Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:15 pm

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

Dmatic, As i've repeated several times in John 5.18, John the Apostle states "because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was even calling God his own Father." If you think John the Apostle is mistaken then what else is he mistaken about?

The "But i say unto you" are more then deepening the LOM it's changing them!
"You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, But i say unto you, Do not resist the one who is evil , but if anyone slaps you on the right cheek , turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic , let him have your cloak as well."
Matt 5.38

Re Matt 5.19, I find it interesting that before this statement about the law and afterwards Jesus is discussing his own commands. What law was he discussing before he made this statement?
Blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, thirst for righteousness, the merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, the persecuted for righteousness.
These were the commands Christ discussed before making his Matt 5.19 statement and these are not the LOM.

Post by **_Sean** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:53 am

dmatic wrote: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?

Yea, it's in the part you didn't comment on:

Heb 7:18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness

If there is an annulling of the former commandment then a jot, or is it a tittle, passed away from the Law of Moses. And the earth is still here!

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

Thanks, dmatic

Probably birthdays.

Your turn.

Post by **__id_2533** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:14 pm

STEVE wrote

Dmatic, As i've repeated several times in John 5.18, John the Apostle states "because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was even calling God his own Father."

And as I've tried to repeat several times, John is saying that the Pharisees accused Jesus of breakinig the sabbath, even though He never did break it!

If He had, He would not been the Lamb without blemish! If He had broken the sabbath command, then He would have been disqulaified to be the perfect Lamb of God! Maybe you don't realize the importance of your mistake here. I'll try to do some research to get at the earlier manuscripts.

Peace, dmatic

Post by **__id_2533** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:16 pm

STEVE wrote:

The "But i say unto you" are more then deepening the LOM it's changing them!
"You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, But i say unto you, Do not resist the one who is evil , but if anyone slaps you on the right cheek , turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic , let him have your cloak as well."
Matt 5.38

I think Paidion has even commented correctly on this, that the command is not a requirement to take "vengeance", but is a limitation on how much a victim is legally allowed to take! No contradiction to what Jesus was teaching!

Peace, dmatic

Post by **__id_2533** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:19 pm

STEVE, you'rre possibly as stubborn as I am! (We really should deal with this soon!

) You wrote:

Re Matt 5.19, I find it interesting that before this statement about the law and afterwards Jesus is discussing his own commands. What law was he discussing before he made this statement?
Blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, thirst for righteousness, the merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, the persecuted for righteousness.
These were the commands Christ discussed before making his Matt 5.19 statement and these are not the LOM.

The immediate context of Jesus' verse 19 statement is obviously, in my view, the Law of Moses and the Prophets, referring immediately back to verse 17 and 18!

Please try again!

Peace, dmatic

Post by **__id_2533** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:22 pm

Sean wrote:

If there is an annulling of the former commandment then a jot, or is it a tittle, passed away from the Law of Moses. And the earth is still here!

It is neither! Do you know what either a jot or a tittle is?

This point you're making is a good one. I don't have an answer for it right now. Is that legal? Will you let me think on it?

Thanks, dmatic

Post by **__id_2533** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:24 pm

Sorry Sean, but this (your answer?) does not work!

dmatic wrote:

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

Thanks, dmatic

Probably birthdays.
Your turn.

It's not my turn yet! But you're pretty funny!

Peace, dmatic

Post by **_Sean** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:50 am

dmatic wrote:Sean wrote: If there is an annulling of the former commandment then a jot, or is it a tittle, passed away from the Law of Moses. And the earth is still here!

It is neither! Do you know what either a jot or a tittle is?

It would seem to refer to the "smallest part" or pen stroke. Nothing of the law will pass away until all is fulfilled. This would seem to be in reference to the "Law and the Prophets".

By the way, how would you abolish the Prophets? You could fulfill them both it seems to me. There were many aspects of the Law which were typological representations of what Christ was to do/perform. The passover, the sacrifices, the moral commands were all things that only Christ "kept". So in saying that only Jesus could keep the law, this goes beyond being moral and or righteous. None of us will ever be a sacrifice for the sin of other people, or be a passover lamb, or be born of a virgin or be the true seed of Abraham as Jesus was. Do you see that keeping the law (including it's types and shadows of Christ) was something that was done once and fulfilled in the one who performed it (Jesus). That's what Paul means when he says the law is the schoolmaster that leads us to Christ. It is an oversimplification to say that Paul means 'we can't keep the law so we need forgiveness, so here comes Jesus to forgive us'. It goes deeper than that. The Law, Prophets and Psalms have "Jesus" all over them. It's like his shadow was placed there so that when Jesus came we could look back on the Law (and the Prophets and Psalms) and say 'that looks kinda like a shadow of Jesus!' No one else in this way has ever or could ever be said to have "fulfilled the Law".
Just something to think about.

dmatic wrote: This point you're making is a good one. I don't have an answer for it right now. Is that legal? Will you let me think on it?

Thanks, dmatic

Sure, you can think about it.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:00 am

The immediate context of Jesus' verse 19 statement is obviously, in my view, the Law of Moses and the Prophets, referring immediately back to verse 17 and 18!

Dmatic, Here is what i think Jesus meant by not abolishing the law.
Neither is new wine put into OLD wineskins. If it is the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins , and so BOTH are preserved" Matt 9.17

The LOM is preserved as in not abolished , but it is kept SEPARATE from the new wine because if they are mixed together the skins burst and the wine is spilled.
Can you see that Jesus is illustrating the LOM is preserved in the old wineskin , but not mixed together with the Law of Christ aka the new wine , lest the wineskin burst?

Post by **_MLH** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:24 am

EPhesians 4: 3-6

Keeping the "unity of the spirit through the bond of peace."
is the basis of all our service to others. Why? Well, who
would want a peaceless, argumentative person to become
their guide to the deeper life?

The plea for untiy in this passage is backed up by the evidence
of unity throughout the entire kingdom of God. The word unity
comes from the latin unus, meaning one.

One Body
One Spirit
One Hope
One Lord
One Faith
One Baptism
One GOD and Father of all

One Body: Where all believers share a common love for Christ.
One Spirit: Whose permeation of each heart produces our great
commonality.
One Hope: We, all of us in his church, have no other future but
God's. Jesus' second coming should be hope enough to make the church
one.
One Lord: The Spirit bears witness that we all know and serve one Lord.
One Faith: There is one true universal church, which Jesus left to serve
him in this world.
One Baptism:
One God and Father of all.