TV01,

I've offered you the challenge repeatedly to open a thread and post your concerns about the LAW. Seeing that you've ducked that challenge endlessly (for whatever reasons best known to you), here's the thread now. You can post your concerns about "the LAW" - all you know, what you worry about, your understanding of its meaning as used in the New Testament, what applies and what does not, and how they apply to Christians or if they do NOT apply at all.

Whatever you want to do about "the LAW", please DO here! But be honest, face the issues, treat them in CONTEXT, and aim to be clear - so that readers can be benefitted in visiting this thread.

Please, refrain from the aspersions - because I will NOT spare if you bring them in here! Second, please don't dribble anything you don't find in Scripture into a text (the so-called "metaphors", et al). Third, be honest and fair to deal with issues - DISCUSS, DISCUSS, DISCUSS!!!

I trust this would not prove too difficult for you.

Regards.

Dear Sister Pligrim.1,

I have no particular concerns about the law. If however you would like to discuss any aspect of it, especially from a NTC perspective, I am more than happy to join you. I'm sure I'll be edified. I defer honour to you in kicking off. I look forward to an "aspersion free" and honest discussion.

God bless
TV01

_{I do realise this forum/thread is not the exclusive preserve of Pilgrim.1 and/or myself. As ever I covet contributions from any interested parties or those otherwise willing and bable to share.}

TV01,

Please don't evade this thread and tediously deflect the other threads with the same arguments about the Law. This is the reason why I opened this thread since you have evaded the same request endlessly.

Please, take all your concerns and arguments about the Law from the other threads and post them here so we could deal with them.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

Please don't evade this thread

I responded didn't I?

pilgrim.1:

tediously deflect the other threads with the same arguments about the Law.

If the law comes up, will I ignore it?

pilgrim.1:

This is the reason why I opened this thread since you have evaded the same request endlessly.Cheers.

I have evaded nothing. Moreover, I have stated my position clearly. If you have a point of difference you'd like to discuss, please say and I'll be happy to do just that.

pilgrim.1:

Please, take all your concerns and arguments about the Law from the other threads and post them here so we could deal with them.

Again, I am happy with my understanding of the applicability or otherwise of the OT law - written code - to NTC. I'm sure there's still lots for me to learn, but I haven't heard anything from you to make me rethink the little I do understand. As for "concerns", I have none, if you think our differences are cause for concern, please state specifically "How & Why". If you would then like to discuss any aspect of my position. Please say and I'll be happy to respond.

God bless
TV

_{Only 2 posts in and you've already labelled me tedious and evasive ?}

TV01,

TV01:

I responded didn't I?

You responded to avoid the thread.

TV01:

If the law comes up, will I ignore it?

You've often raised the issue about the Law in the other threads, and having ignored my several requests to open a thread to address it, I obliged you here.

TV01:

I have evaded nothing. Moreover, I have stated my position clearly. If you have a point of difference you'd like to discuss, please say and I'll be happy to do just that.

You have constantly evaded the simple questions I offered you on the same subject - and that's why I asked that you bring them here.

TV01:

Again, I am happy with my understanding of the applicability or otherwise of the OT law - written code - to NTC.

That's just one - and you could share the same here, as I've asked repeatedly in other threads.

TV01:

I'm sure there's still lots for me to learn, but I haven't heard anything from you to make me rethink the little I do understand.

I'd rather you "discuss" and not play umpire by constantly trying to assume that my contributions on the subject are "anal taxonomy" when you have had nothing alternative to share.

TV01:

As for "concerns", I have none, if you think our differences are cause for concern, please state specifically "How & Why".

I've done so severally; and since you constantly have a problem understanding the points I offered, I asked that you bring your concerns here.

TV01:

If you would then like to discuss any aspect of my position. Please say and I'll be happy to respond.

Good. Please answer the questions I offered on the same Law HERE.

TV01:

Only 2 posts in and you've already labelled me tedious and evasive ?

If you learn to address me cordially, you will find me a pleasant discussant.

Cheers.

Hi Pilgrim.1,

Good. Please answer the questions I offered on the same Law HERE.

This is a new thread. For clarity and continuity, I suggest we avoid "carry overs" and having to endlessly to and forth between threads. Please ask any questions you wish to, stating briefly and being as specific as you can. Can we perhaps start one question at a time. Thanks.

If you learn to address me cordially, you will find me a pleasant discussant.

I have done nothing but in this thread. None the less I am not concerned by pleasantries or nasty asides, and they are in a sense both alike to me. My interest is in the meat of the discussion. As long as you bring meat, I don't mind shaving off the fat.

God bless
TV

Dear TV01,

TV01:

This is a new thread. For clarity and continuity, I suggest we avoid "carry overs" and having to endlessly to and forth between threads.

The reason for this new thread is simply for you to address issues about the Law that you constantly make recourse to in the other threads. If you don't want to do, you're not obliged to - and there's NO REASON why you should be raising concerns about the LAW in other threads as well.

