.
Jim Rebuttal 03 <>
Bob
That approach taken by Jim early in the debate has been a problem
as I have noted repeatedly - instead of making headway on his
points they are often left were I take them in my responses with
points that go unadvised.
My last rebuttal consisted of the summary section (kept as short
as possible to accommodate Jim's concern there) - followed by the
DETAIL sections where quotes and dialogue was made available for
those interested in the quotes behind the summary statements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A. Bob says:
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".
Jim
In the first place, I said nothing about "TODAY" with regard to
Heb. 4.
Bob
I mentioned in my response to your first affirmative that your
use of "today" did not match the use we find in Hebrews 4 - as
follows
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.
- and you responded to this challenge from Hebrews 4 as follows
Jim
Bob is apparently unaware that the definitions here only define
the terms as we are using them in this debate. They are not
necessarily all-inclusive for all uses of the terms. They are to
make sure that both sides understand how they are being used. He
says my definitions are exclusionary. Actually, my definition of
TODAY is MORE INCLUSIVE than what is needful for this debate.
Bob
Basically leaving the fact unchallenged - that Hebrews 4 admits
the term in Ps 95 and declares that OUR focus on that Ps 95
promise regarding "TODAY" is the SAME as we find in King David's
day.
Jim
Neither did I say anything about Sabbath being a metaphor for
heaven.
Bob
And the apparent contradiction of that claim.
Jim
(rebuttal 02)Yes, Bob, we finally got around to it. There remains
a sabbath rest for the people of God, for the church. We call it
heaven. That is the Christian's sabbath.
Bob
My objection stands. The term "TODAY" as used in Hebrews 4 is an
application of the SAME Ps 95 promise to saints TODAY - and
declares that the same Gen 2 SABBATH applicable in Ps 95 -
REMAINS for the people of God.
Interesting that in your response above - you still do not
address that oft repeated points which WAS the point of my
reference to Heb 4 from the start.
-------------------------------------------------
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.
Jim
(Affirm 01)
No day was set up for man to rest until Exodus 12
Interesting that God states He setup the 7th day at creation AS a
"holy Day" and you claim that He failed to make it a holy for man
until later EVEN though Christ states that it was MADE for man.
As already stated (and still unanswered) - this makes God
architect in causing man to fail to distinguish between the holy
day of Gen 2 and the common days - Ezek 22:26.
Interesting that we find no record of the Sabbath from Joshua
through 1 Kings - are you arguing that this "Evidence" that it
disappeared after Deuteronomy as you hope God's Holy Day
disappeared after Gen 2?
Jim
A. in the Bible record God DID NOT relate the seventh day to man
Bob
Christ "The Sabbath WAS MADE for mankind" Mark 2:27.God "Remember
the Sabbath day to keep IT Holy" - Why?? Because of the Gen 2
facts ALONE --- "Exodus 20:11"
My objection stands - God's Holy day did NOT vanish after Gen 2
only to re-appear in Exodus as you have hoped.
----------------------------------
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"
Jim
Again, Bob is misrepresenting what I said. You can see above in
item A what I said about the seventh day in Gen 2, where man is
not mentioned.
Bob
Man is mentioned in the Genesis account of the first 7 days on
earth - Gen 1 through Gen 2:4 and the Holy Day created by God is
given AFTER Man is made but it was MADE FOR MAN - and NOT Man
MADE for Sabbath. I believe Christ's report of the matter is
accurate.
Jim
See item C above to see what I said about the sabbath. God never
made any "retroactive" laws as Bob says I claimed.
Bob
As to your 'retroactive statement"
Jim
(Affirm 02 Part A)
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 has not furnished any proof that anyone else was ever
commanded to keep the sabbath.
Bob
This is hardly an compelling response to the explicit application
of Sabbath to "foreigners" in Is 56 or to "ALL MANKIND" in Isaiah
66.
My statements stand - Jim's affirmative failed here.
---------------------------------
D. 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
This is a ridiculous statement, and it is totally untrue. I said
nothing about the patriarchs being or not being a nation. I
didn't even use the word "nation."
Bob
Obfuscating Jim. Here you quote Moses' final address to the
NATION of Israel and observe focus on the fact that the NATIONAL
covenant MADE with Israel was not made before.
Jim
(Affirm 02 Part A)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." This is an important point to remember!"
As proof of this, I quoted the following:
(Deu 5:1-3 KJV) "And Moses called all Israel, and said unto
them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in
your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do
them.
{2} The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
{3} The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with
us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day."
This scripture proves that God did not make the covenant, of
which the law of Moses was part, (The NATIONAL covenant) with
their fathers, but only with the children of Israel who were
present at that time.
Jim
(Affirm 02) Of course it (the NATIONAL covenant) wasn't present
reality. God was just now preparing to give it to them along with
the sabbath commandment. The law of Moses, including the ten
commandments, was part of this covenant
Bob
Clearly the very WORDS of the 4 commandment BASING it on the Gen
2 EVENT ALONE - refutes your claim that if the NATIONAL covenant
was not made with those in Genesis then there was NO Creation -
7th day HOLY Day of Christ the Creator MADE FOR MAN in Gen 2.
-----------------------
F. Bob says:
E. 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).
Jim
(Affirm 03 Part A)
Well, the Hebrew writer did say that the change of the priesthood
made a change of the law necessary. He is talking about the law
of Moses which contained the ten commandments.
Bob
The Bible "contains the 10 commandments" - Hebrews is NOT talking
about OT scripture as being voided - NOR of the first 5 books of
scripture NOR does Hebrews 7 MENTION the 10 commandments (As
much as you would like it to have that focus).
Jim
(Affirm 01) The book of Hebrews is a contrasting of the law of
Moses with the law of Christ
Bob
No mention of the "law of Christ" in Heb 7 and NO mention of the
10 commandments - RATHER - there is ONLY the mention of laws
regarding priests and what the selection criteria is. (As already
noted and not yet addressed even until the end - here it is
again).
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
(Affirm 03)Bob refuses to see what is obvious, that is the ten
commandments are no longer in force. There are new commandments,
a new law that is in effect today.
Bob
Wrong
- it is STILL a sin to worship other Gods
- it is STILL a sin to curse God,
- it is STILL a sin to dishonor parents and that is STILL the
FIRST commandment in the LIST of commandments WITH a Promise
(Eph 6:1-2)
This is so obvious - that you have been forced to adopt the
internally conflicted argument that the law "no longer in force"
is 'IN FORCE" in the form of EXACT DUPLICATES - except for Christ
the Creator's Holy Day of Gen 2.
