SABBATH...

[Capbook]

Is the Lord's Sabbath in the OT still for God's people in the NT?

Luk 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment

[JehovahsWitness]

Is it not logical matter and obvious that if no sin, no reason for sin offerings?

Two Questions

1. Was Jesus without sin?
2. Did he observe all the Jewish festivals including those that involved the offering of sin sacrifices?

If so what can we conclude?

Would it not be true to say that even though without sin, Jesus as a Jewish male subjected himself to the law because it was still in operation and he was an Israelite contracted to do so by nation of his heritage. If the sinless man kept the law (all the laws without exception) even though certain features of them existed for a need he did not have (forgiveness of sin) why do you think that sinful human Israelites in the same circumstances would be free from doing the same?

If the Mosaic law was still in operation, and (for whatever reason) an Israelite found themselves without sin*, they would STILL be obligated to follow the footsteps of Jesus and do exactly as he did ie keep all the laws in the Mosaic law covenant whether he needed to or not. Christ did, so without abolishment of said law, a sinless Christian would have to as well.

* IMPORTANT NOTE Nobody conceived from a human father can be, even for one second "without sin" (see Romans 5:12). We all exist in a sinful (imperfect, less that what God intended) condition. Even if we did nothing but sit in a chair and think no thoughts, we would still need forgiveness for existing in that condition. When the bible says we are forgiven sins or "washed" of our sins, it means God kindly accepts to OVERLOOK /pardon/ cover over the sin. It does not mean the sin does not exist or that we become, like Jesus perfect men and women. The ransom means we are freed from punishment for the sins we constantly commit every day in thought, word and deed.

[JehovahsWitness]

If you agree that the law is good, why not live according to it?

IF THE MOSAIC LAW IS GOOD WHY NOT CONTINUE TO KEEP IT?

Because if (as is the case) God intended the MOSAIC law to be "good and temporary" a Christian is rebelling against the purpose of God by doing that which he wants you to stop.

To illustrate Breast milk is good for a baby. It has all the nutrients a newborn needs and it is good for both mother and child to bond. However, is it good and permanent? Since it's an arrangement from God how do you think God would feel if a 30 year old man was still suckling on his mother's breast? Now it becomes either perverse and/or unhealthy since a fully grown adult needs other nutrients and to be a healthy adult he needs to detach from his mother and form mature relationships with others.

The Mosaic law was like the milk, the new law of Christ is the meat. They cannot be combined since to do so required some of the Mosaic laws be removed, modified or abrogated , something Christ says would be impossible to do. Just as sucking is uniquely designed for a small child not an adult, the Mosaic law had features that simply would not translate into the Christian arrangement, reflecting its (the Mosaic law"s) temporary nature (read Acts 15v28, 29).

Christians that continue on a path that God has closed are being disobedient. Willful disobedience can ruin their relationship with God and cost them their lives (compare Matthew 7v22, 23) Moving from the temporary Mosaic law to the permanent law of Christ is the the will of God. How can those that insist on keeping that which God has seen fit to do away with be pleasing that One?




JEHOVAH'S WITNESS




RELATED POSTS

Are all laws God gives permanent in nature?
viewtopic.php?p=1154579#p1154579

If the Mosaic law was fulfilled, does that mean it is no longer valid?
viewtopic.php?p=1153893#p1153893

Does keeping the Mosaic law or parts thereof demonstrate love of God?
viewtopic.php?p=1155221#p1155221

[JehovahsWitness]

Is there an objection you have raised on this topic that I have NOT written an detailed and scripture based response to?

Please click on this thread for those I have indexed - >
viewtopic.php?p=1155240#p1155240

[1213]

Is it not logical matter and obvious that if no sin, no reason for sin offerings?

Two Questions

1. Was Jesus without sin?
2. Did he observe all the Jewish festivals including those that involved the offering of sin sacrifices?

Yes, I think Jesus was without sin. And i believe he was also on those festivals.

Would it not be true to say that even though without sin, Jesus as a Jewish male subjected himself to the law because it was still in operation and he was an Israelite contracted to do so by nation of his heritage. If the sinless man kept the law (all the laws without exception) even though certain features of them existed for a need he did not have (forgiveness of sin) why do you think that sinful human Israelites in the same circumstances would be free from doing the same?

If the sins are forgiven, by the right Jesus gives to his disciples, there is no need for sin offering.

If the Mosaic law was still in operation, and (for whatever reason) an Israelite found themselves without sin*, they would STILL be obligated to follow the footsteps of Jesus and do exactly as he did ie keep all the laws in the Mosaic law covenant whether he needed to or not.

Sorry, I don't think the law requires sin offering, if there is no sin.

