Evidence for God from Science

PremoMD wrote:Jesus did not keep the Sabbath.
He healed on it. (Mat 12:10, Mr 3:2, Luke 6:7, Luke 12)

His disciples ate on it.
King David did not keep the Sabbath.
He ate shrewbread from the tabernacle.

Matthew 12:1-13
1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

[/quote]

Christ called himself Lord of the Sabbath...and if this is so, Christ kept it as he intended it to be kept.

Don't kid yourself in thinking the Lord of the Sabbath didn't "keep" the Sabbath.
.
.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Do not twist verses Mastermind, that's a very stupid thing to do....it says let no man judge you when it comes to meat, drink, or in respect to holiday and the Sabbath...don't squeeze in a "Sabbath is irrelevant!"

Why not? It's the only commandment Jesus didn't bother to bring up again. It was made irrelevant the moment Jesus died on the cross. We don't even celebrate the Sabbath, we go to church on Sunday because that's when Jesus died, not because we relocated the Sabbath like some people(me included in the past, I admit) seem to think. The facts remain:

1: Celebrating the Sabbath was given to Israel and nobody else.
2: It is the only one of the ten commandments which Jesus did not restate.
3: Paul says not to judge men based on the Sabbath. If the Sabbath is not necessary(both Paul and Jesus certainly would have said so if it was the case), then it is irrelevant.

BavarianWheels wrote:

PremoMD wrote:Jesus did not keep the Sabbath.
He healed on it. (Mat 12:10, Mr 3:2, Luke 6:7, Luke 12)

His disciples ate on it.
King David did not keep the Sabbath.
He ate shrewbread from the tabernacle.

Matthew 12:1-13
1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Christ called himself Lord of the Sabbath...and if this is so, Christ kept it as he intended it to be kept.

Don't kid yourself in thinking the Lord of the Sabbath didn't "keep" the Sabbath.
.
.[/quote]

Of course He kept it. The old covenant was still in effect until His sacrifice. He kept other jewis ritualistic laws that you don't. It bears no relevance on the issue.

Mastermind wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Do not twist verses Mastermind, that's a very stupid thing to do....it says let no man judge you when it comes to meat, drink, or in respect to holiday and the Sabbath...don't squeeze in a "Sabbath is irrelevant!"

Why not? It's the only commandment Jesus didn't bother to bring up again. It was made irrelevant the moment Jesus died on the cross. We don't even celebrate the Sabbath, we go to church on Sunday because that's when Jesus died, not because we relocated the Sabbath like some people(me included in the past, I admit) seem to think. The facts remain:

1: Celebrating the Sabbath was given to Israel and nobody else.
2: It is the only one of the ten commandments which Jesus did not restate.
3: Paul says not to judge men based on the Sabbath. If the Sabbath is not necessary(both Paul and Jesus certainly would have said so if it was the case), then it is irrelevant.

So you must be a nine commandment upholder? Why, then, is there such a huge issue on the posting of the 10 Commandments and not only 9?

Prove Sunday as the new "Sabbath" with scripture. Where did God command it? Where is the change or the release? I challenge you for specifics and not vague interpretations...

The Sabbath was given at creation when there was no Jew alive. It is a memorial of Creation as it is stated quite plainly in the commandment.
.
.

I believe all ten commandments, along with the levitical laws, are not applicable to those who aren't Israel or under Christ. Therefore it is not a matter of choosing which commandments or laws don't apply (just like you choose to believe dietry regulations don't apply), it is a matter of that they don't apply under the covenant of grace offered through Christ. Of course if you prefer the covenant of law, then God can quite willingly judge you under the law rather than through the grace offered through Christ. But then what grace is there for you? As Paul writes, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Galatians 5:4) Only the covenant of grace, as offered through Christ, can set us free and provide us with hope.

Colossians 2:13-14—
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Galatians 3:25—
25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

1 Corinthians 9:20—
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Kurieuo.

So you must be a nine commandment upholder?

I uphold the spirit of the law as decreed by Jesus.

Why, then, is there such a huge issue on the posting of the 10 Commandments and not only 9?

What are you talking about. Posting the 10 commandments where? If you are referring to government property, it is irrelevant. Ad populum is a logical fallacy, not a logical argument. Just because most people think it is part of the law of Christ does not make it so.

Prove Sunday as the new "Sabbath" with scripture.

Why? I made no such statement.

Where did God command it?
He didn't. People decided to go to church on Sunday and honor it because Christ died on it.

Where is the change or the release? I challenge you for specifics and not vague interpretations...

There was no change. As for the release, we've been pouring verse after verse unto you throughout this topic, most of which you are constantly ignoring.

The Sabbath was given at creation when there was no Jew alive. It is a memorial of Creation as it is stated quite plainly in the commandment.

Given as what? Where, at creation, does it say we need to do anything special on the Sabbath? All it says is He made it holy.

Genesis 2
2And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
3: So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.

