Caught In Hail Storm

[RickD]

Bav,

Just for reference, this is what an ad hominem is:

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

My calling you a Judaizer is precisely because of the position you are holding.

I do understand how you would think it was a personal attack against you. None of us like to have our beliefs questioned.

[BavarianWheels]

Bav,

Just for reference, this is what an ad hominem is:

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

My calling you a Judaizer is precisely because of the position you are holding.

I do understand how you would think it was a personal attack against you. None of us like to have our beliefs questioned.

Calling someone a Judaizer is not an argument. It's name-calling ME.

By all means, keep rationalizing you using a tactic of name-calling. If you can do it as a mod, then the rest of us can do it too...right?!?
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

So interesting you have all the time in the world to defend your name-calling, but no time or inclination to defend your "biblical" position.
.
.

[RickD]

I told you I was going to post a response, but I had completely forgotten about the other thread.
There's nothing new to add, that hasn't already been said by me or somebody else in that other thread.

Besides, I posted a link to an article by Jac, in my post here, to which you haven't responded.

I don't see any point in continuing with this, when we don't agree.

[RickD]

So interesting you have all the time in the world to defend your name-calling, but no time or inclination to defend your "biblical" position.
.
.

I get it Bav. Instead of dealing with why I called you a judaizer, you want to piss and moan about me calling you a name that describes your position.

[Philip]

Calling someone a Judaizer is not an argument. It's name-calling

But the term refers to the charge the Apostle Paul leveled against Peter for re-embracing The Law. So, whenever the term is accurately used, per Paul's meaning, then it's not a personal attack, but is a rebuke of a wrong mentality or actions of those who would assert us to still be under burdens of The Law, or that seek justification by attempting to obey it.

Paul stated, "But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose."

And this has everything to do with why the evidences show that the early Church were no longer Sabbath keepers - because THAT was part of The Law, which they were no longer living under. Of course, in their minds, SOME were (and are) still living legalistically as if they are still under The Law.

[BavarianWheels]

So interesting you have all the time in the world to defend your name-calling, but no time or inclination to defend your "biblical" position.
.
.

I get it Bav. Instead of dealing with why I called you a judaizer, you want to piss and moan about me calling you a name that describes your position.

...and now I'm "pissing and moaning"...as a moderator on a Christian forum would describe another member.

I'm starting to understand your method of moderating...and that is name-calling and blatant mischaracterization.

Again, your post above simply proves my point...that you have time to rationalize name-calling, but no time or inclination to prove your supposed biblical position.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

Of course, in their minds, SOME were (and are) still living legalistically as if they are still under The Law.

No person is promoting that Sabbath keeping is a method to salvation.

I'm promoting that Sabbath keeping is in the SAME group of laws you still keep, i.e. Do not murder...and therefore STILL require the same manner of adherence.

FIRST prove that the Sabbath is only for the JEW. To do so would require to FIRST prove that when God made the Sabbath holy was at a time when there was a JEW to assign the Sabbath to.

FIRST do that...then we can deal with all the other biblical texts that you think abolish the Sabbath completely.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

No more joking around! We have a bigger problem than holy potato chips. BavarianWheels seems to have completely ignored the book of Galatians (among others), which testifies against his belief that Christians should be following the law given to the nation of Israel.

RickD...prove that the law was given to the nation of Israel.

I'm speaking specifically about the Sabbath, the 7th day of creation, the day God made holy AND Himself rested on for a specific reason reiterated in Exodus 20 after establishing it at creation.

Prove your words...that's all I ask.

Put your money where your mouth is.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

So we've established that RickD is only willing to make accusations/claims but not back them up.

Put up or...

Put up or shut up?

I've been trying to shut up, but I have to keep explaining that to you.

So, now I've officially shut up about this topic.

Goodbye

Anyone else willing to pick up RickD's claim and prove it using scripture? Should be pretty simple.
.
.

[LittleHamster]

Wasn't Jesus giving a demonstration of unconventional behavior when he healed people on the Sabbath day ? I think the term "Hypocrites" is what he used against those who criticized him for working on the Sabbath.

What kind of message is this trying to send us ? I've read through this thread but I'm not even sure what the main point of argument is. Help someone...

[BavarianWheels]

Wasn't Jesus giving a demonstration of unconventional behavior when he healed people on the Sabbath day ? I think the term "Hypocrites" is what he used against those who criticized him for working on the Sabbath.

What kind of message is this trying to send us ? I've read through this thread but I'm not even sure what the main point of argument is. Help someone...