Christ did, so without abolishment of said law

Do not think that I came to annul the Law
Matt. 5:17-19

* IMPORTANT NOTE Nobody conceived from a human father can be, even for one second "without sin" (see Romans 5:12). We all exist in a sinful (imperfect, less that what God intended) condition. Even if we did nothing but sit in a chair and think no thoughts, we would still need forgiveness for existing in that condition. When the bible says we are forgiven sins or "washed" of our sins, it means God kindly accepts to OVERLOOK /pardon/ cover over the sin. It does not mean the sin does not exist or that we become, like Jesus perfect men and women. The ransom means we are freed from punishment for the sins we constantly commit every day in thought, word and deed.

Even in that case it would mean there would be no need for sin offering, if God has forgiven the sin and overlooks it.

But, you think merely existing is a sin? Why so?

I think it is possible that everyone without God is sinful. But, by what i have understood, people should be born anew and become sinless. Why else would Jesus say "From now on, sin no more."
John 8:4-11?

I think there should happen a change in person so that he becomes righteous, because:

Jesus answered him, “Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can’t see God’s Kingdom.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” Jesus an-swered, “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’
John 3:3-7
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to be-come God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63
He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46

[1213]

...Christians that continue on a path that God has closed are being disobedient. Willful disobedience can ruin their relationship with God and cost them their lives (compare Matthew 7v22, 23) Moving from the temporary Mosaic law to the permanent law of Christ is the the will of God. How can those that insist on keeping that which God has seen fit to do away with be pleasing that One?

Sorry, i don't think Bible tells the Mosaic law is not valid anymore.

[JehovahsWitness]

Sorry, I don't think the law requires sin offering, if there is no sin.

IT'S NOT NECESSARY, SO THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY

Consideration for what is required or not (or whether there are exceptions to the mandates) is made before the law exists. Subsequently the wording of the law (or the inclusion of exceptions) is written therein.

To illustrate The Mosaic law had rules regarding behavior when a woman has her menstrual cycle. It state when a WOMAN has her discharges she must (for example) avoid contact with others. By the wording of the law the exception (men, who do not have menstrual cycles) is written inside (because the law states WOMEN with menstrual bleeding must do A B and C)

If the exception cannot be cited in the Mosaic law (for example citing a law that states "All imperfect sinful Israelites males must participate in sacrificial festivals) then even perfect Israelites (like Jesus the sinless man) still had to obey them. The ONLY legitimate way to free the Israelites from laws that were no longer necessary was to remove the entire law.

IT'S NOT NECESSESARY SO WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP SOME OF THE MOSAIC LAWS

You are treating the Mosaic law as if you yourself can decide where the exceptions are. Individuals are not free in the eyes of the law to pick and choose what parts are necessary or not even if they are correct. If the law STATES all Israelite males must do A-B or C, you are not at liberty to say "I do not think C is still necessary" so ignore that part.

That would be like telling a highway policeman that you ignored the speed limit saying "I don't think the highway requires a speed limit, if I am a careful driver". He will point out that careful drivers (or even PERFECT drivers) must obey the law until the law is adapted, modified, abrogated or annulled. He might advise you to approach your local congressman to have the law modified for perfect drivers but until congress changes the law you will still get a fine.

What right do you have to change a letter of the law of God? You might be right, under a certain circumstances, C might be rendered totally unnecessary but you are still not at liberty remove a single letter or comma of the Mosaic law that says a certain action MUST be taken.

IT IS NOT ANNULLED BUT SINCE SOME LAWS ARE UNEEDED WE CAN JUST IGNORE THEM

Now you are probably going to say "I'm not suggesting the law should be changed since Jesus said that was impossible, I'm just saying we don't have to KEEP those laws". What do we call someone that doesn't keep a law that is still in operation? Would that not make them a lawbreaker? What other word is there unless the law is changed, modified or removed?

You are attempting to push the square peg of the Mosaic Law still being unchanged and operational into the round hole of not needing to obey it all anymore.

You keep repeating "There's no need for it [sin offerings], there's no need for it, there's no need for it ..." YES you are right! There IS no longer any need for them. Correct. But you are also insisting, "We are still under that same law code with huge parts that there is no need for". Do you not think God foresaw that when he sent his son to forgive sin? God must have known that there would be no need for much of the Mosaic law, do you think his solution would be to keep that outdated law and burden his people with being lawbreakers for ignoring what they were mandated to do in writing according to the law?

