The Sabbath, to keep or not to keep....

[KBCid]

So which parts of the bible can we throw away since it doesn't apply to gentiles? I would like to have just the parts that apply to me so we can assume that the old testament can go and revelation can go and the first half of the new testament can go. This is going to be a very thin Bible for the gentiles.

Why don't you quit asking loaded questions. We don't throw away any scripture. But I seriously doubt you randomly flip open the Bible and then blindly start doing what you read. For example, sacrifices, etc. It is a matter of progressive revelation. Did the revelation that came to Moses supercede the revelation to Abraham? Yes.

J, take it easy. I truely am not trying to offend you. I am however trying to define where things apply and to who and how such determinations are made. Each of us has our own method of drawing a conclusion and this is where I am trying to make sure that my POV isn't based on an error. If by chance I seem to come across as antagonistic I am sorry. I am definitely not a literary major and for me everything can be divided into a black and white foundation. God made us all different in so many ways which shows how absolutely beyond understanding he can be and at times we rub others in ways we don't understand until we get feedback.
So I would like to explore what is meant for whom and how the bible areas can be defined as applicable for specific peoples if that is in fact what was intended by God. If the old testament holds no worth for a gentile then we can define where a gentiles part begins and this is not to say that any part of the bible doesn't hold truth it is rather to say which truths are relevant to me. An example would be that maybe exodus is a jewish only section since it directly defines them as the intended audience thus what is written there has a direct application to their POV and I being a gentile have no applicability defined in that book for what I need. Do you see what I am saying?

The devils believe Christ is the son of God and they don't try to obey either... so will their belief save them?

The Gospel is not offered to Satan or his angles. The Gospel is offered to men,and they are incapable of believing unto salvation. And yes, beleivers SHOULD act according to what they believe. However, as we've already determined they don't. Some do better than others. But it is when the ones who do better, Lord that over the others (which seems to be what you are doing) and claim that they are the only ones truly saved, then it is self-righteous muck, and a false Gospel.

Unfortunately I cannot lord anything over anyone since I am not and have not been following any specific method according to the discussion at hand. For most of my life I was agnostic in my position and it has been only a few years since I have come to the truth of God so I am exploring to determine what exactly I should be doing. Christ is about the only one who can lord over anyone since he actually followed his fathers commands to the letter and in the spirit they were given which is why we should all seek his wisdom on how we conduct our fleshly vessel through this existence. The hard part of course is that there are many interpretations out there and we should test everything so that our own concience doesn't convict us of doing wrong.

From my perspective Christ defined for everyone the two foundational rules / laws of how we should conduct ourselves. Each of these foundations stipulate how we are to conduct ourselves towards God and to our fellow created beings;

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.

This is the greatest commandment because God is always first and without him we wouldn't have a neighbor to apply rule 2 to. So the question here is how should we show our love for God? How did God define what he wants from us that shows we love him? In my perception God defined a number of things we can do to show our love for him.

1 ) Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2 ) Exo 20:4-6 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3 ) Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

4 ) Exo 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

These commandments that God wrote with his own finger appear to have special meaning to him in regards to what he feels his creation should respect about him. The greatest verse is the foundation from which these verses sprang to give us understanding about how we show God love.
It would be my position that not doing any of the above would tend to show God that we don't love him to the extent that is defined in the greatest verse.

Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The second greatest commandment is what was foundational for all the rest of the decalogue since the commandments defined how we should show our love for our neighbor;

5 ) Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
6 ) Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
7 ) Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8 ) Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
9 ) Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10 ) Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Each of these commands to me is still applicable in Gods eyes for how I conduct myself with every other being like myself. If I were to do any of these things to my neighbor then I will have disobeyed the second greatest commandment right? So if each of these commandments is still applicable through the second greatest commandment then all the ones that sprang from the first and greatest commandment should also still be applicable through the first and greatest commandment.

