Sabbath or Sunday? What did Jesus teach & show in scripture?

[Mr GLee]

Do we find that anywhere in the NT?

That's what I would like to know. ask the succession of venerable men "patron saints"A Catholic doctrine. Do they have any authority to raise the dead?

 

[donadams]

Yes, all Christians the body of Christ, the church, whom you assert has all the authority.

However, the NT presents the apostles as the authority to the church.

Lk 22:29 I make over the kingdom to you (the apostles)

 

[donadams]

Yes.

Yes, but not in the narrow-viewed way the RCC teaches its adherents to understand that truth because the Church is not limited to the RCC, nor its authority limited to only RCC leaders.

What else is there?

 

[Eleanor]

That's what I would like to know. ask the succession of venerable men "patron saints"A Catholic doctrine. Do they have any authority to raise the dead?

All extra-Biblical.

 

[Josheb]

What else is there?

LOL! Thank you for that answer. It proves the point.

 

[Eleanor]

Lk 22:29 I make over the kingdom to you (the apostles)

The next verse (30) shows that it is the future kingdom.

 

[donadams]

LOL! Thank you for that answer. It proves the point.

Jn 10:16 one new covenant church
The mystical body of Christ
The only ark of salvation 1 pet 3:20-21
Holy mother church gal 4:26

 

[Hobie]

Christ set a perfect example for his followers to follow of how walked in obedience to the Mosaic Law and under the New Covenant we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21), that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), and to be imitators of Paul as he is of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). We would still be obligated to obey God even before He made any covenants with man, so His covenants are not the source of our obligation.


It was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, long before the Mosaic Covenant was made, so the fact that it has become obsolete does not imply that any of its laws have become obsolete, but rather they are still to be followed as part of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10).

The thing is, its not the Mosaic Law, as Moses didn't write it. Need to be clear on who's law it is and then understand what that means..

 

[Josheb]

The thing is, its not the Mosaic Law, as Moses didn't write it. Need to be clear on who's law it is and then understand what that means..

Are you sure about that?

In Deuteronomy 24 we read the following...

Deuteronomy 24:1-4
When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

I Matthew 19 we read the following...

Matthew 19:3-9
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”


Jesus, the incarnate Son of God who is God made flesh stated it was Moses who allowed the writ of divorce, not God. Jesus said, "...Moses allowed you to divorce your wives..." Does Jesus specifically mean the man Moses, or is Jesus using Moses' name in a generalized, connotative, or colloquial manner to mean the Mosaic Law? If you say the former, then Jesus has changed the Law because the Law permitted divorce for any real or perceived indecency but Jesus changes that by limiting it solely to adultery. If you say the latter, then there is evidence Moses added to the Law and added something God never wanted. That brings much, if not all, of the Law under suspicion.

Notice also, as I have pointed out many times in the forum, that all of the NT writers quote, cite, and/or reference the OT Law but they do not do so in its letter. For example, the law in the Law against muzzling the ox while it threshes grain is cited three or four times in the NT but never once does the NT citing have anything to do with oxen, muzzles, or grain threshing. Have the NT writers (who were all Jewish converts to Christ) misused or abused the Law? There are explicit statements in the NT saying circumcision is no longer required (at least not of Gentile converts). There are less specific statements in the epistolary doing the same thing with the seventh day sabbath!

Romans 14:5-6, 13-14
One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God........ Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

No one day is unclean. Some people, like you, consider one day above all others. Some people, like most Christians, consider another day above the one you consider holy. Some people, like me, purpose and endeavor to treat all days is valued and important to God, all of them holy in their own God-given purpose, giving honor to God daily while not judging those who do otherwise. And although I find my rest 24 hours a day seven days a week in Jesus, I rest on both the seventh and the first days of the week lawfully doing good on the sabbath. Neither do I judge you because you choose to abide by the Law of Moses given to him and Israel by God as long as you abide by it honoring God and not thinking you can be made righteous or be justified by it.




What do you do with Jesus' report that either Moses added to the Law, the Law accommodated acts God never wanted, or the Law has been changed?

 

[Eleanor]

The thing is, its not the Mosaic Law, as Moses didn't write it. Need to be clear on who's law it is and then understand what that means..

