How did Jesus keep the Sabbath?

August 16, 2008

I have been following this thread very closely and, Shiloh, although you may claim to have "destroyed the platform" upon which Hazards' doctrine rests. In reality, you have failed miserably.

Clearly, Hazards' "platform" is the Holy Word of God and you just don't have the power to destroy it.

He has asked many times for you to provide scriptures to support your position, yet, you refuse to do so.

Thus far, everything you would claim to be "false teaching" by Hazard, can be found in the Bible. The only thing you refute him with is, well, your opinion. The Bible says that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for (one thing) correction...."

If you were truly concerned that Hazard was misled in his understanding, you would use scripture to show him the error in his thinking. However, that is not the case.

Based upon something you said,

So like I said, what you do or don't do in your personal life is up to you. I don't really care

I, for one, am convinced that you actually don't care if he, or anyone else for that matter, is misled, you simply are driven by a need to win a debate.

Apparently Christians make easy targets as they are somewhat expected to be humble and meek. And, much to your surprize, not everyone who posts things here at Worthy Forums is looking for a debate. Some of us simply like to share the Word of God with others and have that Word built upon with more "word".

In general, self included, I would like to see the "Fruit of the Spirit" evident in every post submitted by a confessing Christian. "By their fruit you shall know them."

My mom used to have a bowl filled with a variety of plastic fruits. There are those here who are beginning to look, to me, as fake as those plastic fruits.

Father God, in the name of Jesus help me to demonstrate the "Fruit of the Spirit" in the things I post at this site. Help me to love those who oppose Your Holy Word. Forgive me for the times I have failed to do so. In Jesus name - amen!

Shiloh, forgive me for the times I have addressed you in an unloving manner. Even though I disagree with most of what you say, I am still obligated to treat you with love.

Hazard, keep speaking truth my friend.

God bless and aloha,

H-Dad

August 16, 2008

I have been following this thread very closely and, Shiloh, although you may claim to have "destroyed the platform" upon which Hazards' doctrine rests. In reality, you have failed miserably.

Funny, Hazard cannot address one point I raised and he cannot demonstrate that my handling of the passages he offered is baseless or false. All he can do is repost the same tired accusations over and over again. He cannot really prove his case and he has yet to offer a substantive refutation of my main points. This debate was over a long time ago, to be honest. Hazard simply doesn't want to concede the obvious.

Clearly, Hazards' "platform" is the Holy Word of God and you just don't have the power to destroy it.

No, his platform is the interpretative process by which he handles the Word of God. I am showing that his method of interpretation puts the cart before the horse. He assumes things to be true and then molds the Bible around his preconceived assumptions. It would be like a judge rendering a judgment in a court case, and then running to his chambers to make the law fit his judgment. Ripping verses out of their natural context and stringing them together like lights on a Christmas tree, ignoring the context and intent of the author does not qualify as basing one's views on the Bible. Hazard basically has to mutilate the biblica text to assert that the Sabbath has been abolished. The Bible simply does not say that.

Oh and one other thing, Honolulu Dad, I would like to point out that I have NEVER in this ,ever accused Hazard of rejecting or opposing God's word. I have stated that I disagree with how he is handling the Bible, but I never accused him of rejecting or opposing that. I operate from a higher moral plane than either you or Hazard. I do not resort to questioning other people's salvation, I do not make up lies about them and falsely accuse them of calling me names and insulting me just to win a debate. I deal in facts, you are the one who wants to make it personal, because you are unable or are unwilling to handle differences of opinion.

I bring that up to make the point disagreeing with YOU or HAZARD does not mean that I oppose the Bible. I oppose YOUR conclusions and how YOU handle the Bible. I can freely disagree with you, without rejecting the Bible, and it is the height of arrogance to assume that if I don't see things the way YOU do, that I am somehow rejecting the Bible. You need to make the moral and theological distinction between disagreeing with somone's views and outright rejection of the Bible. Until you grow enough integrity to be willing to make that distinction, intelligent, reasonable dialogue with you is impossible.