Love is the fulfillment of the law. Healing people is loving people. Healing, therefore, isn't the "work" spoken of by God at creation and at Sinai concerning the Sabbath, but the Pharisees made almost anything a "work"...which is why today Orthodox Jews still do not flip a switch or drive cars on the Sabbath...they consider that "work". It's a wrong interpretation of the work God speaks of. A better interpretation of the work God speaks of is work that enriches self, or has no love for others in it. They were hypocrites in that they claimed to know God and follow God, but didn't know God ( as He was standing in front of them ) or follow Him.
.
.

[LittleHamster]

Wasn't Jesus giving a demonstration of unconventional behavior when he healed people on the Sabbath day ? I think the term "Hypocrites" is what he used against those who criticized him for working on the Sabbath.

What kind of message is this trying to send us ? I've read through this thread but I'm not even sure what the main point of argument is. Help someone...

Love is the fulfillment of the law. Healing people is loving people. Healing, therefore, isn't the "work" spoken of by God at creation and at Sinai concerning the Sabbath, but the Pharisees made almost anything a "work"...which is why today Orthodox Jews still do not flip a switch or drive cars on the Sabbath...they consider that "work". It's a wrong interpretation of the work God speaks of. A better interpretation of the work God speaks of is work that enriches self, or has no love for others in it. They were hypocrites in that they claimed to know God and follow God, but didn't know God ( as He was standing in front of them ) or follow Him.
.
.

Ok. Fair enough. I would summarize that as "Do the will of God" regardless of what day it is. So what specifically is everyone arguing about ? What about going around and saving all the donkeys trapped in the well on the Sabbath ? Is their a difference between saving my donkey (self-interest) and saving other's donkeys (service to others) on the Sabbath?. Let's say I'm a hypocrite and don't do the will of God on any day ever, am I saved ?.

Edit: I'm slooowwwwwly getting there. Let me go back and reread this thread. Bare with me a bit longer

ahhh.....Exodus 31:12-18 NASB Should we rest on the Sabbath? If not, what work should we do? Should we even bother about the Sabbath ?

[LittleHamster]

Hmmm, reading around the internet, the general consensus is that Christians do not need to keep the sabbath.

Found this.....(https://www.gotquestions.org/Sabbath-keeping.html)

"A common error in the Sabbath-keeping debate is the concept that the Sabbath was the day of worship. Groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists hold that God requires the church service to be held on Saturday, the Sabbath day. That is not what the Sabbath command was. The Sabbath command was to do no work on the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8-11). Nowhere in Scripture is the Sabbath day commanded to be the day of worship. Yes, Jews in Old Testament, New Testament, and modern times use Saturday as the day of worship, but that is not the essence of the Sabbath command. In the book of Acts, whenever a meeting is said to be on the Sabbath, it is a meeting of Jews and/or Gentile converts to Judaism, not Christians."

"When did the early Christians meet? Acts 2:46-47 gives us the answer, “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” If there was a day that Christians met regularly, it was the first day of the week (our Sunday), not the Sabbath day (our Saturday) (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). In honor of Christ’s resurrection on Sunday, the early Christians observed Sunday not as the “Christian Sabbath” but as a day to especially worship Jesus Christ."

"Is there anything wrong with worshipping on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath? Absolutely not! We should worship God every day, not just on Saturday or Sunday! Many churches today have both Saturday and Sunday services. There is freedom in Christ (Romans 8:21; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:1). Should a Christian practice Sabbath-keeping, that is, not working on Saturdays? If a Christian feels led to do so, absolutely, yes (Romans 14:5). However, those who choose to practice Sabbath-keeping should not judge those who do not keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16). Further, those who do not keep the Sabbath should avoid being a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 8:9) to those who do keep the Sabbath. Galatians 5:13-15 sums up the whole issue: “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”

[Kurieuo]

Bav, don't you think you're being a bit harsh to Rick? Judaizer is like my calling Rick a Calvinist. Yes, it's a name, label or what-have-you, but it tells us something about what a person believes.

It is only insulting if you take exception to it, but then it is far from clear to Rick, and even myself, that to some extent SDA theology (which you subscribe to) isn't. Getting upset and making attacks on how it's unbecoming of Rick as a mod to call you such, a label he thinks describes your position, isn't the way to go. And putting down mods in general isn't really acceptable behaviour if you have an issue, nor would I see is it a good Christian thing to do.

Rick so-far-as I see hasn't done anything wrong here. Sure, he adds sarcasm from time-to-time, but many like it and I see nothing wrong with such also. Try lighten up a little, don't be so serious. Perhaps should first start with your understanding of what a judaizer is vs Rick's. That seems more productive, I see no need for you to feel necessarily insulted over such.