Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

STEVE7150 (BTW, why the 7150? What significance is the number?)

I had thought you were trying to make an argument that the "New" Testament commands "differ" by contradicting the "Old" commands. I agree that they are different as to wording, but the Spirit is the same! The "New" do not at all contradict the "Old".

In answer to your "manageable question, the first post by Homer after yours, answered it. He quoted Lev. 19:17,18

The "Old" says you shall not hate your brother....the "New" says "love your brother".

As for forgiving....the "Old" says You shall not take vengeance NOR BEAR ANY GRUDGE against.... The "New" says "forgive" and do not take vengeance, but the let the Lord avenge if He wills.

They are the same but said differently, in my view. Do you not agree?

BTW, Thanks for the freedom to answer you friend!

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

STEVE7150 also asked me to respond to these:

Anytime you feel like answering friend feel free. And as Sean also pointed out their is no Levitical priesthood anymore which is a requirement of the LOM. Any comments about that?
Also feel free to comment on other points i brought up that you never answered like,
Immediately after Matt 5.19 Jesus gives six "But i say unto you" statements , clearly transforming the LOM
In John 5 , John the Apostle himself says Jesus broke the Sabbath. That was John himself giving a commentary about what Jesus did.

Jesus did not break the Sabbath Day Holy command!

The "But I say unto" statements are spoken further deepening the Law of Moses and explaining it, and were opposed to the misteachings of men that they had "heard".

BTW, I would like you to answer what you think Jesus meant by Matthew 5:19. Thanks

The Levitical priesthood being temporary is/was prophesied, and is in keeping with the jots and tittles...

The Melchizedek priesthood is following "Shem" who had taken the mantle from his father, Noah, and was the one to whom Abraham paid tithes, upon returning form victory with the spoils. Levi still being in his loins.

We, who are called to be priests with the Messiah, will also be after the Melchizedek order, when we reign with Him, in the Messianic Age.

Hope this helps.

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

I'm sorry Allyn, but I don't know what you mean with this objection:

I'm sorry but that is still another misrepresentation of what Jesus meant and not only that He was speaking to Jews who were still at that time under the Law and not only that there are not any scribes and Pharisees today and certainly none for Gentiles to have to sit beside for instruction. Christ is our Advocate. Christ is our High Priest forever and He Himself is seated (which has more meaning then you seem to understand). And Christ Himself as placed His word on our heart. Their is no effort we need to provide for Christ provided it all. In fact He called me - I did not call Him.

Maybe you could explain to me what Jesus 'meant' when He said: :Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

And one of those things He commanded them, was not to think that He had come to annul the Law......(Mt. 5:17)

May I ask you what you think Jesus meant when He clearly taught that the Law would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away...saying:"Whosoever therefore breaks even the least of these commandments (from the law and prophets) and teaches others to break it will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...."

His clear meaning, to me at least, is that none of us should break even the least of the commandments.....and further, we should not teach others that it is OK to break even the least!

Do you disagree?

God bless you, dmatic

[Guest]

Sean wrote:

Heb 7:19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

Are you implying that I have said something that disagrees with this?

Also, before I type my answer to your Gal. 2:11-21 question, will you answer what you think Paul destroyed?

Thanks, dmatic

[Guest]

I'm sorry Allyn, but I don't know what you mean with this objection:

I'm sorry but that is still another misrepresentation of what Jesus meant and not only that He was speaking to Jews who were still at that time under the Law and not only that there are not any scribes and Pharisees today and certainly none for Gentiles to have to sit beside for instruction. Christ is our Advocate. Christ is our High Priest forever and He Himself is seated (which has more meaning then you seem to understand). And Christ Himself as placed His word on our heart. Their is no effort we need to provide for Christ provided it all. In fact He called me - I did not call Him.

Maybe you could explain to me what Jesus 'meant' when He said: :Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

And one of those things He commanded them, was not to think that He had come to annul the Law......(Mt. 5:17)

May I ask you what you think Jesus meant when He clearly taught that the Law would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away...saying:"Whosoever therefore breaks even the least of these commandments (from the law and prophets) and teaches others to break it will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...."

His clear meaning, to me at least, is that none of us should break even the least of the commandments.....and further, we should not teach others that it is OK to break even the least!

Do you disagree?