The LAW of God ((as we find in Romans 7 ) is STILL in force as it
says "though shalt not covet).
James calls it the "LAW of Liberty" and quotes the 10 commandment
unit.
Simply assuming the critical point of your argument rather than
proving is not a workable solution for a debate.
----------------------------------------
G. Bob says:
F. 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 ..."
Jim
Here again he distorts what I said. I never said that Deu 5:15
"replaces" the reason given in Exod. 20:11.
(Affirm 02 Part A) (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. So, even God DID NOT always relate the sabbath
command to His resting after the creation
Bob
Read that statement quoted above from your OWN affirm #2 Part A
again - you'll see it.
As I stated regarding Deut 5 - (and still you do not respond to
it) - God ADDS reasons - but the SAME Gen 2 BASIS remains As God
states it in Exod 20:11.
-----------------------
H. Bob says:
G. Jim claims that Is 56 shows no Sabbath commandment applicable
to foreigners - non Hebrews.
Jim
That is not what I said.
Bob
If you are now ACCEPTING that the OT DOES show the Sabbath
commandment "APPLICABLE TO FOREIGNERS" then - I will take it, and
you can stop claiming that it applied to NO ONE but
Jews/Israel/etc.
Jim
Isa 56:1-8: In the first place, Isaiah here records no command
for anyone to keep the sabbath." I went on to describe the
promise God made to the eunuchs and to the sons of strangers that
"take hold of my covenant." These are pictured as being brought
to God's holy mountain and his house of prayer. This means
Jerusalem and the temple, which no longer exists. I repeat that
there is no command to anyone here to keep the sabbath.
Bob
Interesting that your argument is self conflicted again regarding
the OT and Sabbath as you state " I repeat that there is no
command to anyone here to keep the sabbath." Hard to believe you
think no one in this OT text is commanded to keep Sabbath EVEN
when the Sabbath COMMAND is mentioned!!
Back to a more well-reasoned approach - Christ argues that
Sabbath IS MADE FOR (as a blessing FOR) mankind. Is 56 SHOWS us
this BLESSING being APPLIED to NON-Israel - EXPLICITLY for their
being obedient to the Sabbath COMMANDMENT. (At some point I would
like to know what part of Sabbath COMMANDMENT is not really a
COMMAND).
Bob says:
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.
Again, I never said any such thing. I did say that proselytes to
Judaism were obligated to keep the sabbath, as well as the whole
law of Moses, but I never said any Gentile was obligated to
become a proselyte. Of course a proselyte would be circumcised,
also.
I. Bob says:
H. 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).
As we see clearly from Jim's statement
Jim
Isaiah 56, the setting here is in Jerusalem. Also, there is no
command in it for keeping the sabbath. Does Bob really expect all
Gentiles to move to Jerusalem? I don't think so. This shows how
ridiculous it is to use this passage..
Bob
Nothing about Is 56 claims that Sabbath keeping can only be done
in Jerusalem. Nothing about Is 56 says FOREIGNERS can only KEEP
Sabbath in Jerusalem. Nothing in Isaiah 56 says only JEWS could
keep Sabbath in Jerusalem.
Jim is simply making this up in an attempt to obfuscate here
since he has no defense from the text itself. Understandable but
better to simply admit that and move on.
His argument that the "setting is Jerusalem so Isaiah 56 LIMITS
Sabbath keeping to Jerusalem for EITHER Proselyte/Foreigner" is
bogus by any measure.
Jim
Besides, this scene (switch to Is 66 here) is of the new heavens
and new earth, according to verse 22. 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
Is 66 "ALL MANKIND" coming to worship before God "FROM SABBATH to
SABBATH".
Notice they COME to WORSHIP - not necessarily to LIVE in
Jerusalem. And Jim so desperately wants to inject some level of
"silliness" into the text in an effort to justify excising it
from God's word as something APPLICABLE to "ALL MANKIND" (as it
explicitly states).
I understand why Jim wants that outcome - but his argument is
bogus.
Jim also denies that This Sabbath-to-Sabbath event of ALL MANKIND
coming before God for Worship (on the New Earth) DOES NOT Show
anything like God telling mankind to do this - Jim's hopes it is
just a curious fact about the future apart from any direct
SABBATH COMMAND to come before God as the SABBATH COMMAND calls
for mankind to do.
Perhaps a DUPLICATE worship on Sabbath for eternity in the New
Earth to match Jim's DUPLICATE nine commandments in the NT?
In any case - Isaiah 56 and 66 was quoted and reviewed in detail
in my 2nd rebuttal - the detail portion. Jim did not respond to
any of it - just the summary section. Consequently I have had to
repeat the SAME detail information here in response to Jim's
comments here STILL waiting for us to progress PAST the initial
post on this at the start of our debate.
By repeatedly avoiding careful response my points raised
regarding Isaiah 56 and 66 Jim has arranged to have my SAME
initial points posted repeatedly still waiting for Jim's
response to the "specifics" here.
-----------------------------------------
J. Bob
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.
Jim
Bob inserts the references to Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 in a place
that makes it seem that the law Christ came to fulfil was a
different law than the law of Moses. What did Jesus say?
Bob
Jim you missed the point. Lev 18 AND Deut 6:5 ARE IN THE LAW OF
MOSES. My point was that the LAW OF LOVE "Love for God" and "Love
for your Neighbor" WAS PERFECTLY FULFILLED by Christ as well as
other laws in "the law of Moses". AND SINSE we KNOW that the LAW
OF LOVE (recorded IN the Law of Moses) remains EVEN THOUGH it was
FULFILLED PERFECTLY - we have NO ARGUMENT that "PLEROO"ing that
LAW of LOVE recorded IN THE LAW OF MOSES - in any way ENDS it.
(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."
He was talking about the Law of God - as recorded in Scripture.
LAW that INCLUDED the LAW of LOVE (Lev 19:18, Deut 6:5) as well
as the 10 commandments (ALL 10 of which -- yes EVEN the NINE that
Jim want's DUPLICATED - are included) -- PRESCRIPTIVE laws
regarding MORAL behavior. That REMAIN EVEN TODAY.
As stated repeatedly, exhaustively and without response so far.
(Neh 8:8 KJV) "So they read in the book in the LAW OF GOD
distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the
reading."
Jim
(affirm 3)This book of the law contained the whole law of God
that was given to Moses on Sinai. It contained the ten
commandments, the laws regarding sacrifices, feast days, and all
other aspects of the law of Moses.
Bob wants us to believe that Jesus came not to destroy the law
but to obey it. It would be ridiculous for him to have said that,
since every Jew was required to obey the law.
