The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jesus is not "humanity". Otherwise, we are all made of "Jesus".

We all know that silly.

When we say that the Son is "humanity" we're making an ontological statement indicating that the Son is His "humanity", His human nature. The Son is "the man", Christ Jesus. The humanity is that who prayed to the Father, had limited knowledge, was subject to all the very same temptations that we are, and was even subject to death itself. This is to draw distinction between His "divinity", who is the Father. The use of these terminologies in Christology helps to bear out the teaching of "Oneness" (which isn't in the Bible either).

Individuals who believe in "Oneness" (not in the Bible) and "Acts 2:38 Salvation" (which isn't in the Bible) are called "Apostolics" (which isn't in the Bible). And we firmly believe in the "Pentecostal experience" (which isn't in the Bible).

I could go on, and on, and on, to illustrate how we regularly use terms that are not in the Bible to draw distinction to the various theological implications of the Scriptures. When one uses a term that isn't in Scripture, we shouldn't recoil at the use of the term, we should seek to discover the idea in the Scripture.

Using Bible terms in a way the Bible does NOT use them cannot possibly clarify anything. Confusing the terms is not "clarifying" anything.

There is nothing confusing between distinguishing the law given at Sinai (Ten Commandments) as the "Law of God" and the law given at Moab in the writings of Moses as the "Law of Moses". When Scripture uses similar terms interchangeably, we do well to use our intelligence and seek to understand why. For example, for most biblical writers, when referencing any of the Ten Commandments or the laws of Moses they referenced what they read in the Torah. And so, the terms can be used interchangeably. There is an overlap. I've attached an image at the bottom this post to illustrate my point.

I also think we should be VERY careful in thinking we can improve on what God has said. His Words are perfect. Giving the sense is one thing, but inventing distinctions that are 180 degrees opposite from the distinctions made or not made in Scripture is another thing altogether.

So, we shouldn't use the terms, "Oneness" or "Apostolic"?

[mfblume]

Aquila, are there any more opportunities to show your little diagrams of oneness on the forum? I've seen the same two about two dozen times.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Inapplicable comparison. The principle of humanity is distinctly involved in scripture, whereas some principle of the book of Law versus the Law of God is non-existent in any point the bible is trying to make with us.

Consider the Sinaitic Covenant. It was given at Sinai and the entire covenant was predicated upon the 10 Commandments, which were originally written by God Himself and given to Moses. It helped to govern God's people in the wilderness.

The Covenant at Moab (39+ years later) added additional laws and statutes, commands, and judgments that were civil and ceremonial in nature. It was inspired by God but written entirely by Moses on scrolls and completed what we know as the Torah. It was to guide and govern God's people as a nation.

In the covenant established at Moab we read:

Deuteronomy 29:1
"These are the words of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb."

Notice, the verse itself draws a distinction between the covenants and that would include the laws written therein.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Aquila, are there any more opportunities to show your little diagrams of oneness on the forum? I've seen the same two about two dozen times.

It's the perfect way of illustrating two distinct but overlapping concepts.

As I was creating the diagram I began to wonder... "How many of these have I created to illustrate different points ranging from Oneness to distinctions between law and grace, to distinctions between law of God and law of Moses, to overlapping time periods involving the early church, etc." LOL

It's just an easy way to draw distinction with overlap, which the Bible is absolutely full of. The Jewish mind tended to bring two concepts together, draw distinction between each, and identify the other as both. Of course, this is illogical to our Western thinking. I knew a (Rabbi Kopmar) who would always laugh when we talked saying, "Well, Chris... yes and no." LOL I would get confused because he'd illustrate how a given perspective could be absolutely true in one sense... and totally inapplicable in another sense.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's the perfect way of illustrating two distinct but overlapping concepts.

As I was creating the diagram I began to wonder... "How many of these have I created to illustrate different points ranging from Oneness to distinctions between law and grace, to distinctions between law of God and law of Moses, to overlapping time periods involving the early church, etc." LOL

It's just an easy way to draw distinction with overlap, which the Bible is absolutely full of. The Jewish mind tended to bring two concepts together, draw distinction between each, and identify the other as both. Of course, this is illogical to our Western thinking. I knew a (Rabbi Kopmar) who would always laugh when we talked saying, "Well, Chris... yes and no." LOL I would get confused because he'd illustrate how a given perspective could be absolutely true in one sense... and totally inapplicable in another sense.