The question that needs answering here is "if the first 4 commandments don't apply to gentiles but the greatest commandment does then in what way do we show our love for God if we don't do those contained in the first 4? I would think that his position on the first 4 has not changed. I am fairly certain that if I were to make some graven images to represent God or anything heavenly then my action would not be perceived by God as love for him right? I have observed the catholic manner of making images of the saints and mary etc. and they pray to those beings represented by the images. I would say this is in direct opposition to command #2 since I'm quite certain that God is still a jealous God. In revelation we can see this same rationale portrayed;

Rev 22:8-9 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

So it would seem that verse 2 is still applied even at the very end of the bible itself long after Christ had ascended and the good news had been spread quite far by the apostles. Suppose John would have kept worshipping the angel would that have been a sin? and if so what command from God would he have been breaking since sin is the breaking of Gods commandments?

[cheezerrox]

Did the revelation that came to Moses supercede the revelation to Abraham? Yes.

This wasn't directed to me, but I just want to point out what Paul has to say at Galatians 3:17 about this.

"What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by G-d, so as to nullify the promise."

So, covenant does not nullify or supercede covenant. Now, maybe this wasn't what you meant specifically, but the use of the word supercede gave me the feeling you did mean it this way. Feel free to correct me if I made an incorrect assumption, I very well may have.

Absolutely. If you had totally read my post, I covered that.

Yes, you did. I had broken down your post and answered before coming to that part, so I apologize for that.

What doesn't Paul cover regarding conduct? He even applies loving your neighbor. Gal. 5:14. The difference in Isreal's plan they were bound to keep the Law.

There are certain things, such as the forbidden sexual unions, like incest and beastiality. I would say the food laws, keeping Shabbat, and even the holy days too, but I believe he does cover those in his letters, although you and others would disagree.

Agreed. It is not an issue of chronology, but when one program ceased. The The Bible addresses this. In fact 2 Peter 3:15-16 says, "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 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 think it is evern very interesting to hear how Peter starts his first epistle versus his 2nd.

Just mentioning the fact that G-d gave wisdom to Paul doesn't mean that he revealed to him some new system. G-d gave wisdom to all the writers of the NT, and the OT, and all of the prophets, and all of the apostles.

Paul preacing HIS Gospel was an obvious area of controversy amongst the early church in Jerusalem. Paul has to come and defend what he is preaching and to whom he is preaching it. Paul comments on this in Galatians 2:7,8 saying, "On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews." Thus, still a distinction of sorts. This plays out all through the book of Acts, which covers a good bit of time. In fact the early church prior to Paul was Judiazing. There was no Gentile message. A person MUST become a proselyte, being circumsized and adopting all Jewish customs. After Paul this all changed.

Paul preached to the Gentiles in the sense of being the main one who brought the message to them, just as Peter was the main preacher of the Gospel for the Jews, being the rock whom the church was built on. They weren't preaching different messages, or else that passage in Galatians would be saying that the apostles found it fine that Paul preached one version of the Gospel while Peter preached a different one. The message wasn't different, the target audience was.

Anyway, it is certainly a great topic and one I look forward to discussing more. Got to run for now.

Most definitely, my friend. Hope all's well with you.

What? So, you are saying that if believing Jews restored the temple and priesthood tomorrow that there are aspects of the Law they should not do?

I'm saying that there's been a change in Torah, as Hebrews 7:12 says. Not an abrogation, but a change. The change isn't in the content of the Law, it's in the application. Physical circumcision is no longer required by Gentiles who want to become a part of Israel and take part in the Passover festival, because now the true circumcision is that which all believers are a part of, which is not made with hands (Philippians 3:3). Likewise, the penalties pescribed in Torah are no longer for carrying out against transgressors, but for condemning all men to death for their sins, revealing their need for a Savior, the Messiah. Sacrifices for atonement are also no longer practiced in the same way, because the perfect sacrifice has been made, through the breaking of the Body and shedding of the Blood of Jesus. The priesthood has also been changed, no longer to be compared to Aaron but to Melchizedek, and no longer is it made up of fallable men but of the infallable Man. Just because the application of certain things in Torah is different doesn't mean that there are aspects that "shouldn't be done."