TV01:

Please ask any questions you wish to, stating briefly and being as specific as you can. Can we perhaps start one question at a time. Thanks.

There are several questions I have left you - and if it would be asking too much, please bring them HERE and discuss them. Much appreciated.

TV01:

I have done nothing but in this thread.

Don't complain. I didn't do anything in the other threads before you launched out and continued to do so inspite of cordially warning that you refrianed. Besides, "tedious and evasive" simply demonstrate that you've been evading answering the questions and requests I presented while at the same time belabouring the same issues in other threads and refusing to address them here.

TV01:

None the less I am not concerned by pleasantries or nasty asides, and they are in a sense both alike to me

.

No worries. If they are alike to you, why object when being served the very same thing you've served others?

And I'll like to put your adulators on notice as to your persuasion above.

TV01:

My interest is in the meat of the discussion. As long as you bring meat, I don't mind shaving off the fat.

Which meat has been constantly presented, and I haven't seen where you offered anything coherent to the alternative than precisely trying to "shave" at other people's posts.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

There are several questions I have left you - and if it would be asking too much, please bring them HERE and discuss them. Much appreciated.

If you "left the questions", please restate them clearly and succinctly here and we have lift off. I don't want to endlessly to and fro or have to cross-reference other threads. Just trying to keep it tight. Thanks.

TV01:

If you "left the questions", please restate them clearly and succinctly here and we have lift off. I don't want to endlessly to and fro or have to cross-reference other threads. Just trying to keep it tight. Thanks.

No problem. I'll appreciate you go over and lift the questions from there and address them here. Just please do that and let me know you actually did not ignore those questions.

Blessings.

@TV01,

I've decided to rather answer your latest reposte
from the other thread HERE, since you keep bring up the very same issues about the LAW yet again.

TV01:

Healing or plucking ears of corn on the sabbath are both a contravention of the law as any kind of work is forbidden on that day.

Rather than assume it is so, please demonstrate that it is actually so from Scripture.

TV01:

Till the present day, strictly orthodox Jews do no work on the Sabbath, as it is considered a contravention of the law. Food for consumption on the sabbath is prepared beforehand. I'd guess you know this, so I'm not being tedius just to note.

I'm aware what "strict orthodox Jews" do on the Sabbath; but I'm rather concerned about what is revealed in Scripture. It is also clear that many things in Scripture that they did were simply "unorthodox" according to the revealed WORD; so I'm not keen on looking outside the Bible for what anyone claiming to be "orthodox" does at any day.

TV01:

Labelling me a Pharisee - as funny as that is - merely demonstrates your inability to grasp the simple message here.

I apologise if that got to you; but that is precisely the interpretation that the Pharisees gave on the subject in question - and for all that, they were wrong. HOW wrong? I've severally demonstrated same.

TV01:

The Pharisees - who were also being addressed in Matthew 23:23 - knew that the actions of the Lords disciples - plucking corn ears - was contrary to the written code, as was the Lords "work" in healing on the sabbath.

Further to asking that you demonstrate from Scripture that the Lord was wrong in His actions, I would here repeat again that He was NOT going contrary to the Law. If He did, that would mean He broke the Law rather than FULFILL it (Matt. 5:17). I still maintain that He did not "break" that Law; and because you have alleged repeatedly that He did, I'm humbly asking that you demonstrate from Scripture that He actually did so.

TV01:

Now, if in 23:23, the Lord rebuked the same set of people for slavish devotion to the same law while missing the intent, how is it not a contradiction - and hypocrisy and law-breaking - if His own disciples break the letter and He does not charge them accordingly?

I'm not charging anything against the Lord or His disciples. I never have, and never will - and that has been my consistent position. If you want to charge Him and the disciples of "hypocrisy and law breaking", please suit yourself.

What I've stated again and again is that the Lord reprimanded them for their partial obedience to the commandments, and I demonstrated that by quoting Malachi 2:9 to show the point. In Matthew 23:23, rather than see a "dichotomy" that the Lord never made reference to there, it helps to simply see what He said: "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

TV01:

My position is that as long as the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled, all is well.

You cannot hold that the Lord broke the Law and at the same time affirm that He fulfilled it. You're saying two very opposite things, which you have been unable to defend.

Could you please address this issue of HOW you presume that the Lord BROKE the Law (Matt. 12) and then affirm now that He FULFILLED the same Law He broke?!?

TV01:

Yours is that the law is the law is the law. No distinction between the letter and the "weightier issues", one cannot be voided without the other and one cannot be kept without the other.

Don't mix them up. I asked you to distinguish for me the difference between the "letter" of the Law and the Law itself. Have you done that? I also made clear that in Matt. 23:23, the Lord did not speak of the "dichotomy" that you have interpolated into that verse. In simple terms, He said "do BOTH" in the statement He made - 'these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.'

TV01:

Therefore, it follows, that the disciples contravenenig the written law by working on the sabbath was breaking the law.

