Why Sunday

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The early church had church everyday wherever and whenever they could

Acts 2:46 They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity

Rest on Saturday, Shout and dance on Sunday

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother Blume,

I apologize for misrepresenting your belief about this. The back and forth sometimes gets complicated. It’s kind of like watching a game of ping pong.

I believe we are in agreement about this. Most people would disagree. It does merit thorough study though.

No, you already noted if you were following me correctly... Don't have to apologize. But thanks.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother Avery,

....speaking of the old covenant, which certainly includes the Decalogue as the main component.

The covenant that God made with them, when he took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt? That would be the Mosaic law in general and the Ten Commandments in particular!.

Both the old and new covenants include the 10 Commandments, written by the finger of Gos.

Exodus 31:18 (AV)
And he gave unto Moses,
when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai,
two tables of testimony,
tables of stone,
written with the finger of God.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Both the old and new covenants include the 10 Commandments, written by the finger of Gos.

Exodus 31:18 (AV)
And he gave unto Moses,
when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai,
two tables of testimony,
tables of stone,
written with the finger of God.

Brother Avery?

Once again, what is the mysterious covenant in Hebrews 8:13 that is waxing old and ready to vanish away? I can’t seem to get an answer. It is the one that God made with the Israelites when he led them out of Egypt.

Which one is it?

It is the one that the new covenant made old. Evidently by the very sovereign will of God Himself. It is the one prophesied of in Jeremiah 31.

If it isn’t the Ten Commandments, what is it?


Do tell!

[mfblume]

2 Cor 3 is very clearly showing that the law of Moses is the Ten Commandments.

2 Corinthians 3:3.. Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Paul clearly said that the epistle of Christ is our lives that were written with God's words on fleshly tables of the HEART not STONE. The writing on tables of stone distinctly refers to the Ten Commandments.

Then we read:

2 Corinthians 3:6.. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; [not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

We see a contrast between the letter that kills and the spirit that gives life. And the New Testament is of the Spirit that gives life!

With that in mind, we then read:

2 Corinthians 3:7.. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

The letter that gives death is now referred to as the ministration of death, and it was written and engraved on stones, which is distinctly the ten commandments, It could not be plainer. And, furthermore, it describes the face of Moses when those ten commandments were presented by him to the people. His face was shining. When did his face shine other than when he was presenting the ten commandments and actually holding the tables of stone that were written and engraving with those commandments?

Exodus 34:29.. And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.



And the reason sabbatarians will make an effort to find a though that will change the simple reading to say that the ministration of death is something OTHER THAN THE ten commandments, is because they are in the mode of looking for a loophole. They are operating in eisegesis, and making the text say what they are looking for it to say, rather than allow it to teach the what to believe. I say that with no malice or mockery. And they do this becuase the next verse proves that the ministration of death is done away with. They cannot equate the ten commandments with the ministration of death, despite clear distinction that it is, due preceding verses, because the next verse shows that ministration passed away.

2 Corinthians 3:11.. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

Verse 7 said that the fading glory on Moses' face represented the fading glory of the Ten Commandments, written and engraven on stones, also called the letter and the ministration of death written on stoners.

Paul DID NOT say that the law of God was the written law apart from the ten commandments, and did not say that the written law's punishment of death is what made it the ministration of death. He said the TEN COMMANDMENTS were the ministration of death.

Also, sabbatarians at this point begin to argue apart from Paul's words here, and distract the issue into a debate on why commandments such as not committing adultery could cause death to people. They argue that we all know it is wrong to commit adultery and murder, two fo the ten commandments, so that if this was a ministration of death, EVEN THOUGH PAUL SAID IT WAS, that must mean it is okay to adulterate and murder people, WHICH IS NOT TRUE. The ministration of death was not described as that because the commandments themselves were wrong. It is described as that because Pau also taught that SIN IS IN OUR FLESH and disables us from perfectly keeping those commandments. And he actually used the word DEATH when describing that failure.

Romans 7:7-11.. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. ..(8).. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. ..(9).. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. ..(10).. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. ..(11).. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

How could it be any plainer in saying that the LAW was the Ten Commandments in Paul's context in Romans 7?

Tithesmeister is correct!

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Both the old and new covenants include the 10 Commandments, written by the finger of Gos.

Exodus 31:18 (AV)
And he gave unto Moses,
when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai,
two tables of testimony,
tables of stone,
written with the finger of God.

Originally Posted by mfblume

2 Cor 3 is very clearly showing that the law of Moses is the Ten Commandments.

2 Corinthians 3:3.. Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Paul clearly said that the epistle of Christ is our lives that were written with God's words on fleshly tables of the HEART not STONE. The writing on tables of stone distinctly refers to the Ten Commandments.