You must have one hell of an imagination to derive the idea of having to do anything special on it. I already agreed that the sevent day is holy a long time ago, but anything else you want to associate with it is a fabrication of your own imagination.

Kurieuo wrote:I believe all ten commandments, along with the levitical laws, are not applicable to those who aren't Israel or under Christ. Therefore it is not a matter of choosing which commandments or laws don't apply (just like you choose to believe dietry regulations don't apply), it is a matter of that they don't apply under the covenant of grace offered through Christ. Of course if you prefer the covenant of law, then God can quite willingly judge you under the law rather than through the grace offered through Christ. But then what grace is there for you? As Paul writes, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Galatians 5:4) Only the covenant of grace, as offered through Christ, can set us free and provide us with hope.

Colossians 2:13-14—
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Galatians 3:25—
25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

1 Corinthians 9:20—
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Kurieuo.

I thought a bit more highly of you K...I figured you already understood that I agree none are justified through the law...never have been...never has been even possible.

The law does not save...it is by grace through faith as it has always been and as Adam was apparently taught also.

If in fact the Sabbath is so irrelevant, why is it one cannot find anywhere in scripture a change to the commandment? No mention hardly makes it irrelevant. I believe you fabricate your own interpretation of "no mention" to equal "irrelevant".

If the Sabbath is irrelevant...why does Christ admonish in Matthew 24 that we should pray that our "flight does not take place in winter or on the sabbath??? Is not Matthew 24 the "Little Apocalypse" (sp?) ?

Christ himself says that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath...Since when is MAN spelled J-E-W?

The written code against us is the accusations and proof provided by the law...the law only points at sin...I believe we've had this discussion with Jac3510 if I'm not mistaken that it was routine that the accusations were normally posted above the perpetrator and not the law he/she broke. It would seem pointless to "crucify" the law if in fact it still remains "sin" to murder...don't you think?
.
.
.
.

Jesus did not challenge the commandment by allowing his Apostles to do work on it?

Mastermind wrote:Jesus did not challenge the commandment by allowing his Apostles to do work on it?

Certainly "work" according to the Pharisees...don't we agree?

Christ is Lord of the Sabbath and surely understands what His command means and how to keep it?
.
.

I agree. Like I said, I think the Sabbath is holy but I don't believe we HAVE to treat it in a special way. I think that was the point Jesus was trying to get across.

Mastermind wrote:I agree. Like I said, I think the Sabbath is holy but I don't believe we HAVE to treat it in a special way. I think that was the point Jesus was trying to get across.

So the Creator making a day holy is for his own "enjoyment" in a world that He's creating for some of His creation?

What exactly does it mean for something to be holy?

Holy=Irrelevant?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:I thought a bit more highly of you K...I figured you already understood that I agree none are justified through the law...never have been...never has been even possible.

Yes, but what you espouse appears to be a different to my understanding of grace through faith. Rather, you appear to be espousing grace through faith by works, rather than an outworking of good by grace through faith.

BW wrote:The law does not save...it is by grace through faith as it has always been and as Adam was apparently taught also.

Actually there are two covenants. One can save themselves by the law, if they have kept and keep the law 100%. This is the first covenant. The second, often referred to as the new covenant, found its reality in Christ, and is one of grace. Paul explains this towards the end of Galatians 4. Yet, you say you are under the covenant of grace, and then turn back to incorporate law which did not serve to save, but to condemn and ready us for grace.

Are you not like the Galatians to whom Paul said: "But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."

BW wrote:If in fact the Sabbath is so irrelevant, why is it one cannot find anywhere in scripture a change to the commandment?

There is no change in commandment, but simply a different covenant. Scripture is clear that those under the new or second covenant, that the laws of the first do not apply. This is made especially clear of the Sabbath in the Galatians 4 passage I quoted above, and also in Colossians 2:16-17: "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

You keep proclaiming that you arer saved and freed by grace through faith in Christ, but then such words seem empty as you keep turning back to (in Paul's words) "the weak and miserable principles..." Is it your desire to be enslaved to them as Israel were?

Now if you say that you only wish to keep the Sabbath out of some sort of sign of respect, or because of your own conscience, then so be it. But don't go saying this is a commandment all Christians should abide by. Such is to place Christians back under the covenant of law they were freed from in Christ!

BW wrote:If the Sabbath is irrelevant...why does Christ admonish in Matthew 24 that we should pray that our "flight does not take place in winter or on the sabbath??? Is not Matthew 24 the "Little Apocalypse" (sp?) ?

Clark makes an interesting observation in his commentary: "That you may not raise the indignation of the Jews by travelling on that day, and so suffer that death out of the city which you had endeavored to escape from within. Besides, on the Sabbath-days the Jews not only kept within doors, but the gates of all the cities and towns in every place were kept shut and barred; so that their flight should be on a Sabbath, they could not expect admission into any place of security in the land."

Scripture elsewhere is clear that Christians are not under the Sabbath law requirement, nor any other Mosaic law.