Bob
Jim EVEN Agrees (IN THIS Sabbath debate)
Jim
(affirm 01) 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.
when Jesus said he came to fulfil the law, he meant more than
merely obeying the law. He came to fill the law full, as we have
shown already. He came to complete it so that it could pass out
of the way
Bob
Jim refutes his OWN argument here so often it takes too much
space to keep repeating - but here it is again!!
Jim
(AFFIRM 2 Part A) 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 having completed the job for which it
was given. As we have shown, the law was intended to last only
until the seed (Christ) should come.
Bob
Jim is conflicted - using arguments to ABOLISH the law of love
then trying to KEEP IT since he knows that in fact all this
fabrication about PLEROO causing these MORAL imperatives
(PRESCRIPTIVE LAW) to "pass out of the way" is totally bogus. THE
ONLY thing that could pass out of the way were the PREDICTIVE
LAWS that PREDICTED the sacrifice of the Messiah for mankind's
sin (not just the sin of Jews).
(Gal 3:23-25 KJV) "But before faith came, we were kept under the
law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
{24} Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto
Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
{25} But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster."
Jim
Notice that Paul says that we were kept under the law before
faith came, but after faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster. That means that since faith has come, as it did
with Christ, the seed, we are no longer under the law. Bob just
cannot get around that.
Gal 3 has been repeatedly reworked in your own responses where
YOU INSERT "faith comes when Christ came to earth" BUT THE TEXT
speaks INSTEAD about FAITH coming to the INDIVIDUAL when we
BELIEVE.
Gal 3 {22} But the scripture hath concluded ALL under SIN, that
the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to THEM THAT
BELIEVE.
Gal 3:{26} For ye are all the CHILDREN OF GOD BY FAITH in Christ
Jesus.
{27} For AS MANY OF YOU AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ have
put on Christ."
Gal 3 solution is individual BELIEF, and INDIVIDUAL acceptance -
THAT is when we are RELEASED from the sentence of death set on
EACH of us by the STILL IN FORCE penalties for breaking God's
STILL IN FORCE law.
Your devotion to ignoring that response posted IN detail with the
Gal 3 text already - is most impressive.
Jim
We are no longer under the law of Moses, the ten commandments, or
the sabbath law. This shows conclusively that when Christ came ,
the law had completed its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. He
filled it full.
Bob
NO moral commandment - NOT EVEN ONE - CAN "COMPLETE IT's
PURPOSE" by EVER having ONE person actually BE moral. THERE IS NO
principle in ALL of scripture where MORAL PRESCRIPTIVE LAWS are
anticipating ONE act of obedience so they may NO LONGER bind
mankind to BE MORAL. Your entire premise is bogus here.
ONLY PREDICTIVE laws - regarding the SACRIFICE of Christ
"COMPLETED their PURPOSE" when the EVENT THEY PREDICTED - TAKES
PLACE.
It's so obvious - yet you not only ignore it - you refuse to
reply as scripture so directly refutes your position. FAITH COMES
BY HEARING. When FAITH COMES - is a reference to THE INDIVIDUAL
accepting Christ.
It is unfortunate that this debate could not be conducted in a
way to directly respond to basic salient points made for Sabbath
keeping. You have spent most of your time claiming not to have
said - what can be shown as direct quotes from you so far,
instead of responding directly to the Biblical arguments
highlighted as refuting your position. This results in
repetition of the points made against your POV until you address
it - or the debate ends.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Gal 3 {22} But the scripture hath concluded ALL under SIN, that
the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to THEM THAT
BELIEVE.
Jim
(simply ignoring the point)Bob is twisting Gal 3 to come up with
what he says above. Gal 3:23 says that we were kept under the law
until faith came. Verse 25 repeats that after faith has come we
are no longer under a schoolmaster, as I showed above. Faith came
with Christ, as Paul shows in verse 26:
(Gal 3:26 KJV) "For ye are all the children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus."
Bob
Actually - you have yet to show that the COMING of Christ is WHEN
ANYONE became/becomes a believer. RATHER the AUDIENCE (Galatians)
BECAME Children of God WHEN they believed - and not a second
BEFORE. Obviously. The EVENT, the TIME WHEN they became "children
of God" is WHEN they ACCEPTED Christ - Faith does not spring up
retroactively to the TIME when Christ was born NOR even to His
death. It is IN YOU when you BELIEVE for "FAITH COMES BY HEARING".
When FAITH CAME - we believed and were set free. No re-
incarnation there.
Jim
Bob does not want to admit that faith came with Christ, as is
revealed by his statement in his first negative:
Bob
Indeed - none of US were even alive 2000 years ago - NONE of us
expressed faith our even encountered it 2000 years ago. You are
simply twisting the text to avoid the point it clearly makes.
FAITH COMES to EACH when EACH "HEARS" the gospel "FAITH comes by
HEARING". You have turned the text on it's head to MAKE it say
that our FAITH CAME when Christ came to earth. No such text exists in all of scripture.
The text did not say "but when Jesus came to earth we were no
longer bound by God's Law". It says "but after FAITH is come we
are no longer under a schoolmaster"
Jim
You see that he says the text does not say "when Jesus came" but
"after faith is come."
Bob
yes - that would be THE TEXT - instead of simply taking the words
you have inserted IN PLACE of the text.
Gal 3 {22} But the scripture hath concluded ALL under SIN, that
the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to THEM THAT
BELIEVE.
God's law - STILL in force, STILL holding ALL under SIN and STILL
we are released ONLY when we BELIEVE - not 2000 years BEFORE we
BELIEVE.
Gal 3:{23} But before FAITH CAME, we were kept under the law,
shut up unto the FAITH which should afterwards be revealed.
{24} Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto
Christ, that we might be JUSTIFIED BY FAITH.
{25} But after that FAITH IS come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster.
{26} For ye are all the CHILDREN OF GOD BY FAITH in Christ Jesus.
{27} For AS MANY OF YOU AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ have
put on Christ."
The text did not say "but when Jesus came to earth we were no
longer bound by God's Law". It says "but after FAITH is come we
are no longer under a schoolmaster"
"You are all children OF GOD by FAITH".
Heb 11 points out that faith was in full bloom in the OT.
Instead of being a point in time 2000 years ago when the Law of
God died and we are free to ignore it as we wish - it is FAITH in
Christ and His DEATH paying the REAL debt that the STILL
authoritative law requires for sin. The penalty is inverse
because the LAW of God is still authoritative. Men are still
lost, still guilty of sin, still condemned to death - UNTIL they
express faith in Christ - the ONE solution for ALL time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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).
