hiphop-elements.com

Yeshua states:

Mathew 5:17 Dont misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them. 18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved. 19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

20 "But I warn you- unless you obey God better than the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees do, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven at all!"

However, in the Torah:

Exodus 16:

25 And Moses said: 'Eat that to-day; for to-day is a sabbath unto the LORD; to-day ye shall not find it in the field.
כו שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים, תִּלְקְטֻהוּ; וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבָּת, לֹא יִהְיֶה-בּוֹ. 26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.'
כז וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, יָצְאוּ מִן-הָעָם לִלְקֹט; וְלֹא, מָצָאוּ. {ס} 27 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that there went out some of the people to gather, and they found none. {S}
כח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה: עַד-אָנָה, מֵאַנְתֶּם, לִשְׁמֹר מִצְו‍ֹתַי, וְתוֹרֹתָי. 28 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'How long refuse ye to keep My commandments and My laws?
כט רְאוּ, כִּי-יְהוָה נָתַן לָכֶם הַשַּׁבָּת--עַל-כֵּן הוּא נֹתֵן לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי, לֶחֶם יוֹמָיִם; שְׁבוּ אִישׁ תַּחְתָּיו, אַל-יֵצֵא אִישׁ מִמְּקֹמוֹ--בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי. 29 See that the LORD hath given you the sabbath; therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.'
ל וַיִּשְׁבְּתוּ הָעָם, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִעִי. 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.


1. Sunday 2. Monday 3. Tuesday 4. Wednesday 5. Thursday 6. Friday 7. Saturday

So is it the difference in Calender systems? How can the Christians be making the Sabbath Sunday, while the Jews have been commanded to keep it on Saturday (friday evening to saturday evening.) According to Yeshua, the law's are not abolished. Any further insight?

Colassians 2:13-17

13. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14. having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

I think this also fits with the philosophical narrative proposed by people like Richard Swinburne and David McNaughton, who assert that the Bible is a work in which God's nature is progressively revealed/discovered.


Peace

This is where I am confused.

In Paul's letter to the Collossians, he writes as though the Law had been abolished. Even in other books, such as statements made regarding circumcision, found in Galatians; I cannot help but think that what Paul is writing contradicts the teaching of Yeshua, as found in the the quote I had provided in Mathew.

In the Collossians quotes you had provided, Paul teaches that the Law had been taken to the cross, and no more stands. "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." This alone seems questionable to me (in the scope of me trying to make sense of everything,)

In regards to feasts/festivals, it is directly stated: (Leviticus 23:14) "it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. "

This is not the only verse in Leviticus that makes this statement, however, it is one that will lead you to others as well.

So I see Yeshua taking a position that the Law will stand after the Earth fades away, and that no one should change the Law, (Mathew,) God stated to Moses that specific days be a "statue for ever," and Paul stating in Collossians that since Yeshua was nailed to the cross, then contrary to what God and Yeshua said, that the Law stands no more.

...Unless of course that Paul is not saying to end the festivals, but rather to not let others judge you according to your celebration methods? of the festivals if you adhere to the teachings of Christ... which the teachings of Christ state the Laws importance and that they stand untill Earth is finished?

I have done an extensive study on the Sabbath day and the Trinity and you're correct in your initial assessment about the Sabbath. People make the mistake of thinking Christ came to do away with the Law, hence the verses by Big Doug, but Christ came to take away the sting of death, therefore breaking of the Law no longer required one's death, because life through Christ.

It is foolish to think that Christ came to do away with thou shall not kill, put the Lord your God first in your mind, body and soul, right? I will tell by others' responses whether or not I need to quote Scripture directly. However, the easy thing to do is this: go through the 10 commandments and you will find that every believer, including yourself, will say yes I try to keep the commandments. They will say yes to all except the 4th, which is to Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. Why keep all but one of the commandments, 9 out of 10?

Revelations 14:12: This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

This is talking about the perseverance of the saints during the rapture and reign of the beast, and how will I tell you apart from the rest of the world, the abovementioned verse. It is my life goal to arrive at the point where I can keep the Sabbath, and not because it is required for salvation, but, because I believe it is a gift from God.

Ezekiel 22:26: Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

I am not trying to get complicated here, but I want to seriously understand everything in the Bible. I find nothing so important that exceeds me wanting to wrap my head around the Word of God.


Thanks both of you for throwing down these verses and insight...

Free$peech, from what I understand, Ezekiel was a prophet during jewish exile/captivity to Babylon?

In Ez 22:24, it reads " Son of man, give the people of Israel this message: In the day of my indignation, you will become like an uncleared wilderness or a desert without rain."

I am assuming that when he says "In the day of my indignation," we can interpret it to mean, "In the future, when I am angry at unrighteousness." ?
to further attempt to interpret: "uncleared wilderness or a desert without rain," would mean: "scattered and wild, and dryness that causes death." ?

I do not want to wrongfully interpret, however, this is all that I can seem to make sense. If you have any other interpretation, please let me know.

