Commandments of God

[Soyeong]

I never affirmed otherwise.
You are the one who associated this section of Scripture with Paul and others, but it doesn't hold.

So you are now agreeing that we should follow their example of obedience to what God has commanded?

Contradiction above.

The fact that we are under the New Covenant does not mean that we no longer need to obey the Torah.

Either one, the Sabbath is not binding.

It is the case that the Colossians were keeping God's holy days, that they were being judged by pagans because they were keeping them, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for keeping them, so was speaking in favor of the Sabbath being binding, which is certainly does not contradict Jeremiah 31:33 as saying that the New Covenant involves following the Torah.

Still no New Covenant command that says otherwise.

I can supply quite a few examples of the other 9 commandments. Very ckear.
But not one for the 7th day Sabbath.
Nor can you.

Jesus taught to keep the Sabbath by word and by example. Likewise, the New Covenant speaks against sin and defines sin as the transgression of the Torah (1 John 3:4). In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes keeping His Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3). Keeping the Sabbath holy testifies that there is a Creator who created the world in six days, who rested on the 7th day, who is holy, who sanctifies us, and who saves us out of bondage, so if you believe in the truth of these things, then you will live in a way that testifies about their truth by keeping the Sabbath holy rather than a way that denies these things by refusing to keep it holy. What is holy to God should not be profaned by man, so we would still be obligated to keep the Sabbath holy even if God had never commanded anyone to do that.

 

[Fred]

So you are now agreeing that we should follow their example of obedience to what God has commanded?

No.

The fact that we are under the New Covenant does not mean that we no longer need to obey the Torah.

Yes, it does.

Jesus taught to keep the Sabbath by word and by example.

Because He was born under the Law (Gal. 4"4)

Likewise, the New Covenant speaks against sin and defines sin as the transgression of the Torah (1 John 3:4). In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes keeping His Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3). Keeping the Sabbath holy testifies that there is a Creator who created the world in six days, who rested on the 7th day, who is holy, who sanctifies us, and who saves us out of bondage, so if you believe in the truth of these things, then you will live in a way that testifies about their truth by keeping the Sabbath holy rather than a way that denies these things by refusing to keep it holy. What is holy to God should not be profaned by man, so we would still be obligated to keep the Sabbath holy even if God had never commanded anyone to do that.

Still no New Covenant command to do so.

 

[Soyeong]

No.

Then why say that you never affirmed otherwise?

Yes, it does.

Jeremiah 31:33 states otherwise.

Because He was born under the Law (Gal. 4"4)

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow his example.

Still no New Covenant command to do so.

Only if you ignore them.

 

[Fred]

Jeremiah 31:33 states otherwise.

This was already refuted when looking at the previous verses.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow his example.

Christians don't have to when it only applies to the Old Covenant.

Only if you ignore them.

You haven't supplied any.

 

[Soyeong]

This was already refuted when looking at the previous verses.

The previous verses did not contradict Jeremiah 31:33.

Christians don't have to when it only applies to the Old Covenant.

If someone refuses to follow what Christ taught, then they are not a Christian. It is contradictory to follow God's word made flesh while refusing to follow God's word.

You haven't supplied any.

I did, but you ignored it.

 

[Fred]

I did

Where?
Because there is nothing in post 61 that teaches so.

 

[Fred]

Jesus taught to keep the Sabbath by word and by example.

No Scripture referred to that it applies to Christians.

Likewise, the New Covenant speaks against sin and defines sin as the transgression of the Torah (1 John 3:4).

Cite one Greek lexicon that agrees with this assertion.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes keeping His Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3).

But Peter didn't write about the Sabbath, just like he didn't write about what is written Leviticus 19:5-8.
Very selective in what you insist still applies for Christians and what doesn't apply.
How about Leviticus 19:27?

Since this is the best you have shows how weak your position is.

 

[Soyeong]

No Scripture referred to that it applies to Christians.

Do you affirm or deny that we should follow Christ's example of refraining from doing what God has revealed to be sin?

Cite one Greek lexicon that agrees with this assertion.