Jim
Bob has in his head that if the ten commandments are not binding
as such, then nine of them, assuming the fourth is not binding,
must be duplicated in the New Testament.
Bob
Hmm I wonder where I got that idea in THIS debate?
Jim
(rebuttal 3) "The doctrine of Christ DOES INCLUDE injunctions
against ALL of the evils the TEN commandments prohibited, EXCEPT
for the sabbath commandment."
Bob
This is key to YOUR own point - and now you want to make it out
as some made-up accusation I have against your POV???
Which proves your OWN argument to be conflicted as it TRIES to
find them ALL complete by John 14:15 so it can conjecture that
the "commandments" mentioned here in this PRE-cross statement of
Christ - WERE some NEW set mythically created but NOT documented
anywhere in scripture.
Jim
I referred him to Matt 15, where Jesus names a number of sins, as
an example. Jesus also gave some of his commandments in the
sermon on the mount, where he contrasted what the law of Moses
said, with what he says. He mentions specifically the prohibition
to murder and to commit adultery and gives his commands that
place the sin in the heart even before action takes place.
Bob
As already stated - those PRE-Cross statements EXPAND the meaning
of the 10 - they do not ABOLISH them - NOR do they stated that
this PRE-Cross FACT of HATE being SIN - is NOT true in the OT. It
was ALWAYS true and is FULLY consistent with the 10 commandments.
Another point you have refused to address.
---------------------------------------------------
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.
Jim
Here, Bob attributes to me, his use of John 14:15. I did not
quote or use John 14:15 in either my first or second affirmative
speeches. So, to save space for more important ideas, I'm going
to ignore this statement.
Bob
Jim, I really appreciate you're being upfront and saying that you
do not want to discuss the commandments of Christ as He mentions
the subject in the NT. This is so much better to get your desire
to insert the "law of Christ" where the text contains no such
verbiage and then to IGNORE the text that ACTUALLY says "IF you
love ME keep MY COMMANDMENTS" to discover just what of that PRE-
CROSS context IDENTIFIES those commandments OF CHRIST.
I agree that for your position to stand at all - this is one text
you need to avoid.
Jim
(Rebuttal 03)You can see here that Bob is assuming that the
commandments (in John 14:15 PRE Cross), to which Jesus is
referring, are the ten commandments. That means he assumes we are
still bound to keep the ten commandments... We all know the law of
Moses was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14) and we are not amenable
to it.
Bob
Clearly Jim's conflicted logic wants to destroy God's
commandments at the cross and get Christ in John 14 (PRE CROSS)
to claim as "HIS COMMANDMENTS" something NOT YET DUPLICATED (as
he claims nine of the 10 commandments are duplicated after being
nailed to the cross and ended).There seems to be no end to the
internally conflicted argument on Jim's part here.
He keeps charging that Christ did not call for obedience to the 10
commandments and desperately wants to avoid the CLEAR text - PRE-
Cross "IF you love Me KEEP MY (PRE Cross) COMMANDMENTS" John
14:15. That is probably a wise thing to do to avoid it's
devastating impact on Jim's argument - but is not an accepted way
to discover truth on any Bible subject. And I think Jim knows it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob further states:
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.
Jim
Here Bob misrepresents Paul
Bob
Here I QUOTE Paul and SHOW that Paul RELIED on the ORDER of the
commandments as well documented TO THE POINT of identifying the
commandment about honoring Parents as the FIRST in the list with a
promise.
(Eph 6:1-2 NASB) "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for
this is right. {2} Honour thy father and mother; which IS THE
FIRST commandment WITH a promise;"
Jim
You can see that is not what Paul was saying.
Bob
Obviously he has said it and you object - but on what basis?
Jim
He tells children to obey their parents, for this is right. He
emphasizes the command by quoting . the command from the ten
commandments and notes it is the first command, of the ten
commandments, that has a promise attached to its keeping.
Bob
Bravo! Paul RELIES on the FACT that IN the LIST it is the FIRST
with a PROMSE - and Paul does not state ANY confusion about
DUPLICATE lists of commandments as you propose for the DUPLICATE
nine that would INCLUDE this commandment about parents.
Jim
(rebuttal 3) "The doctrine of Christ DOES INCLUDE injunctions
against ALL of the evils the TEN commandments prohibited, EXCEPT
for the sabbath commandment."
Bob
And STILL you have provided NO evidence that this Eph 6 reference
to the ORDER and LIST and AUTHORITY of the 10 commandment UNIT is
NOT the obvious positive ENDORSEMENT of that list that it appears
- as Paul uses it to SUPPORT his emphasis on the command.
Jim
Bob wants us to believe that whenever commandments are mentioned
they must be the ten commandments, which is simply not true.
Bob
Jim has said it himself HERE that in fact it IS the 10
commandments - then follows with his conflicted statement that we
should NOT consider the commandments of the NT as a reference to
the 10 commandments.
----------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
Jim
No, Bob, I don't claims that this can be construed that way, and
you know it. I claim that it MUST be construed that way, because
that is what the apostles said. Just read Acts 15:28,29
Bob
- your conflicted statement that you did NOT say it CAN be
construed that way - followed by you insistence that it MUST be
construed that way is instructive.
Jim
The whole point of this conference in Jerusalem was to determine
if the Gentiles must keep the law of Moses and be circumcised, or
not. The apostles were defining exactly which part of the law of
Moses the Gentiles should keep.
Bob
hmmm - Lev 19:18 "Love your Neighbor" IN THE LAW OF MOSES.
hmmm - Deut 6:5 "Love God with ALL your heart" IN THE LAW OF MOSES
hmmm- Exodus 20:1-4 "HAVE NO other God's before Me" IN THE LAW OF
MOSES.
Now you are trying to say that they wanted to show the Gentiles
that THE LAW OF MOSES was abolished and Gentiles did not need to
worry about it since it was nailed to the cross.
Jim
There were only four things that they bound on the Gentiles from
the law of Moses. They were not to eat meats offered to idols,
not to eat blood, not to eat things strangled, and they were to
not commit fornication. These were the only parts of the law of
Moses that Gentiles were commanded to keep.
Bob
Interesting that they would include ONE of the DUPLICATE NINE -
but not ALL of them. You argue here that there was NO need to
worry about Lev 19:18 or Deut 6:5 or Exodus 20:1-4 since THESE
portions of the LAW OF MOSES were LEFT out of the list.
Your conflicted argument on this point has yet to address this
objection already stated in past exchanges. Your claim is that by
NOT repeating some section of scripture in Acts 15 - they VOID it.