Back to 22:26, when he states: Your priests/ Her priests (my translation says "your," but that is not anything of to much concern,) have violated my laws.."
He uses "have violated," in past tense, however, in :24 we see that it is future tense, so is he talking about sins that are to take place in the future, or sins that have taken place which lead to the future result (the day of His indignation.) Since you use this verse to back the interpretation of it being future tense, you extend the "future," to even this day and age? How can I find out if it was not only specifically meant as prophetic words to bring enlightenment to why the Jews were in captivity to Babylon, and what may happen in the future of her release?"

Unless of course:

(Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 NIV) What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. {10} Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.

Does this assert, that even if the sins of the Jews led to the captivity in Babylon, and Ezekiels words were directed at the future, they also will pertain today, since all that is done, including prophecy's of old, be relived again, as "there is nothing new under the sun."

I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. In Mark 2 and Matthew 12, Jesus and his disciples explicitly and deliberately break what the priests deemed to be the rules with regard to keeping the Sabbath. Now, we can debate whether or not they meant to abolish that portion of the law vs. whether they meant merely to point out the hypocrisy of the priests, who themselves broke the law. And that would be a legitimate debate. Still, it's very clear that the two commandments are not treated in the same way. After all, it's not as if Jesus killed people from time to time in order to undermine Jewish authorities. And Jesus never argued against putting God first. Point of fact, he explicitly said that putting God first is more important than the commandment of honoring your father and mother (Luke 14:26). As such, there is no way you can compare Jesus' treatment of either of these commandments to his treatment of the Sabbath.

The priest turned the Law into something legalistic and oppressive. The Sabbath day of rest do not require that a man starve if he is hungry.

Hebrews 4:9-11

9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

Revelation 12:17 (New International Version)

17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Do not the priest of the world, mostly Catholics profess to have the authority to change the Sabbath day of rest from Saturday to Sunday (This can be found in the catechism). The priest still profane the day!

Again, the priest made the law oppressive, but the foolishness of the priest does not indict the 4th commandment.

Big Doug, you are a man of logic, so go through the list of commandments and tell me which ones were done away with.


1 John 3:4
New International Version (©1984)
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Everyone who sins is breaking God's law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Everyone who keeps living in sin also practices disobedience. In fact, sin is disobedience.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Those who live sinful lives are disobeying God. Sin is disobedience.

King James Bible
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.



Psalm 119
39 Take away the disgrace I dread,
for your laws are good.

I will always obey your law,
for ever and ever.

96 To all perfection I see a limit;
but your commands are boundless.

137 Righteous are you, O LORD,
and your laws are right.

138 The statutes you have laid down are righteous;
they are fully trustworthy.

144 Your statutes are forever right;
give me understanding that I may live.

160 All your words are true;
all your righteous laws are eternal.

86All Your commandments are (DW)faithful;
90Your (EB)faithfulness continues throughout all generations;

It would be absolutely foolish to assume that somehow an infallible God made a mistake, therefore sent his son to correct his wrongdoing. It is us that are wrong!

If we're having a debate about the idea that some commandments were carried over following the coming of Christ and others were not then blanket statements about "the law" are not really relevant to our discussion, now are they? We're talking about what the law is in the first place. I think that you know enough about logical discourse to know that. As I demonstrated, Jesus very clearly breaks with the priests on the rules regarding the Sabbath. He also makes it clear that dietary laws, for example, are no longer relevant. But he never kills anyone to demonstrate the oppressive legalism of the priestly rules regarding murder. So no. The two commandments are not dealt with in the same way. And therefore, there's no reason to think that pronouncements about "the law" are definitive. You may or may not be right but you need to use more specific evidence.



Okay.

Personally, I think the only way that we can read the Bible to make any sense of it whatsoever is to look at it with the knowledge that the Bible may be about God but that it was written, translated, copied and compiled by men. Biblical inerantism, in my view, is not a tenable or coherent position for a whole host of reasons (even aside from being an atheist). As such, I think that the notion of progressive revelation, which I touched on earlier is one of the few ways of making sense of the Bible. And on this view, it is perfectly acceptable to say that parts of what was previously reported to have been revealed are wrong because, on this view, later writers are correcting the mistakes of earlier writers. This view allows for mistakes. (And regardless of how you interpret it, there are plenty of mistakes in the Bible.)

Compare Numbers 15:32-36 to John 8:3-18. In one passage the proper punishment for a violation of the law is death. In the next, there is no punishment. What has changed? Not God. God can't deliberate and waffle in the way that humans do. God is all knowing and timeless and therefore it doesn't make any sense to say that God had some sort of change of heart. However, on this view, it does make sense to say that men have been shown to have made a mistake in reporting the nature of God that was revealed to His prophets and God or one of His representatives corrected said mistake.

Why can't the Sabbath be one of those mistakes? Or accepting that it's not a mistake, why can't it be that God did away with the rule of keeping Sabbath in the same way that He did away with the punishments that He prescribed for breaking it?