He has asked many times for you to provide scriptures to support your position, yet, you refuse to do so.

No I have not refused to do so. I am using the Scriptures HE provided. We only have one Bible and one set of Scriptures. I am using the Scriptures he provided and am showing that that those passages don't actually claim what he is asserting they claim.

If he cannot produce a single passage that says "the Sabbath is abolished in the New Testament," then there is nothing to refute outside of his opinion. Without any direct statements from Scripture that actually affirm his base assertions, he is simply wrong by default.

Thus far, everything you would claim to be "false teaching" by Hazard, can be found in the Bible. The only thing you refute him with is, well, your opinion. The Bible says that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for (one thing) correction...."

Once again, I am using Scripture. I am using the Scripture he has already provided. I have also shown that so far he has not produced ONE text from Scripture that actually affirms his most basic assertions, namely that the Sabbath is "abolished," that keeping the Sabbath makes one "indebted" to keep the whole law, and that keeping the Sabbath amounts to relying on the law for salvation.

The truth is, he has not built a platform on the Bible. He has built a platform upon preconceived assumptions that he is trying to force the Bible fit around, rather than allowing the biblical text to speak for itslef.

If you were truly concerned that Hazard was misled in his understanding, you would use scripture to show him the error in his thinking. However, that is not the case.

Based upon something you said,

QUOTE
So like I said, what you do or don't do in your personal life is up to you. I don't really care

I, for one, am convinced that you actually don't care if he, or anyone else for that matter, is misled, you simply are driven by a need to win a debate.

Whatever... My statement was one of disinterest in the customs one keeps. I did not say I don't care about him has a person. I just don't care if he keeps the Sabbath or not. I don't care if anyone does or doesn't as Sabbath observance to me SHOULD be a non-issue. Instead, we have people on both sides either acting like keeping the Sabbath is a rejection of Christ, OR we have some who teach that one is not saved if they don't keep the Sabbath.

My point is that if someone does or doesn't keep the Sabbath, it makes no difference to me.

HAZARD · August 16, 2008

The Old Covenant, the commandments, written in stone,

"But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away" (2 Cor. 3:7). "For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious" (2 Cor. 3:11), has been done away.

For everyone and anyone who is interested in what the Scriptures in the Bible say about the old and new covenants, whether the old was temporoary and to be replaced by a new covenant which was ushered in by Jesus Christ Himself, I believe these 36 points clear up any question. In these thirty six points there are approxamtely around 400 Scriptures which support the fact that the old was abolished and the new ushered in. In this final post I will also include the commandments which the Scriptures show were included in the new covenant and the commandment which was not commanded in the new covenant. All one has to do is read these Scriptures with an open and honest heart and one can then make up ones own mind as to how things are now that Jesus has fulfilled the old and ushered in the new covenant.

In the Bible the Scriptures plainly stated that;

1. One is called "the first covenant"; and other "the second covenant" (Heb. 8:7; 9:1-18; 10:1-9);

2. The first is called "the old covenant'; the second is called the "new covenant" (Matt. 26:28; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13).

3. The first covenant was given by Moses; the second by Jesus Christ (John 1:17; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 9:15; Matt. 26:28).

4. One is "the law of Moses"; the other is "the law of Christ" (Acts 13:39; Gal. 6:2).

5. One is "the law of sin"; the other is "the law of righteousness" (Rom. 7:7-25; 8:1-4; 9:31).

6. One is the law of "the flesh"; the other is "the law of the Spirit" (Rom. 7:5, 6; 8:1-4; Gal. 5:16-26).

7. One is "not of faith"; the other is "the law of faith" (Gal. 3:12; Rom.3:27).

8. One is the "yoke of bondage"; the other is "the law of liberty" (Gal. 5:1; James 1:18-25).

9. One is brought to an end by Christ (Rom. 16:4; 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 10:9); the other is established by Christ (Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 2 Cor. 3:6-18; Matt. 26:28).