Jim
They did not command the Gentiles to keep the sabbath. This
itself proves my case conclusively.
Bob continues:
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.
Jim
He says "they could do this because" He can only offer a
hypothesis. He has no facts to support his case on this.
Bob
I have the FACT that you ignore in the debate found in Acts 15.
The FACT that "SINCE Moses is READ EVERY SABBATH" the CONCLUSION
that DOES NOT include things like the LAW OF LOVE Lev 19:18, Deut
6:5 IS reasonable. WITHOUT that vital BASIS for their conclusion
- we have your fallacy that would VOID the law of love SIMPLY by
the fact that it was not MENTIONED - with your emphasis on "NO
GREATER BURDEN".
It is such an obvious point, devastating to your entire case here
- and you have refused to address it. I think I know why.
---------------------------
Jim
He wants us to believe that they didn't mention
I. EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS.
1. Authorship and Date:
Only the larger part had previously been extant, when the
complete epistle was recovered in 1875 by Bryennios, bishop of
Nicomedia. The high honor in which it was held by early
Christendom is attested (1) by its position in Codex
Alexandrinus, at the end of the New Testament, and in an ancient
Syriac MS, between the Catholic and Pauline Epistles; (2) by its
being publicly read in many churches down to the 4th century.
(Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 16). The work is ANONYMOUS, but
sent in the name of the Roman church.
Jim
Here, again, Bob misrepresents what I have presented. I gave
three quotations from the 1st century Christians showing that
they did assemble on the first day of the week, not on the
sabbath. I have no idea where Bob got his date of 1875. That is
totally ridiculous. I quoted Clement
Bob
See the note above - for perspective.
Jim
The Roman senate, to which the third quotation was addressed, is
not the Italian government that existed in 1875 as Bob would like
you to think.
Bob
huh?? Where did that come from? Are we talking about the same
thing - you know, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians??
Jim
That testimony is devastating to Bob's case, because it proves
the early church did not keep the sabbath.
Bob
In fact, there is no credible first century document showing that
the first century Christians did not keep Sabbath. INSTEAD there
are 2nd and 3rd century documents showing that they CONTINUED to
keep Sabbath long after the first century even though by the end
of the 3rd century some of the "replacement" theology of Sunday
for Sabbath had grown beyond isolated regions.
Something Jim rejects (Replacing the day of the 4th commandment
with Sunday instead of Sabbath). Jim elects to abolish all of
God's laws instead.
------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Bob says:
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.
Jim
Once again, Bob makes an accusation against me out of whole
cloth. I said nothing of the sort that Bob accuses me. I said
nothing about the church's assembling on the first day of the
week being a tradition of man. In the first place, it isn't true.
In the second place, I never said it.
Bob
Jim Affirm 2 Part B<>
Jim gives NO command of God ENDORSING ANY honor for the First day
of the week. RATHER Jim simply admits that the first day is to be
honored NOT as the NEW Sabbath but as following the tradition of
the church WITH NOTHING by way of command from God endorsing it.
Jim agrees it is NOT obedience to God's commandments.
Jim's entire support for exalting weekday ONE above Christ the
Creator's Holy Day MADE Holy By Him EXPLICITLY - is in trying to
find PRACTICES (tradition) in the NT church that might help him
establish his belief in weekday ONE.
Jim
Notice how Bob tries to make these scriptures seem unimportant.
In Acts 20:7 we find the disciples, the church, meeting together
to break bread, to partake of the Lord's Supper. Paul had been
waiting for seven days for the first day of the week. This shows
the church met regularly on the first day of the week, not the
sabbath.
Bob
1. You are trying to establish doctrine based on practices you
HOPE to find in the church (traditions).
2. WE DO NOT find ANY weekday ONE after weekday ONE PRACTICE for
Sunday keeping in ALL of scripture.
3. YOU have NO "regularly meeting" or "regularly assemble" text
for WEEKDAY ONE.
Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you
hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR
LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE
PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the COMMANDMENTS 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.
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.''
Notice the "COMMANDMENT OF GOD" is one of the dreaded 10 that you
are trying to abolish. Christ said they were voiding that
commandment by teaching people to ignore it. Hmmmm.
Jim
I would never put the traditions of men above the commandments of
God. I did say that the first day of the week is not observed as
a sabbath, but I'm not sure if that is what Bob is referring to
here or not.
Bob
Sure - you do not value your current tradition of keeping day one
INSTEAD of what you claim is the abolished LAW of God regarding
Christ's Holy Day. In fact you have stated that not ONLY is your
tradition superior BUT IF we even ATTEMPT to Keep the commandments
of God - we will go to hell.
Jim
(Rebuttal 03)Additionally, as Paul told the Galatians, if we
ATTEMPT to KEEP it, we are "fallen from grace." Gal. 5:4.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Jim has recommended that this very thing be done because
keeping the commandments of God - will send you to hell.
Jim
Now this is really crass of Bob, to accuse me of saying that
keeping God's commandments will send you to hell.
You must have forgotten your own posts.
Jim
Additionally, as Paul told the Galatians, if we
ATTEMPT to KEEP it, we are "fallen from grace." Gal. 5:4.
Bob
Your misuse of Gal 5 puts you comfortably condemning people to
hell for "KEEPING" the commandments of God.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.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.
Jim
In my second Negative, I said: "There was no forgiveness of sins
under the Law of Moses.
(Affirm 1)The old law could not promise the forgiveness of sins,
but the new LAW COULD and did.
Bob
Gal 3 says NO LAW could do it - but that's the part you keep
avoiding.
In any case, it is well established that you don't think there
was any forgiveness of sin in the OT.
Jim
(rebuttal 02)Yes, Bob, we finally got around to it. There remains
a sabbath rest for the people of God, for the church. We call it
heaven. ... You'll learn why we do not keep the seventh day
sabbath. You'll see that the seventh day sabbath was only a
shadow of good things to come. ...
(Affirm 2 part B)Notice in Heb 4 verse 9 that there is a rest
remaining for the people of God. But it is NOT the weekly sabbath
as some would have us believe. The weekly sabbath was kept all
during the life of the Hebrew people. ...
Bob
Your internally conflicted positions here seem to be exhaustless.
My statement above stands.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob <>
Jim
Actually, those listed in Heb. 11 are not involved in what David
wrote, unless Moses is. David was talking about the Israelites
who left Egypt and did not get to enter the promised land.
Bob
Psalm 95
1 O come, let us sing for joy to the LORD, Let us shout joyfully
to the rock of our salvation.
2 Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving, Let us shout
joyfully to Him with psalms.
