Should Christians Be Keeping the Sabbath?

[Desert Snake]

My religious training was in the SDA church, a denomination steeped in replacement theology. They compel keeping the sabbath, because they are heirs to the promise.

Ah, right.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thank you for your consideration' ...

This is a purely technical question about post #795. It seems to be a response to some preceding post but it's unclear which. At the same time, post #797 is simply a quote sans comment. What am I missing?

 

[rosends]

So, because one covenant is between God and Israel, all must be ? Tell me exactly where the Torah says this.My degrees, training and experience are in the law. The term covenant is used in many legal instruments and contracts.

No, but you claimed that covenant signified by the sabbath was fulfilled by an individual, and textually, that particular covenant is stated as between God and the group, not an individual. Instead of claiming that I generalized, stick with the example you gave.

Sorry, but your opinion of Paul holds as much weight with me as a fragment of spider web. Doubters abound, they doubt Moses existed, or David, or Christ, or you, Paul. I know what is true. period.

Right back at you.

Are you not capable of grasping the difference between mans law applied to man, and God, and law applied spiritually. Christ said " render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God;'s" Get it ? your speeding ticket illustration has no relevance to the discussion,.

Laws aren't applied spiritually. For someone supposedly trained in the law, you should know this.

I am sorry that you still exhibit the arrogant attitude of the Jews at the time of the diaspora, yes they were punished for that arrogance among other things.

You consider anyone who disagrees with your ideas arrogant I guess. That's sad.

You probably believe that God is only concerned about redemption for the Jews.

Nope, try again. Judaism doesn't believe anything of the sort. If you build on that mistake, you end up with others. And you do.

Well, redemption came in your Messiah, he said his message was for Israel first, then the world, Israel missed it, we have it, you need it. The Jewish mind did not grasp God being God of all humanity, they took a precious gift, and instead of sharing it, they hoarded it. Too bad. They will remain a tiny minority. Relying on a less and less Christian nation for survival.

Well, we had many real messiahs, but none was supposed to provide "redemption". We await a future one who also won't provide "redemption." So we missed nothing but the odd false leader. You can have him and his failures. And you don't seem to mind that there is "a less and less Christian nation." Good. I don't either.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[rosends]

Then one should pronounce it yeishua.

I have to check the trop to see where the stress is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have to check the trop to see where the stress is.

I will defer to you as mentor,

 

[dantech]

Then one should pronounce it yeishua.

That would depend on where you're from...[emoji1]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That would depend on where you're from...[emoji1]

Actually, I read somewhere that the Galilean would have probably been called Yeshu and I have a grandson named Yisroel by his Orthodox mother, but few of these folks walk around clad in Hebrew diacritics.

 

[dantech]

Actually, I read somewhere that the Galilean would have probably been called Yeshu and I have a grandson named Yisroel by his Orthodox mother, but few of these folks walk around clad in Hebrew diacriticals.[/I]

What I meant is that reading the segol as a Y sound seems to be mostly from the Ashkenazi regions. The Mizrahis will get that sound only from the letter Yod.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I meant is that reading the segol as a Y sound seems to be mostly from the Ashkenazi regions. The Mizrahis will get that sound only from the letter Yod.

Yes, I know. I'd love to be able to pronounce an ayin!

 

[dantech]

Yes, I know. I'd love to be able to pronounce an ayin!

It's not so difficult. It sounds like you're about to throw up [emoji12]

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Laws are changed/.modified all the time. If you rely on your ability to keep the law, You fail.

Did god change them? If not, then they must still be obeyed.

Please cite book, chapter verse, and translation of your quote.

Which quote?

I would suggest that you consider the wisdom of you determining who can call themselves a Jew or Christian.

Why?

 

[shmogie]

No, but you claimed that covenant signified by the sabbath was fulfilled by an individual, and textually, that particular covenant is stated as between God and the group, not an individual. Instead of claiming that I generalized, stick with the example you gave.

Right back at you.

Laws aren't applied spiritually. For someone supposedly trained in the law, you should know this.

You consider anyone who disagrees with your ideas arrogant I guess. That's sad.

Nope, try again. Judaism doesn't believe anything of the sort. If you build on that mistake, you end up with others. And you do.

Well, we had many real messiahs, but none was supposed to provide "redemption". We await a future one who also won't provide "redemption." So we missed nothing but the odd false leader. You can have him and his failures. And you don't seem to mind that there is "a less and less Christian nation." Good. I don't either.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

The law of the Torah says " do not commit adultery " An outward act, clearly defined. Christian law says that if you perform the act in your mind (heart) you are guilty of adultery, the sin, ditto for murder, and others. Failure to act can be a sin in some circumstances. So, the sin is committed but who judges ? Only God can judge these sins on a spiritual plane, and his response can only be administered on a spiritual plane.