[jlay]

This wasn't directed to me, but I just want to point out what Paul has to say at Galatians 3:17 about this.

I think you understand that supercede is not the same word as nullify. I am referring to what Israel was obligated and bound to post-Sinai. It superceded what was pre-sinai.

Just mentioning the fact that G-d gave wisdom to Paul doesn't mean that he revealed to him some new system. G-d gave wisdom to all the writers of the NT, and the OT, and all of the prophets, and all of the apostles.

Of course god gave wisdom to them all. Amen. I would say the one new man is definately a new system. Otherwise why would there be controversy amongst the Jewish believers? And why call Paul in the 1st place? Were the 12 inept?

[cheezerrox]

I think you understand that supercede is not the same word as nullify. I am referring to what Israel was obligated and bound to post-Sinai. It superceded what was pre-sinai.

I wouldn't say it superceded it, I would say it built on it. Covenant builds on previous covenant, it doesn't replace it.

Of course god gave wisdom to them all. Amen. I would say the one new man is definately a new system. Otherwise why would there be controversy amongst the Jewish believers? And why call Paul in the 1st place? Were the 12 inept?

The one new man is a new system, but it doesn't change the standard by which we're supposed to live. There was controversy amongst the Jews (both believers and not) during Jesus' ministry as well, but we both agree He didn't preach the supercession of Torah. The 12 weren't inept, G-d simply had chosen Paul to do what He ordained for Him to do. He had a different role, and it was certainly his own, new message, but it wasn't an entirely new framework within which believers lived. Yes, different, but not something that didn't build on the framework that wasn't already established.

[Gman]

Also regarding Galatians.. Males don't stop being males and females don't stop being females.. Likewise Jews don't stop being Jews but become ONE in Christ...

Galatians 3:28

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I've heard this response before and it just doesn't hold water, because that is not at all what anyone is arguing. That is starting with a position and then trying to make the scripture fit your position.

Well it's true that men don't stop being men, women don't stop being women and Jews don't stop being Jews, etc... They become one in Christ. Unless you want them to have a sex and nation change operation.

Where does it say, "today" they are still elected?

We've been through this before.. In Romans 11:28...

The Jew today is saved in the same manner as anyone else. There is NO difference. Grace through faith. The law availWhich is exactly what Paul is saying. Yet you are saying that there is. And this doesn't mean that God will not later do something with Israel. We are talking about now. You are saying that now, today, there is a difference and that Jews are saved differntly than Gentiles, when Paul clearly teaches that this is not the case anymore. (Galatians 5:6)

Jews have never been saved differently from gentiles.. That is your belief not mine. Hebrews 11:1-40 is very clear that the Hebrew patriarchs were justified by faith before the establishment of Yeshua. The nation of Israel was always saved by grace through faith.

So, you say we should follow the Law. yet Paul says, (Galatians 5:3) Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. Picking and choosing which parts (which is exactly what you are doing) is exactly what Paul was rebuking the Galatians for. It is a little yeast that works through the whole dough.

As far as picking and choosing parts, it is you that appears to be doing that.. Gentiles do not need to become circumcised in order the be saved Acts 15:1-29 but that doesn't mean we throw G-d's laws under the bus either 1 John 2:3-7.

Yes, and the revelation of Eph. 6:9 is progressive, thus the Jew is not in that "special" role now. It is interrupted in lew of the mystery program, new revelation. But you are saying in the same breath, "God is no respector, except for the Jews." That is a contradiction.

Jews very much have a role to play.. Romans 11:28-32. And as for roles, G-d also commands that men are the head of the household over the women Ephesians 5:22-24. This is a role that has not changed... But does that make men better than women?

[Gman]

And we have become disobedient too when we go against G-d's laws as well.... And we can still sin in Christ too...