3 For the LORD is a great God And a great King above all gods,
4 In whose hand are the depths of the earth, The peaks of the
mountains are His also.
Clearly NOT limited to the Hebrews at the time of the Exodus.
Ps 95
5 The sea is His, for it was He who made it, And His hands formed the dry land.
6 Come, let us worship and bow down, Let us kneel before the LORD
our Maker.
7 For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture and the
sheep of His hand. Today, if you would hear His voice,
Clearly NOT limited to the Hebrews at the Exodus - and the CALL
to REMAIN faithful to God "TODAY" is NOT limited to the Hebrews
at the exodus.
Ps 95
8 Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of
Massah in the wilderness,
9 ""When your fathers tested Me, They tried Me, though they had
seen My work.
10 ""For forty years I loathed that generation, And said they are
a people who err in their heart, And they do not know My ways.
11 ""Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter
into My rest.''
The call to REMAIN faithful "TODAY" is NOT limited to the Hebrews
in the desert - but the EXAMPLE of those who WERE NOT faithful IS
limited JUST to those living during that 40 years. God
ILLUSTRATES the FAILING case of people living during that time in
the desert (but of course excluding the faithful like Joshua,
Moses, Caleb etc etc).
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.
Jim
You can see the similarity of the two verses. Bob has
misunderstood what David was talking about and thus has made the
false accusations against what I said.
Bob
To the contrary - and here I have provided THE ENTIRE chapter of
Ps 95 PROVING that the SAME call to REMAIN FAITHFUL (as stated to
David's CONTEMPORARIES) is AFFIRMED in HEB 4 AS STILL APPLICABLE
TODAY JUST as it was in King David's Day. My comment REMAINS and
is SUSTAINED by careful exegesis of the chapter - rather than
avoiding the point.
Jim
The rest that remains to the people of God is not the weekly
sabbath as Bob wants it to be. Look at what is said
Bob
Yes - let's LOOK at the text for it tells us that the SAME Sabbath
- ESTABLISHED in Gen 2 (much to the opposition of Jim) is STILL
REMAINING as it was in King David's day. Let's look VERY closely
this time instead of simply ignoring the details and not
responding to them.
1. (Vs 2) - WE have had the same "good news" (gospel) preached to
US "JUST as they also" as did the OT people of God at Sinai.
2. (Vs 7) We also have the same salvation promises given to
God's Sabbath-keeping people in the days of King David
3. There "REMAINS" a Sabbath rest (as in the Creation week
Sabbath --- God Rested on the Seventh-day) for today's Saints
just as in the case of the OT saints.
Hebrews 4
1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering
His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they
also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was
not united by faith in those who heard.
We observe here that we have the SAME "good news" preached to us
JUST AS they (OT Hebrews at Sinai) ALSO. The ONE Gospel (Gal 1:6)
which was even "preached to Abraham" (Gal 3:7-8) - showing ONE
solution (salvation through Christ) for the ONE problem (fallen
humanity lost in sin),
1Cor 10:2-4 "ALL were Baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the
sea and all drank from the same SPIRITUAL ROCK which followed
them and that was CHRIST"
Heb 4
3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
"AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,'' although
His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
In vs 4 we HAVE ENTERED his rest - because when we BELIEVE (Rom
10:9) we are born again - transformed, accepted into fellowship
with God (1John 1:1-5). Having been returned to that fellowship
which Adam had before the fall - RESTORED fellowship with God -
worshipping in love and submitting to God's Word.
So also did the giants of faith in (Heb 11) - saints of the OT
who "believe and it was accounted unto them for righteousness".
By faith - by "belief" these saints ENTERED just as we HAVE
ENTERED His rest.
But of course Hebrews is addressing the many who failed - due to
their stubborn "unbelief" in chapter 3
Heb 3:19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of
unbelief. .
Rom 11:19You will say then, Branches were broken off so that I
might be grafted in.
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you
stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not
spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who
fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in
His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will
be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
But aside from these examples of failure - we do have the great
examples of success of those that were "pleasing to God" and who
found "Acceptance with God" mentioned in Heb 11.
Heb 4:
4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "" AND
GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS'';
Here we see it is EXPLICITLY the SAME Seventh-day Sabbath that is
referenced - the CREATOR's work in RESTING on the 7th day JUST as
God Himself insists in the Sabbath commandments.
5 and again in this passage, "" THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.''
6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who
formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,
Failure to enter to the TRUE rest of God's Holy Sabbath is due to
"disobedience"
- FAILURE to OBEY the Word of God (in this case it is a reference
to OT people who FAIL to OBEY the commandments of God). This is
not Elijah, Enoch, Moses, nor any others mentioned in the "hall
of faith" Heb 11. But it is those who fell away and who God longs
to restore back to the place from which they fell. (Rom 11:19-23)
- the SAME place into which WE ALSO are grafted in.
7 He again fixes a certain day, ""Today,'' saying through David
after so long a time just as has been said before, "" TODAY IF
YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.'' 8 For if Joshua
had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day
after that.
Indeed the OFFER of true rest - being in perfect harmony and
communion with God as was Adam on HIS first Sabbath - REMAINED
even in the time of David - WHEN it was called "TODAY" Ps 97:5.
We are simply offered this SAME promise given to God's Sabbath-
keeping saints - in Ps 97 as it was called then - "TODAY".
The SAME offer of spiritual REST ACTIVE in Ps 95
- IS STILL the message of Today. The SAME rest as the Sabbath -
keeping - OT saint (David) spoke of as being VALID in His day -
is offered today.
Heb 4:
9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested
from his works, as God did from His.
Again - the appeal to the EXPLICIT wording of the 4th commandment
AND the SAME appeal to the REASON for rest - following God's
example at Creation- STILL valid. The context, the appeal the
language REMAINS the same. JUST as God rested In my 2nd negative
I sent out a summary post - no details just the points of the
response, followed by a much more detailed response for those who
wanted to see the evidence/proof behind the summary arguments.
Jim responded to the Summary post - complaining that there was no
detail to it.
He did not respond at all to the detail post - complaining that
the details were too long.
In this response I have gone the extra-mile in responding in
detail to EACH point Jim addressed as I have tried to do IN EVERY
post. My belief is that the SUBJECTS Jim references are important
and worthy of being responded to IN DETAIL. Jim has simply not
bothered to address that detailed response in his post.
(I had hoped - in each of my affirmatives and negatives - that
by responding to JIMs OWN points that HE raised - he would have
some interest in the details )
As much as I have criticized Jim for not responding to the
critical points of the argument in all cases - I have to say that
this was debate was still a huge leap in productive exchange as
compared to the debate with Voyd - where Voyd's response had
substance primarily in the entertainment value contained in his
ad hominem retorts.
