Sabbeth Keepers

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I already showed that according to Paul the "law of the Spirit" is the "righteousness of the law" which is "fulfilled... in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit". Further you say no law was done away with yet later you say it was abolished, a clear contradiction (not to mention a plain denial of the very express command of Christ).

You assume that there is no obligation on man except what is written in the new testament. From where did you get this idea? It certainly isn't found in the new testament. I keep pointing out the error of this reason to no avail but here it is again: if your reasoning is correct, then bestiality is morally acceptable, for there is no scripture IN THE NEW TESTAMENT which says "thou shalt not have carnal relations with a beast as with a human".

Why then at the council meeting in Acts did the elders decide to lay on the Gentiles no further burden than they abstain from pollutions of idols, from fornication, and from things strangled with blood. Why were those 3 things chosen to be mentioned for the Gentiles to follow - when all 3 things were clearly prohibited in the OT? This would have been a perfect place for the elders to command the Gentiles to be sure and obey the Sabbath, but there is no record of them doing that. They emphasized 3 items from OT law keeping as essential for the Gentiles to keep, nothing more. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Furthermore, the new testament does not present the laws of God AS NEW LEGISLATION. They ASSUME the OLD TESTAMENT RECORDING of the LAWS OF GOD to be valid. Thus you will find in the new testament NO COMMAND FROM GOD to NOT MURDER, for example. The new testament condemns murder, for sure, but not because of new replacement legislation. Rather it affirms as valid the WORDS OF GOD forbidding murder with EXPLANATION AND APPLICATION of that commandment to include the thought life as well as the physical deed, as explained by YOUR TEACHER/RABBI/MASTER/LORD, Jesus Christ.

Again, see my previous answer above. Why were 3 specific laws selected from the OT for the Gentiles to follow, and no more?

Originally Posted by Esaias

Then NONE of the ten commandments are in force since then. At Calvary the law prohibiting idolatry was abolished. At Calvary the law commanding the honoring of one's parents was abolished. At Calvary the law prohibiting murder was abolished. At Calvary the law commanding the remembrance and sanctification of the sabbath was abolished. Now if a law is abolished, whatever that law prohibited is now allowed, and whatever that law commanded is no longer obligatory. Do you say idolatry and murder are still prohibited? On what basis? According to the New Testament, they are prohibited because GOD SAID SO. Where? Why, right there in Moses. The NT assumes the post-Calvary validity of the law of God as a definition of right and wrong behaviour, as a moral code, as the STANDARD and declaration of God's will for mankind. (This is so basic I am amazed it must be pointed out to a fellow Christian!)

You can cut the sarcasm E. We can discuss this without throwing stones at one another, I hope.

Again, why were 3 laws from the OT upheld by the council in Jerusalem in the book of Acts? Why not more, why not less? What significance was it that these 3 things were selected by the council as something that even Gentiles must follow? Why didn't they say the Gentiles had to keep the 10 commandments of God? Then we could have proof that the Sabbath keeping was included. But because of the 3 laws they selected... we are to keep those, and understand that the rest of the law keeping comes through the spirit of Christ indwelling us and teaching us.

Originally Posted by Esaias

The ten commandments, according to you, is "the enmity" that Christ came to do away with. Yet you seem utterly oblivious to what that REALLY and PLAINLY means! Thou shalt do no murder was "against us", so God got rid of it, right? Not. The handwriting that was against us was NOT GOD'S LAW. See this I'm running out of time: http://yrm.org/handwriting-ordinances.htm

And here: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseact...esians-215.htm

This seems rather incoherent. As for Jesus fulfilling the law, absolutely. But does that mean "he kept it so I don't need to"? His statement that he was come to fulfill it was juxtaposed against "think not that I am come to destroy the law". Yet you have him fulfilling it by destroying it, destroying it by fulfilling it, etc. But HE put the two ideas as polar opposites and said ONE of them ain't happening.

You seem to be twisting my words. The law was a schoolmaster that taught us. Now that Christ is here, His spirit indwelling us is now our teacher, not the law. The scripture I posted said that Christ abolished the law. I didn't write that, Paul did. Paul also says Christ fulfilled the law. So are those two things that Paul wrote that are contradictions? If Christ came to fulfill the law, he also abolished it, thus changing it. That is not a contradiction at all.

Originally Posted by Esaias

I really do wonder why people fight so hard arguing for lawlessness. If you love God, and God said "remember the sabbath DAY because I am the Creator and made the Sabbath for you", then how could anyone NOT call his sabbath a delight and his ways good and desirable?

I've never understood the antinomian mindset when it is found among Christians.

I am not arguing for lawlessness! How silly! I believe that the law of the Spirit in Christ Jesus is what leads me and guides me! The law of the spirit will not contradict the written word.

I think you are throwing stones at me in order to cover up the fact that you refuse to see the obvious facts that we are discussing. Even though I don't want to turn this into a rock throwing contest. Can we discuss this issue without sarcasm? I hope so.