But we already saw them.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Consider the Sinaitic Covenant. It was given at Sinai and the entire covenant was predicated upon the 10 Commandments, which were originally written by God Himself and given to Moses. It helped to govern God's people in the wilderness.

The Covenant at Moab (39+ years later) added additional laws and statutes, commands, and judgments that were civil and ceremonial in nature. It was inspired by God but written entirely by Moses on scrolls and completed what we know as the Torah. It was to guide and govern God's people as a nation.

In the covenant established at Moab we read:

Deuteronomy 29:1
"These are the words of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb."

Notice, the verse itself draws a distinction between the covenants and that would include the laws written therein.

Like I said, the distinction poses no relevant purpose as humanity does.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We all know that silly.

When we say that the Son is "humanity" we're making an ontological statement indicating that the Son is His "humanity", His human nature. The Son is "the man", Christ Jesus. The humanity is that who prayed to the Father, had limited knowledge, was subject to all the very same temptations that we are, and was even subject to death itself. This is to draw distinction between His "divinity", who is the Father. The use of these terminologies in Christology helps to bear out the teaching of "Oneness" (which isn't in the Bible either).

I would say you are borrowing metaphysical terms from a trinitarian paradigm, and that is creating some confusion on your part. But I won't get bogged down in the semantics, I'll stick to the topic.

Individuals who believe in "Oneness" (not in the Bible) and "Acts 2:38 Salvation" (which isn't in the Bible) are called "Apostolics" (which isn't in the Bible). And we firmly believe in the "Pentecostal experience" (which isn't in the Bible).

I could go on, and on, and on, to illustrate how we regularly use terms that are not in the Bible to draw distinction to the various theological implications of the Scriptures. When one uses a term that isn't in Scripture, we shouldn't recoil at the use of the term, we should seek to discover the idea in the Scripture.

I watched a sermon by Gino Jennings, where he pointed out that God's religion is never called "apostolic" or "pentecostal" in the Bible, so folks ought to quit using those terms. He suggested the correct term is HOLINESS (Isaiah 35:8).

When we use WORDS that are not in Scripture, we are walking a tightrope. It is possible to use non-scriptural words to describe ACCURATELY Scriptural things. But it is also possible to use non-scriptural words to INACCURATELY depict or describe Scriptural things. The term apostolic means "of, having to do with, or deriving from, the apostles and their faith and practice." The use of that term is entirely Scriptural (lower case "a", of course) as a simple adjective describing that which has to do with the apostles. But, in your next statement, I believe you fall into the trap I was mentioning earlier. I'll show why in a moment.

There is nothing confusing between distinguishing the law given at Sinai (Ten Commandments) as the "Law of God" and the law given at Moab in the writings of Moses as the "Law of Moses". When Scripture uses similar terms interchangeably, we do well to use our intelligence and seek to understand why. For example, for most biblical writers, when referencing any of the Ten Commandments or the laws of Moses they referenced what they read in the Torah. And so, the terms can be used interchangeably. There is an overlap. I've attached an image at the bottom this post to illustrate my point.

What you have done is taken a Scriptural phrase and given it a non-scriptural definition. It would be like me taking the phrase "repentance" and defining it as consisting solely in an intellectual affirmation of the facts of the Gospel, and distinguishing it from say "sanctification" which I then defined as "obeying God's will in one's daily life." I have created a false distinction, because the Bible usage of "repentance" and "sanctification" does not allow for such a distinction. This is what you have done with the terms "law of God" and "law of Moses".

The Bible defines "the law of God" differently than you have done. It's definition includes what you call "the law of Moses". And, I might add, vice versa. This means that you are beginning with an incorrect definition of terms, and then building a doctrine, a doctrinal system even, on the basis of those incorrect definitions.

Is there a difference between the actual stone tablets God gave to Moses, and the hand-written book of the Law placed in the side of the ark? sure there is. Just as there is a difference between that "book of the Law" and the Pentateuch which you have in your Bible. But that does not mean I can affirm the Pentateuch is not the book of the Law, or that the book of the law is not the Pentateuch.

Consider this example:

Genesis 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

This was before Sinai, the Ten Commandments, and certainly before Jesus began to preach. So what then is this "way of the Lord"? Suppose I say "the way of the Lord" and the "way of Christ" are two different things? Will that fly? Seriously? Is not rather the way of the Lord a term for following God's will for man? And is not the way or doctrine of Christ the final and complete revelation of the way of the Lord? Not a different way, but a perfected way?

