Bob Debates Keeping the Sabbath

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by godrulz
Romans deals with saving faith that justifies us in the eyes of God, not man. This is the same faith as in James. There are not 2 gospels in the NT.

Then why is it every time there is a seeming contradiction between Paul vs. Peter, James or John, people always start reconciling the 2 passages by saying something like, "Well, what James really meant was . . ." or, "What Peter really meant was . . ." in order to force it to comport with Paul? Why do we never hear anyone say, "What Paul really meant was . . ."? Was the Holy Spirit just a little bit sleepy when He was inspiring James so He didn't do as clear of a job?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010

No. I think the barbarism rests in the sadism you and other Enyart clones advocate.

Granite, do you believe in situational ethics?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Then why is it every time there is a seeming contradiction between Paul vs. Peter, James or John, people always start reconciling the 2 passages by saying something like, "Well, what James really meant was . . ." or, "What Peter really meant was . . ." in order to force it to comport with Paul? Why do we never hear anyone say, "What Paul really meant was . . ."? Was the Holy Spirit just a little bit sleepy when He was inspiring James so He didn't do as clear of a job?

The Bible interprets the Bible. There was a transition period in the NT (Acts councils). James wrote to a different audience than Paul and used different arguments for His audience than Paul did with the Gentiles. This is similar to the differences (not true contradictions) in the Gospel accounts (e.g. Matthew was primarily to the Jews so it included genealogies; John was for believers and emphasized the Son of God; Luke was for the Greeks and emphasized the Son of Man; Mark is fast paced and shows Jesus as a powerful servant for the Roman mindset).
It is still the same Gospel and teachings of Christ. "Seeming contradiction" is not a true contradiction. They are resolvable using proper exegesis of all relevant passages (without relying on a preconceived Mid-Acts theology). Paul wrote in a different style (linear, systematic) than John (circular). Different authors had different language styles, personalities, etc. yet there is no contradiction because the Spirit inspired the unified works.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Granite, do you believe in situational ethics?

Believing in something and practicing it may be two very different things, Jefferson... :think:

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Granite, do you believe in situational ethics?

No. I also don't happen to believe mangling a wife's hand for defending her husband is a good idea, either, come to think of it.

 

[billwald]

Those who are/will be justified are so because of God's election. Second, regeneration preceeds conversion so any showing of faith is only an admission of a done deal. "Saved by grace" = Saved by election.

But this analysis does not result in command and control . . . any money trail . . . so is not considered.

 

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by godrulz

Jeremiah, are you SDA? By Sabbath, do you mean Saturday, Sunday, or the rest that is in Christ?

I am a Messianic- Christian. By Sabbath I mean the seventh day of the week. The pattern set by God is to work first, for six days, and then to rest, on the seventh. In Genesis it says over and over; and there was evening and there was morning the first day, second day, etc. Therefore the Jews, have it right, the day begins in the evening, at sunset. And the first day of the week begins with work, and the last day of the week ends with rest. When the sun goes down, that day is over. Everyone knows this intuitively. Also everyone knows that you don't begin work, or a work week, by taking a day off. You work first and finish the job, and then you rest in Him, reflect and be thankful for what has been accomplished, and the fruit of your labors.
There is a Sabbath rest in Christ, from the Law of sin and death, when one accepts Yeshua as the Son of God and their Redemer and the permanent atoning sacrifice for their sins!
" Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
There is still much work to be done until the second coming of Yeshua. Without a Sabbath rest in the Lord, at the end of each week, and 'unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord, in the land of the living, I would have despaired."
Thank God for the goodness of His Sabbath rests.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by billwald

Those who are/will be justified are so because of God's election. Second, regeneration preceeds conversion so any showing of faith is only an admission of a done deal. "Saved by grace" = Saved by election.

But this analysis does not result in command and control . . . any money trail . . . so is not considered.

This is a Calvinistic, not a biblical view.

We are saved by grace through repentance and faith. We are not saved secondary to God's so-called arbitrary election of a select group apart from their wills.

Repentance/faith is concurrent with regeneration/salvation. In fact, we believe and then are saved.

TULIP is flawed.

 

[jeremiah]

oops!

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by jeremiah

I am a Messianic- Christian. By Sabbath I mean the seventh day of the week. The pattern set by God is to work first, for six days, and then to rest, on the seventh. In Genesis it says over and over; and there was evening and there was morning the first day, second day, etc. Therefore the Jews, have it right, the day begins in the evening, at sunset. And the first day of the week begins with work, and the last day of the week ends with rest. When the sun goes down, that day is over. Everyone knows this intuitively. Also everyone knows that you don't begin work, or a work week, by taking a day off. You work first and finish the job, and then you rest in Him, reflect and be thankful for what has been accomplished, and the fruit of your labors.
There is a Sabbath rest in Christ, from the Law of sin and death, when one accepts Yeshua as the Son of God and their Redemer and the permanent atoning sacrifice for their sins!
" Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
There is still much work to be done until the second coming of Yeshua. Without a Sabbath rest in the Lord, at the end of each week, and 'unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord, in the land of the living, I would have despaired."
Thank God for the goodness of His Sabbath rests.