Peace

Because the Scriptures I posted notes the keeping of God's commandments, and that they also not that there remains a Sabbath rest.

The first four commandments are about developing an intimate relationship with God and the next six commandments notes how we should love our neighbors.

Jesus said, I have kept my Father's commandments and he also said to follow me, so if he kept the commandments, then why in the hell would anyone consider it logical that he would abolish the laws necessary to follow him.

12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. No mistake was made. Again, the priest even condemned doing good on the Sabbath, and that is absolutely foolish. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, was a mistake? Yet Christ said it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, which he supposedly went on to abolish, yeah right!

Luke 4:16
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Again, why would those following him have different customs? That would undermine the notion of following him!

I suppose I should point out that I really don't have a dog in this fight. I don't think Christianity is true. So there's that. All I'm trying to show in this thread is that the view of most Christians with regard to their non-observance Sabbath is justified.

I don't know, I was always taught that keeping the Sabbath just wasn't as important as say, murder. Check Romans 14:



There's no passage that one can quote to show that same kind of live and let live mentality with regard to the observance of other aspects of God's laws, such as murder. Again, think the proper comparison is to dietary rules or circumcision. And it's very clear that the rules are no longer applicable. Gentiles who become Christian don't have to keep kosher.

Again, from Romans 14:



Furthermore, it appears as if Paul was holding services and recommending that others hold services on the first, rather than the last day of each week (Acts 20:7 and First Corinthians 16:2). It is thus not all that surprising that churches following Paul would carry on this tradition. And I should note that it's not just the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches that hold this line. Greek and Roman Orthodox and Egyptian Coptic churches all worship on Sundays rather than Saturdays. I suppose I should ask, why do you think that they all hold this view if it is unbiblical?

Again, I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just trying to demonstrate that this is a defensible position (even if I'm not the best defender). Regardless, I hope you and Mike have a happy Easter.


Peace

God is a God of Righteousness, so then define Righteousness.

"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous." 1 John 3:7.
My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness. Psalm 119:172

The biblical definition of righteousness involves the inherent quality of God. God is right because He is righteous, therefore God can only act righteously.

Matthew 5:48 Be then complete in righteousness, even as your Father in heaven is complete.

John 16:8 When he has come, he will convict the world about sin, about righteousness, and about judgment

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who will be judged as having righteousness before God, but only the doers

Romans 10:3 For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they didn't subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

Again, on the view of progressive revelation, God's righteousness doesn't even need to enter into the picture. We're talking about men coming to a better understanding of their relationship with God. This view also fits with the idea that Christ was coming not just to redeem man but to clarify the law. But I suppose that rather than fleshing that out I should just ask, why couldn't God have done away with the rule that the Sabbath has to be kept? How does God's righteousness really enter into this? What rule of morality demands that Saturday should be set aside for rest and worship rather than Sunday or Wednesday or Friday? This is one of those situations where the given day is only important only because it was the day God decided on. And therefore God can change the day of rest without rendering His law unrighteous.

Either you're reading and not understanding or you're completely ignoring what is posted. Righteousness and the Law in Scripture are synonymous, the definition of Righteousness is the Law, according to Scripture.

Uh no. You're the one ignoring points. If you hold to a view of say, Biblical inerrancy, for example, then yes, your contention is correct. Scripture is righteous by nature. Full stop. Fine. But there are other views. And on the view of progressive revelation, the view I've been sketching out in this thread, some things in scripture are correct or righteous in the case of moral teachings. Others are not. And on this view, the books of the Bible can be seen as a collection of works in which men are building on their understanding of God's nature, with earlier writers being corrected by later writers, ultimately culminating with the coming of Christ. Maybe you don't agree with this. That's fine. But it makes much more sense given the way the Bible was translated, copied and compiled. Biblical historians recognize that early Christian scribes, for example, changed passages to fit their own views, the idea being that more people might believe something if they believed that say, Paul wrote it. (I know we've talked about the dubious nature of some of the passages that are used to support the Trinity, for example.) It also makes much more sense of the fact that the early Christian movement seemed to have views about the Sabbath that were different from the Jews of their time. But you don't have to agree with that. The point is that your view is not the only view.

Throughout the Bible righteousness is associated with the Law, the 10 Commandments. Early Christians kept the Sabbath, read the book of Acts.

Whoever therefore breaks one of the LEAST of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19).

You use phrases like progressive revelation and special creation, and that it okay; you have found people that substantiate your doubts, cool. However, the culmination of the 10 commandments is Righteousness and righteousness is the 10 commandments, proved by using verses that says that from the beginning of the bible to the end of the bible. You may find things contrary in the Bible but this, Righteousness and the Law is synonymous and that is established by every book, even by Paul who you try to use to establish your point. Romans 3:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

ROMANS 3:30-31 (Paul)
30 Seeing it is one God, who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and un-circumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yes, we establish1 the law.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.