In a class action suit, a lawyer may represent thousands. He has been given authority by the court to speak and act for the defined class. What he says or does is as if each individual is saying and doing. He is the representative of each class member, and what he says or does is as if each class member said and did the same thing.

Now then, what if, in the legal frame work, the judge determines a remedy for an infraction by the lawyer in representing the class. The remedy ( say a fine) in some cases is as if the entire class was in violation. The lawyer pays the fine, and the entire class is now deemed to be in compliance.

Exactly the same thing occurred two thousand years ago. God identified the class (everybody who joins the class) He certified their representative, the representative was assessed a penalty before the law, for each class member, the final and forever obedience to the law, and penalty for breaking the law was completed by each individual in the class by his or her personal, perfectly accepted by the judge, representative

AS to the arrogance comment, that was wrong, rude, and I was out of line. I retract it. I am sorry that particular bell got rung.

 

[Desert Snake]

And you don't seem to mind that there is "a less and less Christian nation." Good. I don't either.

[/QUOTE]

Something to note; I don't think that people who switch beliefs like that, were ever really ''Christians''. If they were, they probably didn't, and still don't, understand Jesus, etc.

or, just identifying as Christian for social reasons, whatever.

ps I don't think most self identified Xians understand their own religion,; theoretically, there aren't even as many Xians , as those claiming they are Xian.

 

[rosends]

The law of the Torah says " do not commit adultery " An outward act, clearly defined. Christian law says that if you perform the act in your mind (heart) you are guilty of adultery, the sin, ditto for murder, and others.

So it changes God's law. Got it.

In a class action suit, a lawyer may represent thousands. He has been given authority by the court to speak and act for the defined class. What he says or does is as if each individual is saying and doing. He is the representative of each class member, and what he says or does is as if each class member said and did the same thing.

So Jesus was not one who fulfilled the covenant (whatever that means) but an advocate arguing the lack of viability of the covenant and its infringement on the rights of the group, or its creation of damage on the entire class. He isn't a member of the class but a lawyer. Got it.

Now then, what if, in the legal frame work, the judge determines a remedy for an infraction by the lawyer in representing the class. The remedy ( say a fine) in some cases is as if the entire class was in violation. The lawyer pays the fine, and the entire class is now deemed to be in compliance.

The lawyer doesn't pay the fine unless the lawyer committed the infraction. So you are saying Jesus sinned. Got it. And that paying the fine for his own infraction changes the requirements for everyone else in the class so they no longer have to be compliant. Got it. Wait, then the entire class is in compliance? But the class action suit is not designed to determine collective compliance -- it is to create a class as plaintiff defending the rights of the group AGAINST the one who infringed on them.

Exactly the same thing occurred two thousand years ago. God identified the class (everybody who joins the class) He certified their representative, the representative was assessed a penalty before the law, for each class member, the final and forever obedience to the law, and penalty for breaking the law was completed by each individual in the class by his or her personal, perfectly accepted by the judge, representative

So the representative was assessed a penalty (reflecting noncompliance or another infraction) and by accepting that the lawyer was guilty of something, every class member no longer has to follow the same law? You live in a strange legal fiction.

 

[shmogie]

So it changes God's law. Got it.

So Jesus was not one who fulfilled the covenant (whatever that means) but an advocate arguing the lack of viability of the covenant and its infringement on the rights of the group, or its creation of damage on the entire class. He isn't a member of the class but a lawyer. Got it.

The lawyer doesn't pay the fine unless the lawyer committed the infraction. So you are saying Jesus sinned. Got it. And that paying the fine for his own infraction changes the requirements for everyone else in the class so they no longer have to be compliant. Got it. Wait, then the entire class is in compliance? But the class action suit is not designed to determine collective compliance -- it is to create a class as plaintiff defending the rights of the group AGAINST the one who infringed on them.

So the representative was assessed a penalty (reflecting noncompliance or another infraction) and by accepting that the lawyer was guilty of something, every class member no longer has to follow the same law? You live in a strange legal fiction.

So it changes God's law. Got it.

So Jesus was not one who fulfilled the covenant (whatever that means) but an advocate arguing the lack of viability of the covenant and its infringement on the rights of the group, or its creation of damage on the entire class. He isn't a member of the class but a lawyer. Got it.

The lawyer doesn't pay the fine unless the lawyer committed the infraction. So you are saying Jesus sinned. Got it. And that paying the fine for his own infraction changes the requirements for everyone else in the class so they no longer have to be compliant. Got it. Wait, then the entire class is in compliance? But the class action suit is not designed to determine collective compliance -- it is to create a class as plaintiff defending the rights of the group AGAINST the one who infringed on them.