Jim
Bob attributes to me, his use of John 14:15. I did not quote or
use John 14:15 in either my first or second affirmative speeches.
So, to save space for more important ideas, I'm going to ignore
this statement.
Bob
Case in point being the John 14:15 case where Christ IN the New
Testament (and BEFORE nailing ANYTHING to the cross) states that
His followers are to "KEEP my Commandments". "Commandments" are
to be defined in the PRE-Cross context and PRE-Acts-through-Jude
when reading John 14.
This concept of "Christ's COMMANDMENTS" is so critical to Jim's
point that Christ invented HIS own "law of faith" replacing God's
own Moral law, that Jim can't afford to avoid the ONLY text in
the NT that gives him a hope of inventing "Christ's LAW". Yet Jim
considers this text unimportant and so he "ignores it" even
though he has NO text in NT speaking of the "LAW of Christ"
replacing or doing anything relative to the 10 commandments.
Jim failed to produce even ONE text stating that "the Law of
Christ replaces the Law of God" or stating " the Law of Christ IS
the LAW of LIFE" or stating "there is actual forgiveness in the
LAW of Christ". All of these assertions were made by Jim - yet
not a single text was produced with that content. But many texts
were produced where Jim ADDED these words to the END of those
texts.
----------------------------------------------------
Failures of Jim's 5 primary arguments.
Result below shows Jim has abandoned his 5 primary arguments by
failing to respond to the devastating rejection of each in
scripture.
1. Jim's "duplicate commandment" conjecture.
a. Jim imagines that Christ came up with a list of 9 replacing
duplicate commandments BEFORE John 14.
- refuted by Jim's own statement - no such list exists AT ALL as a list
- Jim says you need all of Matt-Jude to even imagine such a list
- the self-conflicted contradictory conjecture that God abolishes
(ends) His own Law at the cross, then restores in exact DUPLICATE
what He NEEDED to abolish (except Jim says Christ did not restore
Christ's Sabbath HE Claimed as HIS Mark 2:28)stands without a
"reason" or "text" in support of it.
b. Jim hopes that we may assume - "What is the Father's - is NOT
Christ's" no matter what Christ says to the contrary.
- refuted by John 17:10 -- all that was the Fathers was explicitly claimed BY Christ
- Refuted by Jim's own confession that it was CHRIST creating the
Holy Seventh day in Gen 2 - it is Christ's OWN day Christ
abolishes with the duplicate nine according to Jim.
- Christ explicitly claims Sabbath is HIS in Mark 2:28 - that is
a UNIQUE claim among the 10
c. Jim chooses "END" as the definition for "Fulfill" - so the
Law of Moses fulfilled by Christ is ENDED.
- refuted by Jim's own confession that "Fulfill" DOESNT end law
of Moses (Lev 19:18, Deut 6:5)
Jim
(Affirm 02> 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
"Royal LAW" James 2 -- "prescriptive" law of Love.
Which corrupts the entire "fulfill means END" argument Jim makes
for prescriptive laws.
- refuted by Jim's own confession that 9 ENDED commandments must
CONTINUE in DUPLICATE form.
d. Jim claims Christ's Creation week Sabbath that REMAINS
(CONTINUES) EVEN for NT saints Heb 4- is remaining in an
ABOLISHED state - so it no longer CONTINUES as it has been.
e. Jim supposes that God's New Cov (Jer 31:33) needed to end his
own law that defines what sin IS
- in order to save/forgive mankind of their DEBT. No real
forgiveness before ending God's own law at the cross according to
Jim.
- refuted by Paul in Rom 7 and Eph 6 and Rom 13 and by James in
James 2 - as already noted.
- refuted by Col 2 fact that our "DEBT" "certificate of debt" is
nailed to the cross - not God's law.
- refuted by 1John 2:2 stating that Christ came to pay the debt
for SIN - NOT wipe out sins definition - the LAW
- refuted by list of texts showing full forgiveness, salvation
(even taking saints to heaven) in OT preCross - as already shown.
- refuted by 2Cor 3 detailed review showing that New Cov writes
God's law (as it was in Jer 31:33) on "tablets of the human
heart" instead of leaving them external on "tablets of stone".
2. Jim's conjecture that Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day
did not exist for mankind pre-Sinai.
a. Jim admits God (in Gen 2) MAKES Holy the Seventh day - then
Jim hopes it disappears after Gen 2 explicitly defines it and
creates it and establishes it as THE Holy Day
b. Jim admits the REASON for it is that MAN needs rest - then
rejects his own confession and says only the Jews needed it.
c. Jim assumes God forces man into the problem of not being able
to distinguish between the HOLY and the common day after God goes
to lengths to explicitly MAKE the 7th day and MAKE it Holy Ezek
22:26 - A sin according to scripture. Jim seems put God in the
position of violating God's OWN Ezek 22 will.
4. Jim's conjecture that (Christ) the Creator's Holy 'Seventh day
Creation week Sabbath is not applicable to non-Jews in the "OT".
refuted by Isaiah 56 regarding Sabbath for Gentiles
(Foreigners) Jim hopes that IF Isaiah 56 can be made to reference
Jerusalem then we can discount whatever it says about Sabbath AS
IF Sabbath could only be kept IN Jerusalem.
5. Jim conjectures that Christ's Holy Seventh Day is not
applicable to His NT saints.
refuted by Heb 4 showing that it continues for NT saints JUST
as in the days of David Ps 95
b. Ignores the fact that NO set of DUPLICATE nine is there by the
time of John 14:15
statement of Christ that we are to keep the PRE-Cross
commandments.
c. Want's to END the 10 commandments at the cross - says that
since Christ's death the duplicate nine NOW apply - but then
NEEDS to work them in as the only ones that apply PRECROSS as
well to AVOID the 10 commandments in John 14:15 being given to NT
saints.
6. Jim conjectures that Christ's Holy Seventh day is not
applicable to ALL mankind EVEN continuing into the New EARTH.
refuted by Isaiah 66 saying that it continues to apply to all
mankind in new earth
----------------------------------------------------
Summary of my points.