G, Christ clearly stated that if we love him we will perform in a specific manner. Every bit of what I have read agrees with your post. We can't simply just have faith... we must be active participants in making ourselves better and more holy. God knows our hearts and he will know the difference between those who are doing their best and making errors vs. those who feel that faith is all thats required.
It is properly understood that we cannot perform any works that will save us because works don't have the power to save. Salvation can only come as a gift... But, the giver of the gift wants us to be like him... to be holy.
I consider an analogy to this understanding in this respect;
.

I fully agree.. Without holiness we are toast.

Hebrews 12:14-15, “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. Looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled.”

Righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith and obedience to G-d. James makes it clear that faith without obedience is empty faith, so you can’t simply say it’s a matter of what you believe.

[jlay]

I wouldn't say it superceded it, I would say it built on it. Covenant builds on previous covenant, it doesn't replace it.

Based on?

Cheez,
Let's not get muddied in verbage. So when Jerimiah 31:32 says, "It will not be like the covenant," you are saying it doesn't actually mean that? I've yet to see how supercede is not a valid description. If new revelation reveals a change in how God is dealing with man I would say that supercedes previous revelation.

James makes it clear that faith without obedience is empty faith, so you can’t simply say it’s a matter of what you believe.

Gman,
If it's clear then why do so many disagree? James doesn't say a faith without works means someone isn't saved. You won't read that in James. You see G, this is the real problem. It is double speak. Trying to have your cake and eat it too. On one hand you say, "Oh, don't think we are saying that anyone is saved by keeping the law." Then you imply that if you don't then, well, you probably don't have real faith. It's backdoor works salvation. It is absolutely a matter of what you believe.

Jews have never been saved differently from gentiles.. That is your belief not mine. Hebrews 11:1-40 is very clear that the Hebrew patriarchs were justified by faith before the establishment of Yeshua. The nation of Israel was always saved by grace through faith.

(Eph. 2:12) "remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world."
The revealed object of faith is certainly different. Of course you aren't saying that John 20:31, and 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 were always revealed. That certainly isn't the case. Why is it that Paul has to point out that Abraham's righteousness was through faith? And of course the object of faith being the finished work of Christ is progressively revealed.

Acts 15:1-29 but that doesn't mean we throw G-d's laws under the bus either 1 John 2:3-7.

You conflate everytime 'commandments' to mean the decalogue, when you've been shown in the context of 1 John that (1 John 3:23) that Commandment doesn't have to mean that at all. Making statements like "throwing the commands under the bus" is just inflammatory language and demonstrates nothing. In fact, sounds as if some were saying the same thing to Paul.
And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
This is HIS Commandment. Believe on Christ. There it is right in the context of 1 John.

the standard by which we're supposed to live.

Sure it does. The law is an outside standard one MUST live up to. Don't forget that God asked Isreal "if" they wanted to take on this covenant. It was not placed upon them. They said. Exodus 19:8. Christian living is about living out of an identity. You are completely reconciled, saved, cleansed, justified andas Holy as you will be. All by grace through faith in Christ. You are a new creature in Christ. So, a Christian should live out of their new identity and exercise out the salvation they already have. Friend, there is a great difference.

[KBCid]

I fully agree.. Without holiness we are toast.

I just noticed something in your reply within the Hebrews reference;

Hebrews 12:14-15, “ lest anyone fall short of the grace of God...

A salvation issue can occur when someone falls short of the grace of God. Can we precisely define how one may fall short? The audience being spoken to are christians who have accepted Christ as the savior. So how can a believer fall short?

Righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith and obedience to G-d. James makes it clear that faith without obedience is empty faith, so you can’t simply say it’s a matter of what you believe.

Its easy to get people to believe things but a darned sight farther to get them to obey rules.

[cheezerrox]

Based on?

Based on the covenants that G-d made with people/the nation of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament, and Paul's statement in Galatians 3.

Cheez,
Let's not get muddied in verbage. So when Jerimiah 31:32 says, "It will not be like the covenant," you are saying it doesn't actually mean that? I've yet to see how supercede is not a valid description. If new revelation reveals a change in how God is dealing with man I would say that supercedes previous revelation.