Then we read:

2 Corinthians 3:6.. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; [not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

We see a contrast between the letter that kills and the spirit that gives life. And the New Testament is of the Spirit that gives life!

With that in mind, we then read:

2 Corinthians 3:7.. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

The letter that gives death is now referred to as the ministration of death, and it was written and engraved on stones, which is distinctly the ten commandments, It could not be plainer. And, furthermore, it describes the face of Moses when those ten commandments were presented by him to the people. His face was shining. When did his face shine other than when he was presenting the ten commandments and actually holding the tables of stone that were written and engraving with those commandments?

Exodus 34:29.. And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.



And the reason sabbatarians will make an effort to find a though that will change the simple reading to say that the ministration of death is something OTHER THAN THE ten commandments, is because they are in the mode of looking for a loophole. They are operating in eisegesis, and making the text say what they are looking for it to say, rather than allow it to teach the what to believe. I say that with no malice or mockery. And they do this becuase the next verse proves that the ministration of death is done away with. They cannot equate the ten commandments with the ministration of death, despite clear distinction that it is, due preceding verses, because the next verse shows that ministration passed away.

2 Corinthians 3:11.. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

Verse 7 said that the fading glory on Moses' face represented the fading glory of the Ten Commandments, written and engraven on stones, also called the letter and the ministration of death written on stoners.

Paul DID NOT say that the law of God was the written law apart from the ten commandments, and did not say that the written law's punishment of death is what made it the ministration of death. He said the TEN COMMANDMENTS were the ministration of death.

Also, sabbatarians at this point begin to argue apart from Paul's words here, and distract the issue into a debate on why commandments such as not committing adultery could cause death to people. They argue that we all know it is wrong to commit adultery and murder, two fo the ten commandments, so that if this was a ministration of death, EVEN THOUGH PAUL SAID IT WAS, that must mean it is okay to adulterate and murder people, WHICH IS NOT TRUE. The ministration of death was not described as that because the commandments themselves were wrong. It is described as that because Pau also taught that SIN IS IN OUR FLESH and disables us from perfectly keeping those commandments. And he actually used the word DEATH when describing that failure.

Romans 7:7-11.. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. ..(8).. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. ..(9).. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. ..(10).. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. ..(11).. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

How could it be any plainer in saying that the LAW was the Ten Commandments in Paul's context in Romans 7?

Tithesmeister is correct!

Brother Blume,

This is sooo good, that I wish I had written it. I was just about to think of this. : I’m ALMOST jealous.

On a slightly different note. I don’t remember the graven image prohibition being reiterated in the NT. What are your thoughts about this? I said that the Commandments other than the sabbath are reiterated, but it has occurred to me that the one about graven images has, to the best of my knowledge not been.

Which could cast EB’s concerns about the angel 😇 in the apostolic church in a different light. If the Decalogue is in effect, as many believe, then it would be an obvious violation of one of the ten.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Which could cast EB’s concerns about the angel 😇 in the apostolic church in a different light. If the Decalogue is in effect, as many believe, then it would be an obvious violation of one of the ten.

Boy do I have a fan club.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sure you can. Jesus specifically pointed out those two examples in fact, demonstrating what you say cannot be done can in fact be done and in fact is all too common.

Also, James 2:10 comes into play.

Jesus by no means was explaining that people were hypocrites if they outwardly did not commit adultery and inwardly were, when he made reference to those commandments, let alone say their outward fidelity meant nothing. The Bible simply never treated moral virtues like that. He simply noted that His commandments, in contrast to the Ten, were beyond what these were. There was nothing about hypocrisy in the context. He was teaching about fulfilling the Law.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jesus by no means was explaining that people were hypocrites if they outwardly did not commit adultery and inwardly were, when he made reference to those commandments, let alone say their outward fidelity meant nothing. The Bible simply never treated moral virtues like that. He simply noted that His commandments, in contrast to the Ten, were beyond what these were. There was nothing about hypocrisy in the context. He was teaching about fulfilling the Law.

Brother Blume are you saying that a married man cannot inwardly commit adultery. While he is outwardly appearing faithful?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Blume are you saying that a married man cannot inwardly commit adultery. While he is outwardly appearing faithful?

No. I am saying we never read of a case where God says your outward obedience to the commandment against adultery means nothing if you do it inwardly, as he did say so against sabbaths. He always used ritual and says it meant nothing due to their sins. The ritual in itself is useless due to the sin, when that is not the case in outward refusal of adultery. Outward refusal of adultery is good and must be maintained even though the inward heart adulterates. One does not cancel or the other as useless though, when it does when rites are the subject.

Inward adultery is wrong, I agree of course, and it can Happen while outward is not taking place. But saying it is the same thing as committing adultery outwardly is not saying the outeard refusal is useless, as he says sabbath letting is useless when one sins.