10. One brought death; the other brought life (2 Cor. 3:6-18; Rom 8:1-4; Gal. 3:21; Heb. 9:15; 10:1-18).

11. One makes guilty (Rom. 3:19-20); the other justifies or makes not guilty (Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:21-31; 5:1-11).

12. One is "a shadow of things to come"; the other is the reality (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 10:1-18).

13. On is "fulfilled" or completed; the other is still in force (Matt. 5:17, 18; 2 Cor. 3:6-18; Heb. 10:9).

14. One demanded righteousness; the other gace righteousness (Luke 10:28; Rom. 8:1-4; Gal. 3:1-29; 5:1-26).

15. One made nothing perfect; the other made perfect (Heb. 7:19).

16. One was glorious; the other was more glorious (2 Cor. 3).

17. One was powerless to save from sin; the other saves to the uttermost (Heb. 7:11-28; 8:7-13; 9:9-28; 10:1-18).

18. One had many sacrifices; the other had only one (Heb. 9:9-14; 10:14; Rom. 6:6-13).

19. One had a changeable priesthood; the other did not (Heb. 7:23-28; 4:14-16; Rom. 8:34).

20. One remembered sins; the other forgets sin (Heb. 10:3; 8:12; etc.),

21. One had a representative and a seasonal access to God (Heb. 9:7-10; the other had a personal and daily access to God (Heb. 4:14-16; 7:25; 10:19, 20. Eph. 2:18).

22. One had a sinful ministry (Heb. 5:1-4); the other had a sinless ministry (Heb. 7:26-28; 2 Cor. 3; 1 John 3:9).

23. One was given under the Levitical priesthood (Heb. 7:11, 12); the other under the present Melchizadek priesthood (Heb. 6:20; 7:11-12, 24).

24. One had an earthly tabernacle service of animal sacrifices (Heb. 9:1-10); the other had a heavenly tabernalce of services of spiritual salvation (Heb. 4:14-16; 7:25; 8:1-5; 9:11-15).

25. One had a sinful mediator (Gal. 3:19); the other had a sinless mediator (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22).

26. One had no eternal inheritance (Romans 4:13); the other has an eternal inheritance (Rom. 8:17; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 1).

27. One was ratified by animal blood (Ex. 29:1-8; Heb. 9:16-22); the other by the blood of Christ (Matt. 26:28).

28. One was a law of works; the other a law of grace (John 1:17; Rom. 3:24-31; Gal. 3:10-12; Eph. 2:8-9).

29. One brought wrath (Rom. 4:15); the other brought salvation from wrath (Rom. 5:9; Gal. 3:13, 14).

30. One could not redeem; the other could (Gal. 3:10-14; Rom. 8:1-4; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Heb. 7:25).

31. One could not satisfy God's demands; the other did (Gal. 2:21; heb. 7:22; 8:6; 10:5-18).

32. One made no provision for doing miracles; the other one provided fro them (Gal. 3:1-5; 1 John 5:8; John 14:12; Luke 24:49).

33. Prophecy fortold the abolishing of one and establishing of the other (Isa. 51:4; Jer. 31:33; Acts. 3:22; Heb. 8:7-13; 10:4-18; Rom. 11:25-29).

34. One had a fleshy sign of obedience (Acts 7:8; Rom. 2:25); the did not (Rom. 4:11; 1 Cor. 7:18).

35. One was too weak to overcome sin; the other gave victory over sin (Rom. 6:1-23; 8:1-4; Eph. 2:8, 9; 1 John 5:1-18).

36. One was made to be changed (Heb. 7:11-22; 8:5, 6; 9:9, 10; 10:1-18; Gal. 3:19-24; the other was made to be unchanged (Heb. 7:22; 8:6; 10:9; 13:20).

The New covenant Scriptures on the ten commandments are these:

1. Ex. 20:3 with Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 13; 1 John 3:1-4:21.

2. Ex. 20:4-6 with Rom. 2:22; 1 Cor. 5:10; 6:9-11; 8:1-10; 10:7, 19-28; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:5; 1 John 5:21; Acts 15.