I wouldn't say that, my friend. I would say when G-d told Jeremiah that the New Covenenat would not be like the contemporary covenant, He meant it. But I would also say that when He said that the New Covenant would involve Him "putting [His] Law (Torah) within them and on their heart I will write it" He stated pretty clearly that it wasn't some new Law/Torah He was giving us, and that there still is a Law/Torah to follow, being internalized through the teachings and faith that the Messiah brought and the Spirit of G-d that dwells within us now.

You see, you're seeing it as either we live completely by the old, or completely by the new, where the relationship between the old and new is a bit more complex. If new revelation reveals a change in how G-d is dealing with man it doesn't necessitate that it SUPERCEDES previous revelation, only that it adds to it. Paul's teachings didn't supercede Jesus', they built on them.

(Eph. 2:12) "remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world."
The revealed object of faith is certainly different. Of course you aren't saying that John 20:31, and 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 were always revealed. That certainly isn't the case. Why is it that Paul has to point out that Abraham's righteousness was through faith? And of course the object of faith being the finished work of Christ is progressively revealed.

The object of faith is different, but it is clear that the patriarchs were saved by faith. And Paul had to point out that Abraham's righteousness was through faith because he was going after legalists. Scripture itself point out that Abraham's righteousness was through faith at Genesis 15:6.

the standard by which we're supposed to live.

Sure it does. The law is an outside standard one MUST live up to. Don't forget that God asked Isreal "if" they wanted to take on this covenant. It was not placed upon them. They said. Exodus 19:8. Christian living is about living out of an identity. You are completely reconciled, saved, cleansed, justified andas Holy as you will be. All by grace through faith in Christ. You are a new creature in Christ. So, a Christian should live out of their new identity and exercise out the salvation they already have. Friend, there is a great difference.[/quote]
The Christian is completely reconciled, saved, cleansed, justified, and as holy as they will be, and I agree with you completely there. We should live by the Spirit and not just based everything off of any set of rules, whether Torah-law or any kind of moral code. The Spirit's what's important. But, why is it that believing we have one standard by which we're supposed to live by instead of another mean that we don't accept any of this? Or, in other words, why does beleiving that Torah still has a role in our conduct today mean that you don't accept any of the things you've said? Are Christians trying to become MORE saved, justified, or holy by turning the other cheek, or loving others as Christ loved us?

[jlay]

You see, you're seeing it as either we live completely by the old, or completely by the new, where the relationship between the old and new is a bit more complex. If new revelation reveals a change in how G-d is dealing with man it doesn't necessitate that it SUPERCEDES previous revelation, only that it adds to it. Paul's teachings didn't supercede Jesus', they built on them.

I have to admit you have an interesting way of seeing things. Paul was specifically selected by Jesus.
I think Jac made a pretty good presentation in the law thread. The concept that it isn't a matter of the law not being anymore, but us not being under it. So maybe substituted or interupted is a better word.

I would find that Paul's revelation was given for men when there would be no theocratic Isreal on the earth.

The object of faith is different, but it is clear that the patriarchs were saved by faith. And Paul had to point out that Abraham's righteousness was through faith because he was going after legalists. Scripture itself point out that Abraham's righteousness was through faith at Genesis 15:6.

No issue here.

But, why is it that believing we have one standard by which we're supposed to live by instead of another mean that we don't accept any of this? Or, in other words, why does beleiving that Torah still has a role in our conduct today mean that you don't accept any of the things you've said? Are Christians trying to become MORE saved, justified, or holy by turning the other cheek, or loving others as Christ loved us?

I think Jac already covered this in much detail in the other thread.

[KBCid]

I think I have found a more proper way of explaining how the decalogue has been transformed into the new covenant. This site seems to have a good way of describing how the new covenant has been applied. See what you think.