So the representative was assessed a penalty (reflecting noncompliance or another infraction) and by accepting that the lawyer was guilty of something, every class member no longer has to follow the same law? You live in a strange legal fiction.

wrong, wrong, wrong, mental gymnastics doesn';t change facts. Lets make it assimple as possible so even a chilkd could understand.
A lawyer or advocate is not part of the class. Any infraction, say a filing error based on wrong information given to the lawyer by the class, is assessed to the class. The lawyer may be the agent to pay it, but it doesn't come out of his pocket.
END OF ILLUSTRATION #1
A king decrees that anyone cut stealing will have their hand cut off.
Two days later, the kings son is brought to him for stealing. The law requires a hand to be cut off.
The king out of love for his son, has his own hand removed to meet the demands of the law.
Knowing you will make every effort to twist the illustration, I will tell you who is who.
The king is the Godhead, the son is all humanity.
END OF ILLUSTRATUON #2
Keeping both illustrations in mind;
The law must be perfectly kept, man cannot do so. Christ is both our advocate, representing a perfect life representing us, our judge, anbd using a Jewish term , our sacpegoat
He is the perfect sacrifice the law demands for all who he represents..
His resurrection ensures that those he represents will have also live again.
All humanity in him has died to the law, therefore the laws of the first covenant cannot have any more effect on those who have been punished to the maximum extent of the law. A dead person cannot be punished further
The second covenant is of Grace, God;s unmerited favor to man. The sentence of death has been carried out for everyone, past, present , and future.,
I know what you are thinking, and no, we do not live in a law free state.
The NT clearly defines the laws of faith for us.
If someone habitually sins, breaks the laws of Christianity, they cease to be part of the class

 

[rosends]

wrong, wrong, wrong, mental gymnastics doesn';t change facts. Lets make it assimple as possible so even a chilkd could understand.
A lawyer or advocate is not part of the class. Any infraction, say a filing error based on wrong information given to the lawyer by the class, is assessed to the class. The lawyer may be the agent to pay it, but it doesn't come out of his pocket.

OK, so Jesus committed a filing error on behalf of a class and they have to pay for his error. He is the agent, but it doesn't come out of his pocket; so he suffers no personal loss and the people feel the loss because he made the error. Got it.

A king decrees that anyone cut stealing will have their hand cut off.
Two days later, the kings son is brought to him for stealing. The law requires a hand to be cut off.
The king out of love for his son, has his own hand removed to meet the demands of the law.
Knowing you will make every effort to twist the illustration, I will tell you who is who.
The king is the Godhead, the son is all humanity.

And the next day, there is a still a decree against stealing. Having paid the price for a single infraction doesn't mean that the law no longer holds.

Keeping both illustrations in mind;
The law must be perfectly kept, man cannot do so.

So you say God made a mistake in making laws that could not be kept by the people he gave them to, since he made those people unable to keep the laws he gave. Got it.

Christ is both our advocate, representing a perfect life representing us, our judge, anbd using a Jewish term , our sacpegoat

Well, the scapegoat in Judaism was a goat and was not sacrificed. Also, the scapegoat was not the advocate. So your scenario requires messing with the lines of responsibility.

He is the perfect sacrifice the law demands for all who he represents..

Except he wasn't sacrificed the way a proper sacrifice would be; he wasn't fit to be a sacrifice; a scapegoat is thrown off a cliff; the law doesn't require a sacrifice.

His resurrection ensures that those he represents will have also live again.

then there was no sacrifice. I cannot atone for my sins by giving over something and then taking it back.

All humanity in him has died to the law, therefore the laws of the first covenant cannot have any more effect on those who have been punished to the maximum extent of the law.

I'm not sure what "humanity in him has died to the law" means. The laws say they are eternal. The covenant is eternal. Nothing you claim can change what God already said.

 

[idea]

We keep the Sabbath by
a) not shopping, not making others work
b) going to worship services
c) relaxing and otherwise getting in some good family time.

I believe that this type of thing should be done 1/7 days, but will not quabble over what day it is. Obviously, we need doctors, police, the power plant, water etc. 24/7. If everyone chooses a different day for the Sabbath, then everyone can both have a day off, and we can also maintain all the essential services we need.

 

[shmogie]

OK, so Jesus committed a filing error on behalf of a class and they have to pay for his error. He is the agent, but it doesn't come out of his pocket; so he suffers no personal loss and the people feel the loss because he made the error. Got it.


And the next day, there is a still a decree against stealing. Having paid the price for a single infraction doesn't mean that the law no longer holds.