Again, we should make the distinctions the Bible makes. We should also make the conjunctions the Bible makes. If the Bible calls the commandments, statutes, judgments, testimonies, ordinances, laws, etc the "law of the Lord" then that is what they are, and that is what the "law of the Lord" includes.

And if the bible specifically identifies the Ten Commandments as "the law of Moses" then that is what they are, "Moses' Law". Mark 7:10 specifically calls the Fifth Commandment as being something "Moses said". further, Jesus made no distinction between the Fifth Commandment being something Moses said, and Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 being something Moses said. Jesus Himself made no distinction as you are trying to make.

More importantly, if Jesus followed your understanding, He wouldn't have said what He said! He would not have confused what Moses commanded and what God commanded, according to how you have split things up. So that right there tells me you have made a mistake, as have all those who claim a "two laws" doctrine. Where does the Bible ever speak of "the two laws"? It doesn't. Nowhere does the Bible make the distinction you are making, that is my point.

A non-Biblical term that correctly describes a Biblical concept is not bad. But using Biblical terms to describe, or create, non-Biblical concepts is definitely not good.

So, we shouldn't use the terms, "Oneness" or "Apostolic"?

I don't use the term "Apostolic" unless it's the beginning of a sentence or part of an official name (proper noun). I use it as an adjective, hence "apostolic" (lower case "a"). The term "Oneness" is grammatically problematic (technically shouldn't it be Onenessism? I'd like a different term, but "unitarian" is taken and has all sorts of connotations I wouldn't want to be associated with. Monotheism is practically definition-free thanks to the trinitarians, binitarians, and Hindus. Modalism has no standard definition. Monarchian requires a distinction between "dynamic monarchianism" and "us other monarchians". Patripassianism is loaded with issues, Sabellianism is flat out incorrect. So what shall we use? "Oneness" has a definite theological meaning that is well understood by most who use it in any meaningful way. Sure, there are folks who haven't a clue, just like there are trinitarians who haven't a clue what the word trinitarianism actually means or implies. But that doesn't render the term(s) overly problematic.

The point is, the words "apostolic" and "Oneness" describe things the Bible describes. Whereas your dichotomy between the law of Moses and the law of God describes things the Bible does not, and fails to describe things the Bible does. That is a fundamental difference.

[Esaias]

Aquila, if this distinction between the "law of God" and the "law of Moses" is rather obvious, why haven't the Jews made the same discovery? Why is it that NOBODY seems to have distinguished "God's Law" from "Moses' Law" in the way you have, until recently?

Can you cite anyone prior to the 19th century who made such distinctions? I do not mean the common Protestant "three fold law: the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law", I mean between "the Ten commandments which are God's Law, and all the other commandments which are Moses' Law"?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Aquila, if this distinction between the "law of God" and the "law of Moses" is rather obvious, why haven't the Jews made the same discovery? Why is it that NOBODY seems to have distinguished "God's Law" from "Moses' Law" in the way you have, until recently?

Can you cite anyone prior to the 19th century who made such distinctions? I do not mean the common Protestant "three fold law: the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law", I mean between "the Ten commandments which are God's Law, and all the other commandments which are Moses' Law"?

I'm not going to write a thesis for you, but I will post something I found on a rather quick search.

"What distinguishes the Ten Commandments from all the other 613 laws in the Torah is that the Ten Commandments act as the “categories” under which all the other commandments are included." (Rashi, Shemos 24:12)

The commandments of the Torah are classified as relating to one or more of the Ten Commandments. They were essentially the "how" Israel was to obey the Ten Commandments. This draws distinction.

I'm sure I can find many more quotes from rabbinical sources, teachers, and preachers. But if this one isn't good enough for you, neither would anything else I could present.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I would say you are borrowing metaphysical terms from a trinitarian paradigm, and that is creating some confusion on your part. But I won't get bogged down in the semantics, I'll stick to the topic.



I watched a sermon by Gino Jennings, where he pointed out that God's religion is never called "apostolic" or "pentecostal" in the Bible, so folks ought to quit using those terms. He suggested the correct term is HOLINESS (Isaiah 35:8).