At the moment of Jesus' death on the cross, Matthew 27:51 states that the veil (separating the entrance to the holy of holies) of the Temple was ripped from top to bottom, symbolizing that with Jesus death there was no longer a need for the temple. Jesus Himself became the new temple. It was no longer necessary for the high priest to enter into the holy place, meet with God (at the mercy seat and ark of the covenant), and intercede to God for the sins of the people. Jesus fulfilled the purpose of the temple, and became the new door through which to come to God. People no longer had to come to the temple and offer sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. Now they would come to the new Temple – Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Shortly after Jesus' ascension into heaven He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell all who would trust in Jesus Christ. In I Corinthians 6:19 we are told that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit – the place in which He dwells.

So then, what happened to the law (Ten Commandments)? Where did they go? Were they suddenly made obsolete? Were they not important any more?

They were part of the old covenant which was transformed into the new covenant in Jesus Christ. The Ten Commandments are laws of great moral value and significance. They provide guidance for right living toward God and toward one another. They provide and excellent foundation for moral civilization. And Jesus Himself never destroyed the law. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that the “law is good...” (I Tim. 1:8).

So what is the Ten Commandments place in an era of grace through the new covenant?

The Scriptures are very clear where the law went:

“The day will come,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife,” says the Lord.

“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their family, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will already know me,” says the Lord. “And I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-13)

The law that was once external, written on two stone tablets and placed in the ark of the covenant for the people of God (Israel) is now transferred into the hearts of all who know Jesus Christ and have become partakers in the new covenant.

The Ten Commandments moved from a position of external to internal. Ezekiel 36:25-27 also talks about the change of heart that would take place with the coming of the new covenant:

“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”

This is what the law and the new covenant looks like: the law would be put into the minds and hearts of His people. With the new covenant also came the promise of the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who receive Jesus Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that guides us in following God's decrees and gives us the power to keep His laws.

When Jesus gave His famous Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 He referred to some of the old covenant laws. Understanding that His crowd were Jews and devout followers of the law of Moses, by way of introduction He attempted to make them understand that what He was about to say was not with the intent of destroying the old covenant laws or the prophets. Jesus declared His purpose of fulfilling the law and the prophets. Jesus then began quoting old covenant laws and restating the law in the context of the new covenant (which addresses heart issues because the law would be placed in their hearts).

For example, lets look at Matthew 5:21-22:

“You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.”

Why would Jesus restate much of the old covenant law this way? Was Jesus changing the law? No. Jesus was explaining what the law in the new covenant would look like. Remember, the law went from being external to internal. In other words, the law of Moses forbade you from murdering someone. This same law internalized not only forbids the physical act of murder, but also forbids you from hating someone. According to the old covenant, you were not guilty if you hated someone, but if you murdered them, the law declared you guilty. In the new covenant of Jesus Christ this law declares a person guilty who hates someone in their heart.
http://godstenlaws.com/law-grace/new-covenant.html

[Gman]

Gman,
If it's clear then why do so many disagree? James doesn't say a faith without works means someone isn't saved. You won't read that in James. You see G, this is the real problem. It is double speak. Trying to have your cake and eat it too. On one hand you say, "Oh, don't think we are saying that anyone is saved by keeping the law." Then you imply that if you don't then, well, you probably don't have real faith. It's backdoor works salvation. It is absolutely a matter of what you believe.

Yes, we've been over this before. We know that no one can be saved by doing the Torah, however, the TYPE of faith is revealed by one's willingness to obey the Torah. Righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith and obedience to G-d.

Jews have never been saved differently from gentiles.. That is your belief not mine. Hebrews 11:1-40 is very clear that the Hebrew patriarchs were justified by faith before the establishment of Yeshua. The nation of Israel was always saved by grace through faith.

(Eph. 2:12) "remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world."
The revealed object of faith is certainly different. Of course you aren't saying that John 20:31, and 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 were always revealed. That certainly isn't the case. Why is it that Paul has to point out that Abraham's righteousness was through faith? And of course the object of faith being the finished work of Christ is progressively revealed.

