7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. You are still confounding (conflating, your choice) the covenant with the commandments. I've already shown (repeatedly) the necessary conclusions that result from your line of reasoning (the covenant was unique to Sinaitic Israelites, therefore the Fourth Commandment does not oblige me to anything - or ANY of the Ten Commandments, as you bluntly stated) but of course you won't acknowledge that.

Just as a matter of housekeeping, you want to pretend that I am confounding, conflating, or confusing the Sinaitic covenant with the ten commandments. I am guilty of such.
I also acknowledge that I believe that the ten commandments do not obligate me in any way. I covered that. It was a deal that was not made with me, remember?

Or you . . .

or Abraham . . .

or Isaac . . .

or Jacob.

After some time to study and think about it, you acknowledged that Moses DID say that this covenant was NOT with the fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) good for you by the way. But you still believe it is for you . . .

who are not a Israelite . . .

and not living in the land of Israel, or even wandering in the desert planning to enter the promised land . . .

and ARE born two thousand odd years too late to participate even if you met the other two qualifications.

Three strikes and you're out Esaias. No base hits, no home runs, maaany errors in your doctrine.

But . . . back to the confusing/conflating/confounding statement that YOU made about me doing such in regards to ten commandments and the Sinaitic covenant.

How could I possibly conflate the two? What an egregious error on my part!!!

I surely must apologize for doing so, right?

Well, not so fast. Let's go to the Word.

Deut.4
[13] And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments;

It appears that the Old Testament is conflating/confusing/and confounding as well. Do tell. Perhaps I am in good company on this.

Deut.9
[9] When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
[11] And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.
[15] So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire: and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands.


Do I need to explain to you what the two tablets of stone that were two tables of the covenant were? No, of course not! You know what was written on the two tablets of stone, don't you? Don't you?

This is also reinforced in the New Testament (remember me asserting that we are the New Testament church?) . . .

Heb.9

[4] Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Do you know what the tables of the covenant were?

Do you still believe I am confused?

Maybe next time, but not today, and not about this. The ten commandments are referred to as the covenant many times throughout the Bible. This is just a sample.

[Esaias]

I also acknowledge that I believe that the ten commandments do not obligate me in any way. I covered that. It was a deal that was not made with me, remember?

Therefore, you conclude neither you nor anyone else were obliged to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, except those people with whom the covenant was made.

Which necessarily means neither you nor anyone else were obligated to honour their father and mother, either. Remember that if your kids ever decide to put you in a nursing home in your old age.

[Esaias]

I notice how you like to skip around and avoid dealing with the actual core points that are being made. You also like to avoid dealing with the fact your obvious and blatant mistakes have been exposed, in regard to your handling of Scripture. Yet another example, "tables of the covenant" being taken to mean "tables are the covenant" (the flag of America does not mean the flag is America, basic grammar, prepositional phrase, possessive case, etc).

And once again you are incapable of understanding that I never denied the ten commandments were made part of the covenant. But as I pointed out previously that does not mean the commandments are wholly dependent on the covenant for their existence. The error in your doctrine can be quite easily observed by the fact that, if your arguments were correct, nobody but Jews before the time of Christ could be guilty of sin.

And as I pointed out repeatedly before as well, the commandments are part of the new covenant as well. Before they were written on tables of stone, now they are written on the heart. On the heart, that is, of an actual member of the new covenant.

[Esaias]

And now, having gone in circles with nothing new bring presented, I am like I said moving on to other things. (I will of course answer questions from readers of the thread asking for clarification, etc. But the "debate", if you can call it that, was done awhile back, in my opinion.)

[mfblume]

Esaias, I appreciate you in a lot of things to do with the word of God. But when it comes to Galatians chapter 4 and talking about bondage coming from the elements of the world, to say it's not law, when a few verses later it says that law genders to bondage, it's just too ridiculous to deal with anymore.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I also acknowledge that I believe that the ten commandments do not obligate me in any way. I covered that. It was a deal that was not made with me, remember?

Therefore, you conclude neither you nor anyone else were obliged to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, except those people with whom the covenant was made.

Which necessarily means neither you nor anyone else were obligated to honour their father and mother, either. Remember that if your kids ever decide to put you in a nursing home in your old age.

This in bold is absolutely untrue. We have the words of the apostles to teach our children. You see Esaias, we are . . .

20] . . . built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; . . .

You see Esaias, you want to believe we are built on the foundation of the Mosaic law. We aren’t. So allow me to point out some scripture from the apostles that instructs on honoring your parents.

The apostle Paul . . .

Romans 1

29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

And again . . .

[20] Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Annnd again . . .