Must all true Christians worship on the Sabbath (you are correct that this is Saturday)? I believe Paul taught that we can consider one day special or all alike (Romans 14). There are good arguments for the Lord's Day, the resurrection day, supplanting the Jewish Sabbath. YHVH bless you as you serve Him in a messianic context. He loves His chosen people.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010

No. I also don't happen to believe mangling a wife's hand for defending her husband is a good idea, either, come to think of it.

So since you don't believe in situational ethics, therefore you don't think it was "a good idea" for God to have inspired Deuteronomy 25:11,12 - "When men strive together with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him, and puts forth her hand and takes him by the secret parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall not pity."

You can't fall back on the excuse that it was the situation of ancient, barbaric times with nomadic tribes and blah, blah, blah.

You're stuck between a rock and a hard place. You either have to believe in situational ethics to believe that God was moral for commanding Deuteronomy 25:11,12 because of Israel's situation . . .

or you have to reject situational ethics and believe that God was immoral for commanding that verse.

Pick one.

 

[Zakath]

Jefferson,

Can I play too?

• 
  Scenario:
  
  So a woman comes into her tent and some idiot is trying to wax her husband. She tries to help him and in the process ends up grabbing the fellow in a sensitive spot.
  
  When the local constabulary arrive and break it up, the attacker claims he was felt up by the wife.
  
  So the elders cut off her hand to satisfy YHWH.

In my opinion, the instruction, as recorded in the text, is immoral.

The idea that YHWH would prefer to see another human injured or killed by an attacker than have a woman touch another man's genitals is not only immoral but ridiculous.

In my opinion, the higher law, if you will, is for the wife to help protect her husband, i.e. self defense. Even if she has to emasculate some attacker to do so, more power to her...

It's not like she could have picked up a 9mm and plugged the idiot a couple of times.:Grizzly:

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath

So a woman comes into her tent and some idiot is trying to wax her husband.

Apples and oranges. "Waxing" has to do with murder. The Deuteronomy passage does not concern attempted murder, only fighting.

 

[godrulz]

Self-defense is legit., but the force used must be reasonable and appropriate.

 

[Flipper]

Yeah, that rule was clearly written by a man who had suffered a severe blow to the cojones at the hands of a woman. It makes no sense unless, perhaps, there's some other obscure cultural context to it.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Apples and oranges. "Waxing" has to do with murder. The Deuteronomy passage does not concern attempted murder, only fighting.

Strive is the translation of nawtsah which generally means something equivalent to the modern english "fight". It would not be unrealistic for someone coming in on a fight to misinterpret the activity and assume that someone was intent on doing more than drubbing someone.

I still think the law is immoral and barbaric.

 

[godrulz]

Zak, you are prolific today. Did you skip church again?

(I am at work on the ambulance with some down time)

Are you a formal member of any atheist organization?

Are you familiar with Madilyn O'Hare and her converted son (? William Murray)? How do you think she died? I heard her son speak years ago.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Jefferson

So since you don't believe in situational ethics, therefore you don't think it was "a good idea" for God to have inspired Deuteronomy 25:11,12 - "When men strive together with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him, and puts forth her hand and takes him by the secret parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall not pity."

You can't fall back on the excuse that it was the situation of ancient, barbaric times with nomadic tribes and blah, blah, blah.

You're stuck between a rock and a hard place. You either have to believe in situational ethics to believe that God was moral for commanding Deuteronomy 25:11,12 because of Israel's situation . . .

or you have to reject situational ethics and believe that God was immoral for commanding that verse.

Pick one.

Perhaps it was a good idea at the time. Would you advocate keeping dietary laws? Why or why not? These covenantal sanctions were in place for a time until superceded.

Why you side with the SOB attacking the husband, as opposed to a wife defending her husband, is completely beyond me. (Or not; you are, after all, Enyart's biggest spin doctor here.) Barbarism done in the name of Christ doesn't change what it is: sadistic and reprehensible by nature. Having a doctor cripple a woman's hand for defending her husband (as you've elsewhere suggested) doesn't change anything. Handling torture with latex gloves doesn't change a thing.

If anyone's between a rock and a hard place, it's you, Jeff. You're letting the attacker walk and you mangle a wife's hand. For what? For making the mistake of standing by her man.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by godrulz

Zak, you are prolific today. Did you skip church again?

Just boosting the old post count...

And, yes, I missed church again... :chuckle:

(I am at work on the ambulance with some down time)

Keep safe and if your work means someone is in danger or ill, then I hope that you have a boring shift...

Are you a formal member of any atheist organization?

Nope. Just li'l ole me.

Are you familiar with Madilyn O'Hare and her converted son (? William Murray)? How do you think she died? I heard her son speak years ago.

I am familiar with O'Hare's writings, not her personally. I have no opinion as to how she died.

I've also read some of her son's stuff and think that they're like two sides of a coin.

 

[Granite]

Another thought: "situational ethics" as I understand them refer to laws, not penalties. I'm not aware of any law the woman broke by helping her husband and nailing the attacker in the family jewels. What code did she violate? Thou shalt not fight dirty?

Situational ethics are convenient for those who subscribe to them: adultery's okay here since I can get away with it; not here because I'll probably get exposed for the cad that I am. This might be semantics but that's what happens when no one's sure exactly what the other is talking about.

As it is, I don't see what crime the woman committed.