So you say God made a mistake in making laws that could not be kept by the people he gave them to, since he made those people unable to keep the laws he gave. Got it.

Well, the scapegoat in Judaism was a goat and was not sacrificed. Also, the scapegoat was not the advocate. So your scenario requires messing with the lines of responsibility.

Except he wasn't sacrificed the way a proper sacrifice would be; he wasn't fit to be a sacrifice; a scapegoat is thrown off a cliff; the law doesn't require a sacrifice.
then there was no sacrifice. I cannot atone for my sins by giving over something and then taking it back.

I'm not sure what "humanity in him has died to the law" means. The laws say they are eternal. The covenant is eternal. Nothing you claim can change what God already said.

Why don't you and I

OK, so Jesus committed a filing error on behalf of a class and they have to pay for his error. He is the agent, but it doesn't come out of his pocket; so he suffers no personal loss and the people feel the loss because he made the error. Got it.


And the next day, there is a still a decree against stealing. Having paid the price for a single infraction doesn't mean that the law no longer holds.

So you say God made a mistake in making laws that could not be kept by the people he gave them to, since he made those people unable to keep the laws he gave. Got it.

Well, the scapegoat in Judaism was a goat and was not sacrificed. Also, the scapegoat was not the advocate. So your scenario requires messing with the lines of responsibility.

Except he wasn't sacrificed the way a proper sacrifice would be; he wasn't fit to be a sacrifice; a scapegoat is thrown off a cliff; the law doesn't require a sacrifice.
then there was no sacrifice. I cannot atone for my sins by giving over something and then taking it back.

I'm not sure what "humanity in him has died to the law" means. The laws say they are eternal. The covenant is eternal. Nothing you claim can change what God already said.

OK, so Jesus committed a filing error on behalf of a class and they have to pay for his error. He is the agent, but it doesn't come out of his pocket; so he suffers no personal loss and the people feel the loss because he made the error. Got it.


And the next day, there is a still a decree against stealing. Having paid the price for a single infraction doesn't mean that the law no longer holds.

So you say God made a mistake in making laws that could not be kept by the people he gave them to, since he made those people unable to keep the laws he gave. Got it.

Well, the scapegoat in Judaism was a goat and was not sacrificed. Also, the scapegoat was not the advocate. So your scenario requires messing with the lines of responsibility.

Except he wasn't sacrificed the way a proper sacrifice would be; he wasn't fit to be a sacrifice; a scapegoat is thrown off a cliff; the law doesn't require a sacrifice.
then there was no sacrifice. I cannot atone for my sins by giving over something and then taking it back.

I'm not sure what "humanity in him has died to the law" means. The laws say they are eternal. The covenant is eternal. Nothing you claim can change what God already said.

Lets agree to disagree here. You have no interest in understanding, and I have no interest in your unwarranted sarcasm. Acting dumb doesn't make you so.
The time is coming for both of us when we will know the truth re these matters. My original contentions remains the same, the sabbath was never intended for Gentiles.
Christians are under the dispensation of Grace, not law. You relate to the law as you think warranted, I will do the same.

 

[rosends]

Why don't you and I


Lets agree to disagree here. You have no interest in understanding, and I have no interest in your unwarranted sarcasm. Acting dumb doesn't make you so.
The time is coming for both of us when we will know the truth re these matters. My original contentions remains the same, the sabbath was never intended for Gentiles.
Christians are under the dispensation of Grace, not law. You relate to the law as you think warranted, I will do the same.

I'm more than happy to disagree. Your bizarre claims and misuse of language don't add much to my day. I will say that I agree with you that the sabbath was never intended for the gentiles. This is why the text says explicitly (Ex 31:16-17)

16Thus shall the children of Israel observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant.
17Between Me and the children of Israel, it is forever a sign that [in] six days The Lord created the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh day He ceased and rested."

 

[shmogie]

I'm more than happy to disagree. Your bizarre claims and misuse of language don't add much to my day. I will say that I agree with you that the sabbath was never intended for the gentiles. This is why the text says explicitly (Ex 31:16-17)

16Thus shall the children of Israel observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant.
17Between Me and the children of Israel, it is forever a sign that [in] six days The Lord created the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh day He ceased and rested."

Thank you. I see that language is "misused" if you don't agree with what is says. Thankfully, you are not the final arbiter of the validity of the chosen words.
Yes, many consider religion bizarre. Sacrificing animals to atone for sin, placing the sins of the entire nation on a goat and letting him carry them away, ignoring "eternal laws" because the laws don't change, just the circumstances of those who are to keep those laws
The alternative, if one rejects the creator of the 'bizarre" religion, then we have the equally bizarre idea, of everything creating itself from nothing or life popping up from non living matter.