Nomos is used to refer to the Mosaic Law:

Strong's Greek: 3551. νόμος (nomos) -- that which is assigned, hence usage, law

biblehub.com

While the Greek word uses in 1 John 3:4 means not or without nomos

458 anomía (from 1 /A "not" and 3551 /nómos, "law") – properly, without law;

The same word is used in Matthew 23:28 in regard to Jesus criticizing the Pharisees for lawlessness. It by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) and without it we would not even know what sin is (Romans 7:7). The Mosaic Law is how the Israelites knew what sin is and there isn't another candidate for how else they knew what sin is, so when verses like Matthew 1:21 speak about Jesus saving his people from our sins, that is the context for how it should be understood.

But Peter didn't write about the Sabbath, just like he didn't write about what is written Leviticus 19:5-8.
Very selective in what you insist still applies for Christians and what doesn't apply.
How about Leviticus 19:27?

Since this is the best you have shows how weak your position is.

The immediate context of what Peter was quoting from should be relevant and keeping the Sabbath holy is straightforwardly part of what it means to be holy.

 

[Fred]

Do you affirm or deny that we should follow Christ's example of refraining from doing what God has revealed to be sin?


Nomos is used to refer to the Mosaic Law:

Strong's Greek: 3551. νόμος (nomos) -- that which is assigned, hence usage, law

biblehub.com

While the Greek word uses in 1 John 3:4 means not or without nomos

458 anomía (from 1 /A "not" and 3551 /nómos, "law") – properly, without law;

The same word is used in Matthew 23:28 in regard to Jesus criticizing the Pharisees for lawlessness. It by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) and without it we would not even know what sin is (Romans 7:7). The Mosaic Law is how the Israelites knew what sin is and there isn't another candidate for how else they knew what sin is, so when verses like Matthew 1:21 speak about Jesus saving his people from our sins, that is the context for how it should be understood.

Terrible. Not once does it say "law" as used in 1 John 3:4 refer to the Torah.
No Greek lexicon says what you are affirming g with this passage.

The immediate context of what Peter was quoting from should be relevant and keeping the Sabbath holy is straightforwardly part of what it means to be holy.

This actually proves the 7th Day Sabath is not binding on the Christian.
All Peter had to do is quote just a few more words after Leviticus 19:2 and the Sabbath would still be binding, but the Holy Spirit inspired Him to a certain point which did not include the 7th Day Sabbath command even though it was right there in front of Peter.
Note as well that v. 3 makes mention of one's parents. Elsewhere in the New Covenant we are commanded to obey them (Ephesians 6:4).
But the part about the Sabbath (within the same verse!)....nope. Don't quote it.

Why?

Because it (unlike the other two commands spoken of here) is no longer binding.

 

[Soyeong]

Terrible. Not once does it say "law" as used in 1 John 3:4 refer to the Torah.
No Greek lexicon says what you are affirming g with this passage.

Again, it does use the Greek word "anomia", which means "not or without law".

This actually proves the 7th Day Sabath is not binding on the Christian.
All Peter had to do is quote just a few more words after Leviticus 19:2 and the Sabbath would still be binding, but the Holy Spirit inspired Him to a certain point which did not include the 7th Day Sabbath command even though it was right there in front of Peter.
Note as well that v. 3 makes mention of one's parents. Elsewhere in the New Covenant we are commanded to obey them (Ephesians 6:4).
But the part about the Sabbath (within the same verse!)....nope. Don't quote it.

Why?

Because it (unlike the other two commands spoken of here) is no longer binding.

There is much more to having being holy as God is holy than just keeping the Sabbath holy, so there was no need for him to specifically single out the Sabbath, especially when his point was about having being holy in general. The only way that God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy can become no longer binding is if the God of Israel is no longer eternally holy. The God of Israel has commanded His people to keep the Sabbath holy, so a god who commanded His people to profane the Sabbath is not the God of Israel, so do you follow the God of Israel?

 

[Fred]

Again, it does use the Greek word "anomia", which means "not or without law".

Irrelevant.
Words have to be understood within their context.

No Greek lexicon has been cited that agrees with your outlandish assertion.

There is much more to having being holy as God is holy than just keeping the Sabbath holy,

And Peter does not quote the part about keeping the Sabbath. Here was his chance. It was right there, but nope.
Didn't happen.

Not necessary for the Christian.

 

[Diserner]

One thing I see a lot, with an understanding of grace, is people think being dead to the Law means holiness is not good anymore.