3. Ex. 20:7 with Acts 26:11; Rom. 2:24; Col. 3:8; Tit. 3.

NOTICE POINT 4, There is no commandment to keep the sabbath one can esteem freely any day one chooses.

4. Ex. 20:8-10 (not commanded in the new covenant). "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks" (Rom. 14:5-6).

5: Ex. 20:12 with Eph. 6:2-3; Col. 3:20; 2 Tim. 3:2.

6. Ex. 20:13 with Rom. 13:9; 1 Pet. 4:15; 1 John 3:15.

7. Ex. 20:14 with Rom. 2:22; 13:9; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; Heb. 13:4.

8. Ex. 20:15 with Rom. 2:21; 13:9; Eph. 4:28.

9. Ex. 10:16 with Rom. 13:9.

10. Ex. 20:17 with Rom. 13:9; 1 Cor. 5:10, 11; 6:9-11.

_______________________________________________________________________

Regarding an education required to understand God's Word?

"QUOTE
I have explained this doctrin to men I work with in the coal mines and blokes in jail who have had hardly any education at all except a little Bible reading at church, and they get it.
That's because they don't know the Bible well enough to refute you. Having little education is not a virtue. It is often a liability"

.

Let no man try and convince one that the Bible needs interpretation by people with an education. A God who could not make Himself clear or who had to be interpreted every time He said something would be no God at all. Almost any human being can express himself clearly enough to be understood. Furthermore, a God who could make Himself clear and chose otherwise in such a way as to confuse and hide from man those things He seeks to reveal to him is not worth hearing. The Bible is a simple book to understand. It was given by God to be understood by the simple.

Paul speaks of "the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3).

Jesus thanked God that the truths of the Bible were hidden from the worldly wise who refused to believe, and stated that God has "revealed them unto babes" (Matt. 11:25-27).

He gives the reason truths are hidden from anyone. It is because they refuse to humble themselves to believe and conform to the Bible (Matt. 13:10-17).

The most simple beginners can understand the Bible one line at a time, for this is the way it was given, and it is the best way to understand it (Isa. 28:9-13).

No one can get all the vastness of the Bible at once. Naturally it takes time to get a simple knowledge of the whole Bible, but what is important is this. That taking it a line at a time, verse at a time, or truth at a time, it cannot be hard to understand. One cannot read a large book and get all its contents at a glance. it is foolish for men to say the Bible is hard to understand because of ones lack of education. If one can read, then one can understand the Bible.

Men who contend that the Bible is hard to understand are those who are biased contrary to its contents (Matt. 15:7-14; John 8:43). Those who make merchandise of fighting the Word of God (Matt. 15:7-14; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). Those who allow Satanto take from their lives the Word and cause them to be blind concening the truth (Matt. 13:19-23; 2 Cor. 4:1-4), and those who refuse to be converted and become like little children (Matt. 18:3; 28:9-15; Isa. 6:9-10 and Acts 28:24-29).

Any simple man who can read or can hear can; "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39).

August 17, 2008

Let's examine this comparison to see just how accurate it is. Hazard's remarks in blue.

In the Bible it is plainly stated that;

1. One is called "the first covenant"; and other "the second covenant" (Heb. 8:7; 9:1-18; 10:1-9);

2. The first is called "the old covenant'; the second is called the "new covenant" (Matt. 26:28; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13). The term "New Covenant" in Jeremiah and the term used by Jesus in Hebrew/Aramaic is "Brit Hadasah" and means "renewed Covenant." The Old and New Covenants are the same, except that the New Covenant is an improved version of the Old. Paul compares them like we would compare driving a Ford Model "T" and 2008 Rolls Royce.

3. The first covenant was given by Moses; the second by Jesus Christ (John 1:17; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 9:15; Matt. 26:28). Well, both come from God the Father. Moses was the one who declared the first and the Second is cut in the blood of God the Son.

4. One is "the law of Moses"; the other is "the law of Christ" (Acts 13:39; Gal. 6:2). The Bible NEVER refers to either covenant and the "law of Moses" or the "law of Christ." The Bible does not pit those terms against each other. The law of Moses IS the law of Christ. They are synonomous. There is only ONE law in the entire Bible.