Correct. . .it is God's law given to Moses, and is referred to as the Mosaic law because it was Moses who gave the law to the people.

 

[Soyeong]

The thing is, its not the Mosaic Law, as Moses didn't write it. Need to be clear on who's law it is and then understand what that means..

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God instructed without departing from it. Moreover, the Bible uses the phrase "Law of Moses" and uses it interchangeably with the phrase "Law of God" in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you sure about that?

In Deuteronomy 24 we read the following...

Deuteronomy 24:1-4
When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

I Matthew 19 we read the following...

Matthew 19:3-9
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”


Jesus, the incarnate Son of God who is God made flesh stated it was Moses who allowed the writ of divorce, not God. Jesus said, "...Moses allowed you to divorce your wives..." Does Jesus specifically mean the man Moses, or is Jesus using Moses' name in a generalized, connotative, or colloquial manner to mean the Mosaic Law? If you say the former, then Jesus has changed the Law because the Law permitted divorce for any real or perceived indecency but Jesus changes that by limiting it solely to adultery. If you say the latter, then there is evidence Moses added to the Law and added something God never wanted. That brings much, if not all, of the Law under suspicion.

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing with it, so Jesus should not be interpreted as disagreeing with Scripture or with what God commanded, rather what was not the case from the beginning was a man being permitted to divorce his wife for any cause. For context, Gitten 90a-b interpret Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as saying that a man is permitted to divorce his wife if she ruins his meal or if he finds someone who was prettier than her, so it was divorce over frivolous reasons that was not the case from the beginning. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so Jesus did not do that. Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy to overcome the temptation of Satan, so he affirmed its authority.

Notice also, as I have pointed out many times in the forum, that all of the NT writers quote, cite, and/or reference the OT Law but they do not do so in its letter. For example, the law in the Law against muzzling the ox while it threshes grain is cited three or four times in the NT but never once does the NT citing have anything to do with oxen, muzzles, or grain threshing. Have the NT writers (who were all Jewish converts to Christ) misused or abused the Law? There are explicit statements in the NT saying circumcision is no longer required (at least not of Gentile converts). There are less specific statements in the epistolary doing the same thing with the seventh day sabbath!

God's law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), so the point of it is to teach us spiritual principles that are aspects of God's character/fruits of the Spirit. For example, God could give someone a list of 100 instructions for how to testify about His is righteousness in various situations and they could then abstract a principle of righteousness that all of those instructions have in common that would lead them to take actions that are examples of those principle in accordance with those instruction even in situations that were not specifically listed. Correctly understanding the principle of righteousness will always lead us to take actions that are examples of that principle and never away from doing that. Likewise, understanding the principle that the command against muzzling an ox is an example of will never lead us away from obeying that command.

Romans 14:5-6, 13-14
One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God........ Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

No one day is unclean. Some people, like you, consider one day above all others. Some people, like most Christians, consider another day above the one you consider holy. Some people, like me, purpose and endeavor to treat all days is valued and important to God, all of them holy in their own God-given purpose, giving honor to God daily while not judging those who do otherwise. And although I find my rest 24 hours a day seven days a week in Jesus, I rest on both the seventh and the first days of the week lawfully doing good on the sabbath. Neither do I judge you because you choose to abide by the Law of Moses given to him and Israel by God as long as you abide by it honoring God and not thinking you can be made righteous or be justified by it.

What do you do with Jesus' report that either Moses added to the Law, the Law accommodated acts God never wanted, or the Law has been changed?

The topic stated in Romans 14:1 is in regard to how to handle disputable matters opinion in which God has given no command, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as speaking against obeying God. Where God has given a command, human opinion must yield. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other over whether someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to eat only vegetables. Paul was not suggesting that we are free to commit murder, idolatry, adultery, theft, break the Sabbath, or disobey any of God's other commands just as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok to rebel against God, but rather that was only said in regard to disputable matters of opinion.