IT'S NOT NECESSARY BUT I CANNOT ACCEPT THAT GOD HAS REPLACED THE MOSAIC LAW

God's solution was beautiful in its simplicity namely, that the Christian arrangement REMOVED the entire law of Moses and replaced it with the law of Christ, written on the hearts of believers of all nations. This new commandment was simple, love God and love others as Christ did. Thus rendering null and void the need for sin sacrifices and all the other laws no longer needed. The law of Christ could not simply be added as an attachment to the Mosaic law since that would be changing the Mosaic law. The right to ignore some of the unnecessary laws could not be added as an attachment to the Mosaic Law since that would be changing some letters and commas of the law. Can you not see there is only one solution if changing the Mosaic law is taken off the table?


CONCLUSION You are right, after the sacrifice of Christ, sin sacrifices and many other laws in the Mosaic law code were no longer necessary. What you are wrong about is what God chose to do about it.




RELATED POSTS

Would a sinless perfect person STILL need to keep the Mosaic law?
viewtopic.php?p=1155316#p1155316

If the Mosaic law was GOOD what harm in continuing to keep it?
viewtopic.php?p=1155317#p1155317

If certain parts of the Mosaic law code are no longer necessary, why can we not just ignore those parts?
viewtopic.php?p=1155334#p1155334

[JehovahsWitness]

...Christians that continue on a path that God has closed are being disobedient. Willful disobedience can ruin their relationship with God and cost them their lives (compare Matthew 7v22, 23) Moving from the temporary Mosaic law to the permanent law of Christ is the the will of God. How can those that insist on keeping that which God has seen fit to do away with be pleasing that One?

Sorry, i don't think Bible tells the Mosaic law is not valid anymore.

I am confused as to why you keep repeating this question of "validity". By saying " i don't think Bible tells the Mosaic law is not valid anymore" do you mean ...

" I don't think Bible frees people that love God from voluntarily keeping all (or a selection) of the Mosaic laws if they want to.

Please clarify if you are simply saying "I think the Mosaic law Code has not been removed".


JW

[John17_3]

[Replying to Capbook in post #67]

Hi Capbook.
I have been following this very interesting conversation, you and the Jehovah's Witness has been having, and I realize that there is one thing that seems to be preventing a conclusion on Luke 23:56.

While both of you agree that the followers of Christ prior to his resurrection, observed the Sabbath, you disagree on when the Christian congregation was established.

It's really great conversing with different people, because I see other perspectives, that I may not have seen before.
However, I'll like to ask a few questions.

Did the Gentiles who became Christian observe the Sabbath? Were they commanded to?
What is Ephesians 2:11-22 telling us about the Gentiles, in relation to the Law of Moses?
Do you think this scripture would be pertinent here?

[JehovahsWitness]

... I'll like to ask a few questions.

Did the Gentiles who became Christian observe the Sabbath? Were they commanded to?

Hi John (welcome),

This is a great question because the Gentiles were not under the Mosaic law, so a specific command, from Jesus or the Christian "leadership" would be required to impose Sabbath observation as a religious rite* .

* Of course Christians would have to respect the law of the land, so if (as the case in Jewish communities) commercial activities and travel were restricted under local law then Christians would respect that. This would be different from making the observation of a weekly Sabbath a religious requirement for Christian worship

The fact of the matter is, there is no passage in the Christian Greek scriptures that mandate the observation of a weekly Sabbath as part of Christian worship.

... What is Ephesians 2:11-22 telling us about the Gentiles, in relation to the Law of Moses? Do you think this scripture would be pertinent here?

Ephesians is most pertinent because Paul (although not specifically speaking about the Sabbath ) discusses how the Mosaic law separated the Jews from the Gentiles and how the removal of that separation meant that Gentiles had equal access to divine favor.


WHEN WAS THE SABBATH LAW ESTABLISHED

That said however, just like the first century Jewish Christians who were arguing for Gentile circumcision, it is correct to say that the Sabbath principle at least, predated the law and the principle can continue when the imposition by law is abolished. In view of this, I was trying to explain that God's own rest period (sabbath) should not be confused with the weekly sabbath which was mandated by law for humans (Mark 2v27). God's (YHWH's) rest day is thousands of years long and it is this "rest" (representing divine blessing) that we Christians seek to enter.


JW

[1213]

... But you are also insisting, "We are still under that same law code with huge parts that there is no need for". Do you not think God foresaw that when he sent his son to forgive sin? God must have known that there would be no need for much of the Mosaic law, do you think his solution would be to keep that outdated law and burden his people with being lawbreakers for ignoring what they were mandated to do in writing according to the law?[/color]

I don't say we are under the law. Only that I think the law is still valid, which means, if Mosaic law told for example that murder is wrong, I believe murder is still wrong. Anything the law says is wrong, I believe is still wrong.

Please tell, what do you think sin means?