2Tim.3

[1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

So you see, we have scripture in the New Testament that gets the job done just fine as far as the parent child relationship goes. Now don’t misconstrue this to mean that I am against using the Old Testament to teach from. I haven’t said that nor do I believe it.

Because this.

2Tim.3

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

You have to keep it in perspective. The old covenant is gone. It is useful for study and teaching and instructions, but it is not our deal.

Do you have any scripture that specifically says that you are under the Old Covenant? You know without having to explain that if this is so then it’s only logical that the other would be so as well. And if that is true, then this must be as well. You know, like you usually do.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Esaias, I appreciate you in a lot of things to do with the word of God. But when it comes to Galatians chapter 4 and talking about bondage coming from the elements of the world, to say it's not law, when a few verses later it says that law genders to bondage, it's just too ridiculous to deal with anymore.

The feeling is mutual.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I notice how you like to skip around and avoid dealing with the actual core points that are being made. You also like to avoid dealing with the fact your obvious and blatant mistakes have been exposed, in regard to your handling of Scripture. Yet another example, "tables of the covenant" being taken to mean "tables are the covenant" (the flag of America does not mean the flag is America, basic grammar, prepositional phrase, possessive case, etc).

And once again you are incapable of understanding that I never denied the ten commandments were made part of the covenant. But as I pointed out previously that does not mean the commandments are wholly dependent on the covenant for their existence. The error in your doctrine can be quite easily observed by the fact that, if your arguments were correct, nobody but Jews before the time of Christ could be guilty of sin.

And as I pointed out repeatedly before as well, the commandments are part of the new covenant as well. Before they were written on tables of stone, now they are written on the heart. On the heart, that is, of an actual member of the new covenant.

The core points of the Sinaitic covenant are who were parties to the Sinaitic covenant. You can’t get any more basic than that. You have not shown where you meet even the most fundamental requirements of being party to the covenant.

Esaias, are you an Israelite?

Yes?

No?

Answering this question will go a long way towards dealing with the main core issue.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

This in bold is absolutely untrue. We have the words of the apostles to teach our children. You see Esaias, we are . . .

20] . . . built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; . . .

You see Esaias, you want to believe we are built on the foundation of the Mosaic law. We aren’t. So allow me to point out some scripture from the apostles that instructs on honoring your parents.

The apostle Paul . . .

Romans 1

29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

And again . . .

[20] Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Annnd again . . .

2Tim.3

[1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

So you see, we have scripture in the New Testament that gets the job done just fine as far as the parent child relationship goes. Now don’t misconstrue this to mean that I am against using the Old Testament to teach from. I haven’t said that nor do I believe it.

Because this.

2Tim.3

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

You have to keep it in perspective. The old covenant is gone. It is useful for study and teaching and instructions, but it is not our deal.

Do you have any scripture that specifically says that you are under the Old Covenant? You know without having to explain that if this is so then it’s only logical that the other would be so as well. And if that is true, then this must be as well. You know, like you usually do.

Sigh.

Talk about ridiculous. I'm not going to bother to once again point out that the New Testament does not identify sin via new legislation, that instead it identifies sin by affirming existing legislation, nor am I going to point out yet again that according to your logic only Christians have any moral obligations because the New Testament epistles were specifically addressed to Christians, and as you strenuously argued, "the covenant was made with ABC people therefore all non ABC people are not under obligation." Nor am I going to reiterate that by your logic all the heathen prior to Sinai and indeed after Sinai are under no moral obligations because none of them were the people with whom that covenant was made. And lastly, I am definitely not going to rehash the fact that the new covenant writes God's laws on the heart as opposed to the old covenant writing on tables of stone and that absent a definite new Sinai-level repeal of old legislation and giving of new legislation your whole position is as sound as The Skipper's™ navigational abilities.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sigh.

Talk about ridiculous. I'm not going to bother to once again point out that the New Testament does not identify sin via new legislation, that instead it identifies sin by affirming existing legislation, nor am I going to point out yet again that according to your logic only Christians have any moral obligations because the New Testament epistles were specifically addressed to Christians, and as you strenuously argued, "the covenant was made with ABC people therefore all non ABC people are not under obligation." Nor am I going to reiterate that by your logic all the heathen prior to Sinai and indeed after Sinai are under no moral obligations because none of them were the people with whom that covenant was made. And lastly, I am definitely not going to rehash the fact that the new covenant writes God's laws on the heart as opposed to the old covenant writing on tables of stone and that absent a definite new Sinai-level repeal of old legislation and giving of new legislation your whole position is as sound as The Skipper's™ navigational abilities.

There you go again, saying I said things I didn’t say. You must really like apologizing.

Please show where I said that the people before Sinai and after Sinai were under no moral obligation. Post a copy of my words, not what you think I meant.

If you can’t find such, well man up and apologize (yet again).