God bless you, dmatic

Yes, I have disagreed with your interpretation from the get go. I am not sure why you think Jesus' statement concerning the law was a command but that interpretation reflects your whole misguided view on the Law ever since your first posting here. The command He gave was summed up in the greatest of all the commandments, but yet you want to not only drag yourself down with futile observance of obsolete practices - you are hell bent on pulling us in with you.

You have been shown over and over again how the disciples demonstrated their understanding of Christ's commands but yet you insist by your disagreement with that teaching that you would rather be bound by the Old instead of set free by the New. You evidently believe God is a respector of persons instead of seeing you through Christ in the grace and sanctifying work of Christ.

You yourself fail on ever point of the Law because in breaking one you have broken the whole and yet you still are trying to please God as a law breaker. I reject this and in time so should you. For it by grace we have been saved, not of works..., and yet you strive in works and by that you will never enter into His rest.

So, heed the wisdom of others and die to self and live for Christ.

[Guest]

The "Old" says you shall not hate your brother....the "New" says "love your brother".

As for forgiving....the "Old" says You shall not take vengeance NOR BEAR ANY GRUDGE against.... The "New" says "forgive" and do not take vengeance, but the let the Lord avenge if He wills.


Dmatic, Do you ever go ice skating? Because if you do, check the thickness of the ice because you tend to skate on thin ice.
Now i'm wondering what my wife would think if one those moments comes up where instead of telling her "i love you" instead i say "i do not hate you"? When she breaths fire on my face i'll just assure her that you said it was the same thing as love.
And your answer for "forgive" is equally convincing plus scripture went a step further saying if we don't forgive then God won't forgive us. Sounds a bit more emphatic , right dematic?
And the Levitical priesthood you say was temporary but it was required for the LOM therefore that would make the LOM temporary.
BTW 7150 are the last 4 digits of my phone #. It's in my e-mail address so i just kept it.

[Guest]

Thanks Steve for the numerological explanation.

No, I don't ice skate any more.

My point in the quick answer to you was to see if I was understanding your objection. You say the New Testament "Laws" contradict the Old?

I say they don't.

If you've read Lev. 19:18, you'll see there that Jesus quotes from here in part of His answer to which was the greatest commandment. It says. You shall love thy neighbor. Your pointing out, or making a big deal out of, you shall not hate your neighbor, and you shall love your neighbor, since they are both contained in the Law of Moses, proves my point!

Thanks,

God bless!
and peace, dmatic.

[Guest]

Allyn wrote:

I am not sure why you think Jesus' statement concerning the law was a command but that interpretation reflects your whole misguided view on the Law ever since your first posting here. The command He gave was summed up in the greatest of all the commandments, but yet you want to not only drag yourself down with futile observance of obsolete practices - you are hell bent on pulling us in with you.

Allyn, I'm really not sure how to take you.

The wording in English for Jesus' command is: "Do not think...." That is a command! It is a command not to think a certain way. It would be like in grammer....if you remember back to grammer school days. You! Come here! is a command, too.

Jesus told the guy who was inquiring what He should do to inherit life, that he should keep the commandments. "Do this and live", He said. The man asked: "Which commandments?" Jesus responded with a list of some of the Ten, from the Law of Moses, and followed with "and you shall love your neighbor as yourself", a command also found in the Law of Moses at Lev. 19:18.

The Greatest command, to which you refer is also found in the Law of Moses at Deut. 6:4ff (I think)

Further, Jesus said that if anyone breaks even the least of these commandments, found in the Law of Moses and the Prophets, and teaches others to break it also, that he would be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

I'm not sure why you insist that Jesus did not mean what He said?

God bless,
dmatic

[Guest]

Allyn also wrote:

You have been shown over and over again how the disciples demonstrated their understanding of Christ's commands but yet you insist by your disagreement with that teaching that you would rather be bound by the Old instead of set free by the New. You evidently believe God is a respector of persons instead of seeing you through Christ in the grace and sanctifying work of Christ.

You yourself fail on ever point of the Law because in breaking one you have broken the whole and yet you still are trying to please God as a law breaker. I reject this and in time so should you. For it by grace we have been saved, not of works..., and yet you strive in works and by that you will never enter into His rest.

I don't really think you want to get into this. It would probably be better if we just left it alone. OK?

God bless, dmatic

[Guest]

STEVE7150, What do you think Jesus meant by His instruction as Matthew 5:19?

Maybe you missed my question in one of the previous posts. Thanks. Of course, I return the courtesy, that you may answer whenever you feel free to do so!

Peace, dmatic