In Romans 14:5-6, it is speaking about those who eat or refraining from eating unto the Lord, so it is speaking about those who esteem certain days for fasting. In the 1st century, it was a common practice for people to fast twice a week even though God gave no command to do that, yet they were resenting judging and resenting each other over that issue (Luke 18:12), so this is the sort of issue that Paul was addressing in this issue. The reason why we should keep the Sabbath holy is not because man esteemed it as a matter of opinion, but because God rested on it, blessed it, made it holy, commanded us to keep it holy, and because what is holy to God should not be profaned by man, so we should not be inserting God's commands into the chapter. The Sabbath is not mentioned once in Romans 14 precisely because it had nothing to do with the topic that Paul was discussing.


.

 

[Josheb]

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing with it, so Jesus should not be interpreted as disagreeing with Scripture or with what God commanded, rather what was not the case from the beginning was a man being permitted to divorce his wife for any cause. For context, Gitten 90a-b interpret Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as saying that a man is permitted to divorce his wife if she ruins his meal or if he finds someone who was prettier than her, so it was divorce over frivolous reasons that was not the case from the beginning. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so Jesus did not do that. Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy to overcome the temptation of Satan, so he affirmed its authority.


God's law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), so the point of it is to teach us spiritual principles that are aspects of God's character/fruits of the Spirit. For example, God could give someone a list of 100 instructions for how to testify about His is righteousness in various situations and they could then abstract a principle of righteousness that all of those instructions have in common that would lead them to take actions that are examples of those principle in accordance with those instruction even in situations that were not specifically listed. Correctly understanding the principle of righteousness will always lead us to take actions that are examples of that principle and never away from doing that. Likewise, understanding the principle that the command against muzzling an ox is an example of will never lead us away from obeying that command.



The topic stated in Romans 14:1 is in regard to how to handle disputable matters opinion in which God has given no command, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as speaking against obeying God. Where God has given a command, human opinion must yield. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other over whether someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to eat only vegetables. Paul was not suggesting that we are free to commit murder, idolatry, adultery, theft, break the Sabbath, or disobey any of God's other commands just as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok to rebel against God, but rather that was only said in regard to disputable matters of opinion.

In Romans 14:5-6, it is speaking about those who eat or refraining from eating unto the Lord, so it is speaking about those who esteem certain days for fasting. In the 1st century, it was a common practice for people to fast twice a week even though God gave no command to do that, yet they were resenting judging and resenting each other over that issue (Luke 18:12), so this is the sort of issue that Paul was addressing in this issue. The reason why we should keep the Sabbath holy is not because man esteemed it as a matter of opinion, but because God rested on it, blessed it, made it holy, commanded us to keep it holy, and because what is holy to God should not be profaned by man, so we should not be inserting God's commands into the chapter.

Other than the fact we're "handling disputable manners" it has little to do with what I asked the other poster.

The Sabbath is not mentioned once in Romans 14 precisely because it had nothing to do with the topic that Paul was discussing.

Are you disputing the Sabbath is a day regarded above others?

 

[Hobie]

It does not say in Hebrews 8:6-10 that the fault that God found with the Mosaic Covenant was with His law, but with the people for not continuing to obey it, which is why the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our heart so that we will obey it. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His way through the Mosaic Law, and in John 17:3, eternal life is knowing God and Jesus, which is again salvation by grace through faith. The Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to believe in Him, so we can't believe in Him instead of obeying His instructions for how to do that. Those under the New Covenant don't need to be taught to know God because it involves God's instructions for how to know Him being put in our minds and written on our hearts, so the problem is that many
people want nothing to do with the New Covenant.


The Mosaic Law is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so it is contradictory to believe in Jesus instead of obeying the Mosaic Law. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of His nature (Hebrews 1:3), so Jesus embodied God's nature by setting a sinless example of walking in obedience to the Mosaic Law and the way to believe in him is by following his example. For instance, by doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law we are testifying about God's goodness, which is why our good works bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:16), and by testifying about God's goodness, we are also expressing the belief that God is good, or in other words, we are believing in Him. Likewise, doing what is holy, righteous, just, merciful, faithful, and so forth in accordance with Christ's example is the way to believe that he is those traits, or in other words, it is the way to believe in him. This is why there are many verses that connect our faith in God with our obedience to His commands, such as Revelation 14:12, where those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commands.

Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so while we do not earn our salvation as a wage as the result of having first obeyed it, living in obedience to it through faith in Jesus is nevertheless intrinsically part of the gift of him saving us from not living in obedience to it.


Either Paul only spoke against becoming circumcised for incorrect purposes or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:3) and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of them men in the US.

The Jerusalem Council did not rule that Gentiles were not under the Mosaic Law. In Acts 15:11, it makes it clear that Acts 15:10 was not referring to the Mosaic Law as being a heavy burden that no one could bear, but rather the heavy burden was an alternative to salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision that was proposed in Acts 15:1. The purpose for which God commanded circumcision was not in order to become saved, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect purpose. The Jerusalem Council did not have the authority to countermand God, so they should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles obeying the Mosaic Law, which would be ruling that Gentles shouldn't believe in Christ or have the gift of salvation.

The thing is God wrote the Law so it was His law, Moses had his separate 613 mitzvoh that was written by Moses rather than God.

 

[Mr GLee]

All extra-Biblical.

Yes they follow the commandments of dying manking making the word of God without effect

 

[Eleanor]

The thing is God wrote the Law so it was His law, Moses had his separate 613 mitzvoh that was written by Moses rather than God.

Moses wrote nothing that he did not receive from God (Lev 1:1) in the book of Leviticus.

 

[Soyeong]

The thing is God wrote the Law so it was His law, Moses had his separate 613 mitzvoh that was written by Moses rather than God.

All of God's laws are God's laws and have the same moral authority regardless of whether He directly wrote them or if He instructed Moses to write them.

 

[Mr GLee]

All His authority Matt 16:18-19

His authority or Peter our brother in the lord ?

I would think context of the whole chapter, the whole Bible. No cherry picking

The same gospel keys The living word of God were given to all the believers in chapter 18 . Gods will coming down from heaven bound or made understood on earth Not understood on earth bound in heaven. Upside down.

Matthew 16:18-19 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; (God's word) and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.'

It's called inspiration. . God's doctrine's coming down like rain .Not earthly inspired of the devil

Is it the same key Peter used to unlock the gates of hell? Who for some unknown reason had a need to rebuke God and forbid the Son of man from doing the will of the Holy Father.. Why???? To show he was usd to represent a false apostle bringing false prophecy?? I rebuke you in the name of Peter

I would think that is the result of venerating puffing up dying mankind as a law of the fathers and not the unseen eternal things of our Holy Father, Holy See, our vicar Christ . He keeps the gates locked

He lovingly commanded the born again saints to call no dying sinner on earth Holy Father

Matthew 16:22 And having taken him aside, Peter began to rebuke him, saying, `Be kind to thyself, sir; this shall not be to thee;' and he having turned, said to Peter, `Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.'

Which Holy Father today? The things of eternal God not seen or the temporal things of mankind seen. No man can serve two good teaching masters as one lord , God

Peter was forgiven of his blasphemy against the Son of man, Jesus . That window ended when the Son of man Jesus left .No forgiveness against the unseen Holy Spirit of the Holy Father.

 

[Josheb]

The thing is God wrote the Law so it was His law,

Partly correct. The Law is not the whole of God's laws; it is a form of God's laws, a form written specifically for that people in that place at that time. Much of it would have been meaningless to native Americans living in the great plains. Had God chosen them instead of the wondering Semites at the east end to the Mediteranean He would have given them a slightly different Law that articulated His laws in a relevant manner.

Moses had his separate 613 mitzvoh that was written by Moses rather than God.

Yep.

 

[Mr GLee]

All of God's laws are God's laws and have the same moral authority regardless of whether He directly wrote them or if He instructed Moses to write them.

His law is not numerable, ten represent the whole law of God. Called the book of law. Not the book of theories

We walk or are given the understanding of God by, the faith of Christ the unseen eternal things of God.

When God hewn out the first two tablets using two to represent the witness God has spoken .With his finger he wrote them on both side (no room for oral traditions of dying mankind.)

The first set was destroyed to reveal the wrath of God from heaven

Moses the prophet, apostle did he was instructed or moved. The second time Moses hew out the two tablets The law and the testimony . or old and new .Then again on both side God wrote them with his finger .

Nothing can be added to the perfect .