Are the 10 Commandments called "the moral law"?

[Billiards Ball]

49 minutes ago, Betha said:

You certainly hold a much higher position than me and I'm sorry to have  offended you, it was not intended...all depends how we receive it.

It's not my intent to talk position but scriptures. Can you think of scriptures where Paul says days mean nothing and the Sabbath is a mere type and shadow of what is to come? Or that the Sabbath points to resting in Christ for salvation, rather than working towards salvation?

[Billiards Ball]

1 hour ago, Tzephanyahu said:

That's quite a bold statement.  Can you provide any Scriptures to back up this claim?

As Paul's letters are greatly contested (as the Apostle Peter says), please provide two or three witnesses from the remaining 52 books.  

Peter says those who contest Paul's letters destroy themselves!

There are 27 NT books, NONE of them say "Honor Shabbat". The other 9 commands of Exodus 20 are ALL repeated in the NT. So, we have Paul and 11 other writers/teams of writers who omit Sabbath-keeping. Does that help? And have you considered repenting of destroying yourself?

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I'm sort of joking, and not accusing you, but here, Peter says Paul is scripture. We can discuss interpreting Paul, but if we discuss "Paul's letters are contested (not scripture)", we can wind up destroying our doctrine!

[Tzephanyahu]

1 minute ago, Billiards Ball said:

We can discuss interpreting Paul, but if we discuss "Paul's letters are contested (not scripture)", we can wind up destroying our doctrine!

If you can't do it, then say you can't do it. 

52 books should have been more than enough to prove your point, as "it's lawful to break the Sabbath" is a big statement.  But you seem to have to stay with Paul, whom Peter said was difficult to understand.

I love Paul. Paul is one of my heroes actually.  But I can argue he means this and you can argue he means that.  So why not provide a case from the rest of Scripture.

I'm sure you can only come back with more quotations from the letters of Paul. But unless you can quote any other of the 52 books to back up your claim (which should be easy if true) then don't bother.

[Billiards Ball]

9 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

If you can't do it, then say you can't do it. 

52 books should have been more than enough to prove your point, as "it's lawful to break the Sabbath" is a big statement.  But you seem to have to stay with Paul, whom Peter said was difficult to understand.

I love Paul. Paul is one of my heroes actually.  But I can argue he means this and you can argue he means that.  So why not provide a case from the rest of Scripture.

I'm sure you can only come back with more quotations from the letters of Paul. But unless you can quote any other of the 52 books to back up your claim (which should be easy if true) then don't bother.

Actually, I just made an argument from silence. Not one of the 12 NT writers/teams of writers promotes Sabbath heresy.

I also don't understand why we can't merely argue Paul, for example, I can provide multiple references to Sabbath-observation being unnecessary, them we'd be comparing scripture with scripture. Where in hermeneutics did you learn that scripture doctrines are only correct if multiple authors have the same concept?

Having said that, I can certainly quote others than Paul, for example, James, who says you either follow ALL 613 laws unto salvation or salvation comes via a living faith!

[Alive]

1 hour ago, Tzephanyahu said:

That's quite a bold statement.  Can you provide any Scriptures to back up this claim?

As Paul's letters are greatly contested (as the Apostle Peter says), please provide two or three witnesses from the remaining 52 books.  

I think it is important for the many people that are reading this forum for you to explain this comment.

Please do so. Perhaps you didn't mean this as it was typed.

[Tzephanyahu]

5 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

I also don't understand why we can't merely argue Paul,

Right, so you can't do it then basically. 

In which case, if your argument is based on supposed silence and your understanding of Paul, then perhaps it isn't wise to just say to everyone that breaking the Sabbath is lawful and instead keep that as your own revelation on the matter, or at least precede it with "I think..."

Edited January 7, 2020 by Tzephanyahu

[Tzephanyahu]

2 minutes ago, Alive said:

think it is important for the many people that are reading this forum for you to explain this comment.

2 Peter 3:14-18

[Billiards Ball]

3 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

Right, so you can't do it then basically. 

In which case, if your argument is based on supposed silence and your understanding of Paul, then perhaps it isn't wise to just say to everyone that breaking the Sabbath is lawful and instead keep that as your own revelation on the matter, or at least precede it with "I think..."

I'm trying to understand your perspective, but your recent post I find confusing.

My understanding that obeying the Sabbath is unneeded is based on each and all of every book of the New Testament, they all (all 27) explain how salvation comes through trusting Jesus Christ's atoning death and resurrection salvation, not law-keeping. We can also see ultra-specific statements of Paul that Saturday-keeping is nothing.

Do you have a NT quotation (does not have to be Paul, but can be) that I have to keep any Jewish observance or Old Testament law to be saved?

[Alive]

13 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

2 Peter 3:14-18

Not a chance! Peter wasn't 'contesting' Paul. He was merely stating that some of what he wrote was hard to understand.

Making such a patently inaccurate statement and not providing the verses for folks to read and see for themselves is inappropriate.

I ask you again to explain for the good folks reading this.

2Pet. 3:14   Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; ¹⁵ and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, ¹⁶ as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

[Tzephanyahu]

9 minutes ago, Alive said:

Peter wasn't 'contesting' Paul. He was merely stating that some of what he wrote was hard to understand.

Exactly my point.  Paul himself isn't to be contested at all.  However, his letters can be hard to understand.  I have seen many debates over the letters of Paul and it ends up going round and round and ending up in difference of opinion.  

Now, neither side will admit (or see) that they are misinterpreting Paul - so what can be done?  Therefore, for the sake of argument, I asked for an argument from the remaining 52 books of the Bible, and in the words of Yahweh and the Messiah Himself.  

If a certain theology springing from Paul's letters cannot be backed up in the rest of 52 books and in the words of the Father or the Son, then perhaps that is the party that have misunderstood Paul.  It's a simple as that.  Therefore, perhaps the theology of "breaking the Sabbath is lawful" is incorrect, unless it can be witnessed in the remaining 52 books and, again, in the words of the Father and Son.

I'm happy to consider the opposition's argument and change my thinking on the matter.  But if the opposition can only rely on Paul and have to rely on Paul ONLY, then perhaps they are of the party that have misunderstood his letters.

As for me, with or without Paul's letters, my theology stays they same as I see one single unified message in the whole Bible which , I see, Paul establish and reaffirm.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Tzephanyahu