I. Christ the Creator's Holy day pre-Sinai
A. Christ is God at creation (John 1:1-3, Col 1:15-16)
B. Christ MADE - His Holy Day at creation and established it as
sanctified - set apart - blessed (Gen 2:1-4)
C. God affirms in Exodus 20:11 that these Genesis 2 facts did
take place and did establish the day as Holy -
D. Christ affirms this again in Mark 2:27 saying that the day was
MADE for mankind (when MADE) and that mankind was not MADE for
the day. (Gen 2 context - the MAKING of them BOTH)
E. Gen 26:5 God states that his Law/Commandments/statutes existed
in Genesis.
f. Genesis - book of origins does not provide LAW details as in
books of law (Exodus-Deut) - yet we know it was sin for Cain to
kill Abel (Gen 4) etc- even BEFORE anything mentioned in
scripture about killing. Where there is no law - there is no sin
(Romans 4)
G. Some argue that Christ the creator's Holy Seventh day vanished
after Gen 2 and did not resurface until Exod 16.
Of course one could also argue it vanished again from Joshua
through 1Kings on that basis - it does not work.
I. God "MADE it a Holy Day" (qadash) Ex 20:11WHEN He Sanctified
it (qadash) Gen 2:3 for ALL mankind (Adam and Eve AT Creation
Week) Mark 2:27
o Sanctify means requires that we KEEP Holy (qadash) Ex 20:8 -
what is MADE Holy Ezek 22:26 or it is sin.
2. Christ the Creator's Holy Day from Sinai to the Cross.
A. Exod 16: God expected obedience to the 7th day Sabbath
before the 10 commandments.
B Exodus 20:8-11 Language of 4th commandments shows that the Gen
2 facts ARE sufficient to establish the Holy Day and Holy Days
are to be KEPT Holy.
C. Ezek 22:26 Failure to distinguish between Holy - Sacred - and
common, is Sin. Some argue that God forced Adam into that sin by
HIDING information about Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day
from Adam.
D. Deut 5 takes the Exodus 20 Sinai unit of 10 (40 years later)
and ADDS emphasis for the Hebrews on why they should honor God's
Law even more devoutly than non-Hebrews since THEY were freed
from Egyptian slavery by miracles of God directly.
E. Is 56:2-7 God stated explicitly that the Sabbath COMMANDMENT
is applicable to non-Hebrews. And that His expectation was that
HIS sanctuary would be a house of worship for ALL nations.
F. Is 66: 22-23 God states for OT saints to know - that EVEN into
the future - to the New Earth - He still expects Sabbath to apply
to ALL MANKIND.
G. Mark 2:28 Christ states that HE IS THE LORD of the Holy
Seventh Day Sabbath of creation week - He IS the Creator.
H. Matt 5:17-19Christ FULFILLED both predictive laws about
Passover and sacrifices AND prescriptive laws about Love for God
and Love (Deut 6:5) for our Neighbor (Lev 19:18), 10 commandments
about worshipping no false gods. Prescriptive laws contain no
component saying they must be abolished once one person acts
righteously - they are eternal.
H. John 14:15 Christ commands His followers to keep his PRE-CROSS
Commandments
J. John 17:10 Christ states that ALL that the Father Has are HIS
- He claims them as His own.
K. Matt 22 Christ states that His OT laws/prophets/WORD is
BASED on the Law of Love Deut 6:5 that He FULFILLED perfectly.
L. Matt 27 - Christ's followers were STILL keeping His day (the
Day He was LORD of) at His Crucifixion AFTER His death.
3. Christ the Creator's Holy day AFTER the Cross.
A Matt 28 - Christ commands His followers to teach those things
He ALREADY taught them while on earth (as reported by Matthew
decades later).
B. Eph 6:1-3 God's 10 commandment unit remains in tact - with the
5th commandment being the "first commandment with a promise"
C. James 2 God's 10 commandments called the "law of liberty" in
the NT, and Deut 6:5 the "Royal Law".
E. Rev 14:7 God's people are still called to worship the creator
today who "created the heavens and the earth and the seas"... as
we see in Exod 20:11
Y. Col 2:Christ paid our debt and "nailed our certificate of
debt" to the cross Romans 7, Gal 3, God's law still defines what
sin is and still places all men under sin - until they turn to
Christ "when faith comes"
Z. Heb 4 - There REMAINS therefore the same promise and the same
Creation week Sabbath for the people of God "TODAY" as we find
in Ps 95:7
*. Heb 7-10 make it clear that the only laws ended were those
relating to animal sacrifices
**. 2Cor 3 shows us that the 10 commandments written on tablets
of stone - are written on the tablets of the heart in the New Cov
(Heb 8, 10, Jer 31:33) Acts 17:2 Sabbath the Only day presented
with week after week details of meetings for bible study in the
NT - Sabbath. (Acts 13:42)
4. The Gospel was REAL pre-Cross for OT saints.
A. Heb 11 provides the hall of faith - giants of faith held up as
examples to NT saints and some of whom taken directly to heaven.
B. Heb 4:1-2They had the Gospel preached to them - "just as we
also"
D. Rom 11:17-22 We are grafted into the place from which they
fell
D. Matt 9:2their pre-cross forgiveness was real Isaiah 6:7, Num
14:19, Ps 78:38 PS 32:5, Luke 7:48
=====================================================
Though anyone paying attention to the details of this entire
rebuttal can see that Jim's affirmative was shown to be without
any support at all in scripture - I still DO applaud Jim for
putting up the best possible defense given that no text actually
can be found saying "Christ's law replaces God's Law" or "Sunday
is blessed by God as the weekday set aside for worship" OR EVEN
"the Sabbath DOES NOT REMAIN for God's people".
Jim has stayed on topic and has pressed his points - even though
he had little or nothing to go on in scripture as support for his
views. Christ slammed the door in Jim's POV by stating to NT
Christians that we ARE TO KEEP the PRE-CROSS Commandments (John
14:15) AND by AFFIRMING that WHEN the SABBATH WAS MADE (Gen 2) it
was MADE (by Christ the Creator) FOR MANKIND.
With NO text containing ANYTHING like an ENDORSEMENT from God
"BLESSING" weekday ONE and MAKING IT HOLY - Jim had only man's
tradition left - hoping to find some PRACTICE that might show a
TRADITION of weekday ONE services.
I have engaged in debates on this subject a "number of times" and
Jim has presented the few arguments that exist for his POV (in
the vacuum of texts that can be found for weekday ONE) as well
as any I have seen.
Though (as I have stated repeatedly) he might have been more
direct in actually responding to the details of the points raised
regarding Gal 3, Heb 7, Heb 4, Exodus 20, Gen 2, Col 2, Isaiah
56, Is 66etc. He did provide some response there but avoided
addressing the detailed points exposed when the compelling review
was done showing endorsement of Christ the Creator's OWN Holy Day
MADE Holy in Gen 2.
And so as pointed out above - the overwhelming case for Christ
the Creator's Holy Day MADE for MANKIND - stands firm.