BW wrote:Christ himself says that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath...Since when is MAN spelled J-E-W?

You read Christ's words but miss some of their meaning entirely. What does it mean that sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath? Well, if "man was made for the sabbath," then we all would be required or observe it because that is a reason why we were made! But the sabbath was made for man, and so it was instituted not as an obligation man had to it (although it was made obligatory as apart of the Mosaic law), but rather to provide rest and so forth to mankind.

Kurieuo.

So the Creator making a day holy is for his own "enjoyment" in a world that He's creating for some of His creation?

You should know better than to ask a mere mortal to give you reasons for God's actions.

What exactly does it mean for something to be holy?

Holy=Irrelevant?

Given no specific instructions from God, and given the fact that the jews' interpretation was wrong(as you yourself stated), I assume God left it up to me to do what feels right. You certainly can't prove I have to do anything special on that day.

Kurieuo wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:I thought a bit more highly of you K...I figured you already understood that I agree none are justified through the law...never have been...never has been even possible.

Yes, but what you espouse appears to be a different to my understanding of grace through faith. Rather, you appear to be espousing grace through faith by works, rather than an outworking of good by grace through faith.

BW wrote:The law does not save...it is by grace through faith as it has always been and as Adam was apparently taught also.

Actually there are two covenants. One can save themselves by the law, if they have kept and keep the law 100%. This is the first covenant. The second, often referred to as the new covenant, found its reality in Christ, and is one of grace. Paul explains this towards the end of Galatians 4. Yet, you say you are under the covenant of grace, and then turn back to incorporate law which did not serve to save, but to condemn and ready us for grace.

Are you not like the Galatians to whom Paul said: "But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."

BW wrote:If in fact the Sabbath is so irrelevant, why is it one cannot find anywhere in scripture a change to the commandment?

There is no change in commandment, but simply a different covenant. Scripture is clear that those under the new or second covenant, that the laws of the first do not apply. This is made especially clear of the Sabbath in the Galatians 4 passage I quoted above, and also in Colossians 2:16-17: "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

You keep proclaiming that you arer saved and freed by grace through faith in Christ, but then such words seem empty as you keep turning back to (in Paul's words) "the weak and miserable principles..." Is it your desire to be enslaved to them as Israel were?

Now if you say that you only wish to keep the Sabbath out of some sort of sign of respect, or because of your own conscience, then so be it. But don't go saying this is a commandment all Christians should abide by. Such is to place Christians back under the covenant of law they were freed from in Christ!

BW wrote:If the Sabbath is irrelevant...why does Christ admonish in Matthew 24 that we should pray that our "flight does not take place in winter or on the sabbath??? Is not Matthew 24 the "Little Apocalypse" (sp?) ?

Clark makes an interesting observation in his commentary: "That you may not raise the indignation of the Jews by travelling on that day, and so suffer that death out of the city which you had endeavored to escape from within. Besides, on the Sabbath-days the Jews not only kept within doors, but the gates of all the cities and towns in every place were kept shut and barred; so that their flight should be on a Sabbath, they could not expect admission into any place of security in the land."

Scripture elsewhere is clear that Christians are not under the Sabbath law requirement, nor any other Mosaic law.

BW wrote:Christ himself says that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath...Since when is MAN spelled J-E-W?

You read Christ's words but miss some of their meaning entirely. What does it mean that sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath? Well, if "man was made for the sabbath," then we all would be required or observe it because that is a reason why we were made! But the sabbath was made for man, and so it was instituted not as an obligation man had to it (although it was made obligatory as apart of the Mosaic law), but rather to provide rest and so forth to mankind.

Kurieuo.

So by me choosing to abstain from murder or any of the 10 I am reverting back to "weak and miserable principles"?

Are you now telling me that what God wrote with His own finger is "weak and miserable principles"??? Or could it possibly be speaking of something other than specifically the 10 commandments?

We are not freed from law but rather freed from condemnation that comes through law. The law is holy and righteous.

Romans 8:3, 4 NIV wrote: For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Seems to me the condemnation is of sin and not the law...the law's requirements are holy and righteous. It seems to me to call them "weak and miserable principles" is not correct according to scripture.

Romans 8:7 NIV wrote:...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Is the believer hostile to God? Aren't we right with God immediately upon acceptance of Christ as Saviour?

We are not redeemed from the law, but rather from the curse of the law.

Galatians 3:13 NIV wrote:Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law...

Galatians 3:21 NIV wrote:Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!

Seems plain to me...you?
.
.

Mastermind wrote:So the Creator making a day holy is for his own "enjoyment" in a world that He's creating for some of His creation?

You should know better than to ask a mere mortal to give you reasons for God's actions.

What exactly does it mean for something to be holy?

Holy=Irrelevant?

Given no specific instructions from God, and given the fact that the jews' interpretation was wrong(as you yourself stated), I assume God left it up to me to do what feels right. You certainly can't prove I have to do anything special on that day.

An interesting latter statement when taking into account the former...don't you think?
.
.