When we use WORDS that are not in Scripture, we are walking a tightrope. It is possible to use non-scriptural words to describe ACCURATELY Scriptural things. But it is also possible to use non-scriptural words to INACCURATELY depict or describe Scriptural things. The term apostolic means "of, having to do with, or deriving from, the apostles and their faith and practice." The use of that term is entirely Scriptural (lower case "a", of course) as a simple adjective describing that which has to do with the apostles. But, in your next statement, I believe you fall into the trap I was mentioning earlier. I'll show why in a moment.





What you have done is taken a Scriptural phrase and given it a non-scriptural definition. It would be like me taking the phrase "repentance" and defining it as consisting solely in an intellectual affirmation of the facts of the Gospel, and distinguishing it from say "sanctification" which I then defined as "obeying God's will in one's daily life." I have created a false distinction, because the Bible usage of "repentance" and "sanctification" does not allow for such a distinction. This is what you have done with the terms "law of God" and "law of Moses".

The Bible defines "the law of God" differently than you have done. It's definition includes what you call "the law of Moses". And, I might add, vice versa. This means that you are beginning with an incorrect definition of terms, and then building a doctrine, a doctrinal system even, on the basis of those incorrect definitions.

Is there a difference between the actual stone tablets God gave to Moses, and the hand-written book of the Law placed in the side of the ark? sure there is. Just as there is a difference between that "book of the Law" and the Pentateuch which you have in your Bible. But that does not mean I can affirm the Pentateuch is not the book of the Law, or that the book of the law is not the Pentateuch.

Consider this example:

Genesis 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

This was before Sinai, the Ten Commandments, and certainly before Jesus began to preach. So what then is this "way of the Lord"? Suppose I say "the way of the Lord" and the "way of Christ" are two different things? Will that fly? Seriously? Is not rather the way of the Lord a term for following God's will for man? And is not the way or doctrine of Christ the final and complete revelation of the way of the Lord? Not a different way, but a perfected way?

Again, we should make the distinctions the Bible makes. We should also make the conjunctions the Bible makes. If the Bible calls the commandments, statutes, judgments, testimonies, ordinances, laws, etc the "law of the Lord" then that is what they are, and that is what the "law of the Lord" includes.

And if the bible specifically identifies the Ten Commandments as "the law of Moses" then that is what they are, "Moses' Law". Mark 7:10 specifically calls the Fifth Commandment as being something "Moses said". further, Jesus made no distinction between the Fifth Commandment being something Moses said, and Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 being something Moses said. Jesus Himself made no distinction as you are trying to make.

More importantly, if Jesus followed your understanding, He wouldn't have said what He said! He would not have confused what Moses commanded and what God commanded, according to how you have split things up. So that right there tells me you have made a mistake, as have all those who claim a "two laws" doctrine. Where does the Bible ever speak of "the two laws"? It doesn't. Nowhere does the Bible make the distinction you are making, that is my point.

A non-Biblical term that correctly describes a Biblical concept is not bad. But using Biblical terms to describe, or create, non-Biblical concepts is definitely not good.




I don't use the term "Apostolic" unless it's the beginning of a sentence or part of an official name (proper noun). I use it as an adjective, hence "apostolic" (lower case "a"). The term "Oneness" is grammatically problematic (technically shouldn't it be Onenessism? I'd like a different term, but "unitarian" is taken and has all sorts of connotations I wouldn't want to be associated with. Monotheism is practically definition-free thanks to the trinitarians, binitarians, and Hindus. Modalism has no standard definition. Monarchian requires a distinction between "dynamic monarchianism" and "us other monarchians". Patripassianism is loaded with issues, Sabellianism is flat out incorrect. So what shall we use? "Oneness" has a definite theological meaning that is well understood by most who use it in any meaningful way. Sure, there are folks who haven't a clue, just like there are trinitarians who haven't a clue what the word trinitarianism actually means or implies. But that doesn't render the term(s) overly problematic.

The point is, the words "apostolic" and "Oneness" describe things the Bible describes. Whereas your dichotomy between the law of Moses and the law of God describes things the Bible does not, and fails to describe things the Bible does. That is a fundamental difference.

Perhaps we should stop using the words "Bible", "Incarnation", etc., etc.

I find this logic silly. Of course the Bible exists even if the word "Bible" is nowhere in the text. And of course the incarnation is a reality, even if the word "Incarnation" isn't found in the text. This is all just silly banter from small minds.

We must remember, we name places. We name things. We name concepts. In most cases, those places, things, and concepts exist long before we name them.