Eph. 2:12 is directed towards the gentiles.. Christ may have finished the atonement process, but He never did away with G-d's laws Matthew 5:17-19, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 18:6-9.

You conflate everytime 'commandments' to mean the decalogue, when you've been shown in the context of 1 John that (1 John 3:23) that Commandment doesn't have to mean that at all. Making statements like "throwing the commands under the bus" is just inflammatory language and demonstrates nothing. In fact, sounds as if some were saying the same thing to Paul.
And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
This is HIS Commandment. Believe on Christ. There it is right in the context of 1 John.

If we are to believe in Christ and we are told to "love" AS he commanded us, then there must be a DEFINITION of how to love. And how love is understood is defined in G-d's Torah. Look at the verse again..

1 John 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

Sure it does. The law is an outside standard one MUST live up to. Don't forget that God asked Isreal "if" they wanted to take on this covenant. It was not placed upon them. They said. Exodus 19:8. Christian living is about living out of an identity. You are completely reconciled, saved, cleansed, justified andas Holy as you will be. All by grace through faith in Christ. You are a new creature in Christ. So, a Christian should live out of their new identity and exercise out the salvation they already have. Friend, there is a great difference.

And according to your theology, that identity is completed devoid of any Biblical identity. It seems that according to your knowledge G-d's laws are merely a curse.. Sorry that is completely wrong.

[jlay]

Yes, we've been over this before. We know that no one can be saved by doing the Torah, however, the TYPE of faith is revealed by one's willingness to obey the Torah. Righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith and obedience to G-d.

Simply put, that is lordship, back-door, works salvation. It treats faith as something it isn't. Either way it puts people under the Law. This says, "you are not really saved if you are not under/keeping the Law." Or, "no one is saved by keeping the Torah, but if you aren't keeping the Torah then you probably don't have the right 'type' of faith to begin with."
Faith is faith. It is not the 'type' of faith we have, but the object of faith that matters.

Righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith and obedience to G-d.

Works based salvation. Faith + _______________= salvation.

Christ may have finished the atonement process, but He never did away with G-d's laws Matthew 5:17-19, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 18:6-9.

I'm not saying he did. I'm saying that Theocratic Israel, you know the one who the Law works through, has been done away with for a time. You are in fact stating that the atonement process is not finished, but requires a believer then perform under the law to seal the deal.

If we are to believe in Christ and we are told to "love" AS he commanded us, then there must be a DEFINITION of how to love.

Well, the best way to love God is to take Him at His Word. That all we have to do is believe on Jesus and we will be saved. And not try to 'prove' our faith is the right type by how we perform. If you are trusting that your ability to perform the law is necessary to prove that you have real faith, then you are not professing salvation by faith alone. Whether you assert it on the front or slip it in the back door it is still works based salvation. This is similar to what Calvinists profess.

1 John 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

Ok? And? The title of the thread is to keep the Sabbath or not.

And according to your theology, that identity is completed devoid of any Biblical identity. It seems that according to your knowledge G-d's laws are merely a curse.. Sorry that is completely wrong.

This just appears to be a baseless attack. I guess you can take it up with Paul who said, Galatians 3:13. Of course the alw is not 'merely' a curse. The law is good when one uses it properly. And, we know that the law is holy. So, not sure where you make such a ridiculous asserion.

[PaulSacramento]

In all honest, I don't understand the issue here since, IMO, Paul seems to make it clear that it is up to individual conscience as to whether to keep special days or not.
We can argue the pros and cons of course, but does anyone argue that it is up to the individual to decide ?

[jlay]

Paul,
Normally, I would say yes. When someone says that 'keeping' those days is evidence that you love God and therefore you have 'real' faith, then it implies that those who don't lack 'real' faith.
Jac covered that exact thing in another thread. If someone wants to revere one day over another, then I say, go for it. But when that action is then lauded as performing obedience, and that obedience is said to be an evidence of real faith, then it is more than simply que sara sara.