5. One is "the law of sin"; the other is "the law of righteousness" (Rom. 7:7-25; 8:1-4; 9:31). Wrong. 1. Again, the Bible NEVER refers to the covenants as laws, so you have one strike going against you in this entire comparison. 2. The Bible NEVER refers to the law of Moses as the "law of sin." The "law of sin" is sin principle or Original sin under which we are born. All of us are stained with sin at birth. In the passages you cite except for Rom. 9:31, Paul uses "law" to refer to the principle "sin and death" and "spirit of life." Nither is a reference to the old or new covenants, but rather Paul's spiritual condition both prior to and after salvation.

6. One is the law of "the flesh"; the other is "the law of the Spirit" (Rom. 7:5, 6; 8:1-4; Gal. 5:16-26). - Law of Moses is not being referenced at all. Both are reference the workings of inner principles.

7. One is "not of faith"; the other is "the law of faith" (Gal. 3:12; Rom.3:27).

8. One is the "yoke of bondage"; the other is "the law of liverty" (Gal. 5:1; James 1:18-25). - The "yoke of bondage" is not a reference to God's laws, but the legalistic teachings of the Judaiszing sect that infiltrated Galatia

9. One is brought to an end by Christ (Rom. 16:4; 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 10:9); the other is established by Christ (Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 2 Cor. 3:6-18; Matt. 26:28). The Old covenant is made obsolete, but that does not the make the law obsolete. The New Covenant changes how we keep the law. It does not abrogate the Law, it simply renders the Old Covenant system inoperative.

10. One brought death; the other brought life (2 Cor. 3:6-18; Rom 8:1-4; Gal. 3:21; Heb. 9:15; 10:1-18).

No, sin brought death. Death came by the disobedience of Adam according to Romans 5. and Eternal life comes through Jesus. God's covenant and his law only make us aware of our spiritually dead condition. They do not "bring" that condition.

11. One makes guilty (Rom. 3:19-20); the other justifies or makes not guilty (Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:21-31; 5:1-11).

No, we were guilty already. The law makes people aware of their guilt brought on by sin. It is not the source of the guilt.

12. One is "a shadow of things to come"; the other is the reality (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 10:1-18). No, Jesus is the reality.

13. On is "fulfilled" or completed; the ther is still in force (Matt. 5:17, 18; 2 Cor. 3:6-18; Heb. 10:9). With respect to the law "fulfilled" means to bring to greater expression. The law was never terminated.

14. One demanded righteousness; the other gace righteousness (Luke 10:28; Rom. 8:1-4; Gal. 3:1-29; 5:1-26). The demands are the same no matter which one you are talking about. Its just that in the 2nd Covenant God has augmented our ability to meet that standard. He did not dismantle is original demands. He changed us; He did not change His law.

15. One made nothing perfect; the other made perfect (Heb. 7:19). The first covenant was not designed to make us perfect. The fact that it did not make us perfect is not a weakness or poor reflection on either the law or the Old Covenant. Neither were designed to perfect anyone. God did not intend for them to. It's like complaining that a hammer is somehow flawed because it cannot cut down a tree.

16. One was glorious; the other was more glorious (2 Cor. 3). Yes.

17. One was powerless to save from sin; the other saves to the uttermost (Heb. 7:11-28; 8:7-13; 9:9-28; 10:1-18). True, but again, the Bible does not present that as a flaw on the part of the law or Old Covenant.

18. One had many sacrifices; the other had only one (Heb. 9:9-14; 10:14; Rom. 6:6-13). It is an improvement over the Old, but all of the same elements are still present in the New.

19. One had a changeable priesthood; the other did not (Heb. 7:23-28; 4:14-16; Rom. 8:34). I dont see why that is even relevant.

20. One remembered sins; the other forgets sin (Heb. 10:3; 8:12; etc.), Which makes my point about one being an improvemnt over the other.

21-32 addressed as a single group, since they address the same subject matter