Now, I can understand that deduction.

But the point of grace, is a prevention of establishing one's own performance as the standard of righteousness.

And in a shallow, wall-eyed kind of way, we all react with "Well, does that mean I can sin all I want?!"

Which of course, is a very evil thing to ask, and shows our problem is far deeper than conforming behavior.

 

[Fred]

so a god who commanded His people to profane the Sabbath

You are speaking where God hasn't spoken.

When did the 7th Day Sabbath begin and end?

 

[Soyeong]

Irrelevant.
Words have to be understood within their context.

No Greek lexicon has been cited that agrees with your outlandish assertion.

The meaning of "anomia" is in accordance with what I stated.

And Peter does not quote the part about keeping the Sabbath. Here was his chance. It was right there, but nope.
Didn't happen.

Not necessary for the Christian.

There is no particular reason why he would have had to specifically quote the part about keeping the Sabbath when saying to be holy as God is holy is sufficient to references where Leviticus gives instructions for how to do that. Peter didn't specifically quote God's other instructions for how to be holy as God is holy, but that doesn't mean that he was not referring to any of those instructions. Christ kept the Sabbath holy and Christians are followers of Christ.

 

[Fred]

The meaning of "anomia" is in accordance with what I stated.

Zero Greek lexicons agree with what you say it means in 1 John 3:4.

There is no particular reason why he would have had to specifically quote the part about keeping the Sabbath when saying to be holy as God is holy is sufficient to references where Leviticus gives instructions for how to do that.

But you dodged what it commands in verse 6-8....and in verse 27.

Titus 3:10 commends me to reject a particular person after sufficient warnings.

I gave enough and you dodged them.

goodbye.

 

[Soyeong]

Zero Greek lexicons agree with what you say it means in 1 John 3:4.

But you dodged what it commands in verse 6-8....and in verse 27.

Titus 3:10 commends me to reject a particular person after sufficient warnings.

I gave enough and you dodged them.

goodbye.

I quoted where it said that "anomia" means "not or without law", which is in accordance with what I said.

I said nothing against verses 6-8 or 27, so there was nothing to dodge.

All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Jesus began his ministry began his ministry with that message, so it is absurd for you to think that this is what Titus 3:10 is warning about, especially when Titus 2:11-3:9 is exhorting us to do good works in obedience to it.

 

[101G]

Addressing the OP,
1 Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." 1 Timothy 1:8 "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;" 1 Timothy 1:9 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers," 1 Timothy 1:10 "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

so the Law is not for the Righteous in Christ Jesus.

101G.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

13And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. Revelation 14

What are the commandments of God to those who have faith in Jesus?

It certainly is, at minimum, the ten commandments. Which are clearly present before the Sinai covenant is even made.

e.g. Joseph refrains from adultery, as it is a "sin against God".
God tells Cain "sin crouches at your door" before he murders his brother.
God ordains every seventh day as set apart from the first week of creation.

Aren't the 10 Commandments part of the Law of God?

But then again John is writing to the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. They would be the ones that keep the commandments of God.

 

[Soyeong]

Addressing the OP,
1 Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." 1 Timothy 1:8 "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;" 1 Timothy 1:9 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers," 1 Timothy 1:10 "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

so the Law is not for the Righteous in Christ Jesus.

101G.

To use analogy, instructions for how to build a computer are not made for the experts who have built hundreds of computers who are already acting in accordance with those instructions, but rather those instructions are made for teaching a novice who doesn't know how to do that. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law, so in the same way, instructions for teaching how to practice righteousness are not made for those who are already doing that, but rather they are made to teach those who do not know how to do that. Those who try to say use these verses to try to say that obeying the law is not for them thereby become an unrighteous person that the law is made for. In 1 Tommy 1:7-10, it says that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully, so these verses should not be used to argue that the law is not good for us to obey. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked, so those who are not walking in obedience to God's law should not consider themselves to be in Christ.

 

[101G]

To use analogy, instructions for how to build a computer are not made for the experts who have built hundreds of computers who are already acting in accordance with those instructions, but rather those instructions are made for teaching a novice who doesn't know how to do that.

Isaiah 42:9 "Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them."

so your analogy don't work with God commands.

101G.