Please, the Bible does not present that as "working" on the sabbath day. That is why I asked you to show it from within the Law itself. Where is it "written" as such that what they did constituted "breaking the law"?

men, una don mark una self tite ni abi whish levels, na? etin b'ara yin ja abi bawo ni?

TV01,

TV01:

For me it was the written code and not the intent,hence no problem.

So, in order to make them guilty, you had to interpolate the idea that it was a "written code" the broke, and not the intent they broke? That also is not supported in the text, and I request once again that you demonstrate it clearly from the Law. Thank you.

TV01:

Your position says to "break one is to break both or indeed, as there is no distinction, the law has simply been broken.

No sir, my position is not that they were BREAKING the Law. I never said that, lol.  

Rather, I've often and repeatedly said that to VOID one is to VOID the other as regards the TWO issues mentioned in Matt. 23:23.

There is an enormous difference between "breaking" the Law and "voiding" it.

To BREAK the Law is to contravene, violate, and transgress the Law. (see 1 John 3:4)

To VOID the Law is to make it no longer applicable, as is the case of outward circumcison (see Galatians 6:15)

Not one time have I stated or argued that the Lord ever BROKE the Law; and my position on Matt. 23:23 was clear from beginning - He did not VOID either issues He mentioned there!

TV01:

The same follows for the Lords healing, which is considered work under the written code.

Who "considered" the Lord' healing as actually BREAKING the Law?

TV01:

Please read and respond as follows;

~ Was any type of work permitted on the sabbath?
~ Was the disciples plucking action or the Lords healing not considered work?
~ Did the Lord consider wether His disciples or Himself to have contravened the law?
~ Why did He not rebuke His disciples as He did the Pharisees in 23:23 who kept the law?

I'll oblige answers as soon as you respond to the questions I left you previously. I had hoped that you would indeed have offered answers as simply as could be managed; but you scooted round them yet again. I'll kep my word.

TV01:

I''ll keep this one short to bring somes sort of order and focus the discussion. I'll trust you'll attempt to do likewise.

That is the reason why I brought them HERE, since you constantly bring up the same issues about the LAW and have been evading this thread.

Cheers.

Wordsmith:

men, una don mark una self tite ni abi whish levels, na? etin b'ara yin ja abi bawo ni?

T'aba dé be, e ma mo.

hmm. . .e se jé jé o, e má lo fo ara yín loju o!

Lol. . Olorun máje. Afi bé na, mo ti gbo.

What part of the new tstament will your findings eliminate or render redundant?

Hi cgift,

cgift:

What part of the new tstament will your findings eliminate or render redundant?

I don't quite understand your enquiry. Perhaps you could help us by clarifying?

Cheers.

Hi Pilgrim.1,

Hope all's well with you .

A few references to the Sabbath as requested to show that no “work“ was permitted (noting that there are different types of Sabbaths, of days, of weeks, years and high/special Sabbaths. I'm sure you'll agree that the distinctions have no real bearing on our discussion, or you'll show why if they do.)

Food preparation – be that in the field or the home – was considered work and had to be done prior to the Sabbath.

Exodus 16:23 - Then he said to them, "This is what the Lord has said: 'Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake today, and boil what you will boil; and lay up for yourselves all that remains, to be kept until morning.'

Even the Lord in supplying manna did so only for 6 days, and only during these 6 days was collection and preparation allowed.

Exodus 16:25 - Then Moses said, "Eat that today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, there will be none." 27 - See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day."

Any type of work on the Sabbath was considered a contravention of the law.

Jeremiah 17:22 - nor carry a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, nor do any work, but hallow the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.

I trust that suffices for now, I've tried to keeop it short and scripture based. I humbly await your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks very much.

God bless
TV

TV01,

I appreciate your reply - and as I promised, I'll keep my word to answer the questions you offered.

However, in applauding your persuasions as to why you felt the Lord might have broken the LAW in Matthew 12 (and demonstrating the same with the verses you quoted), here's WHY I rather don't agree that He broke the Law.

(1) In the first place, let's understand that the issue here is WORK. I agree that to engage in work was breaking the Law in that regard. But is that what they did in Matthew 12? I'll quote the relevant section first:

Deut. 23:25
'When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with
thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.

Matt.12:1-2
'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. 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.'

I'd like you to see that Jesus actually chose the Sabbath day to go "through the corn". But then, He also had Deut. 23:25 in mind when He chose that very day. Was "plucking the ears of corn to eat" on the Sabbath day considered a transgression (breaking) against the Law? I don't think so - for the following reasons:

(a) the Law clearly stipulated that plucking the ears with the hand and eating it in the field
was quite a different thing from moving a sickle to the standing corn (Deut. 23:25).

(b) it would be WORK to harvest with a sickle, take the harvested corn home, and then to
prepare it for a MEAL - as you quoted in Exo. 16:23.

(c) that the Lord Jesus chose the Sabbath day to go to the field does not contravene the
stipulation of Exo. 16:25 ("let no man go out of his place on the seventh day". WHY? For
the simple reason that people moved about on the Sabbath day, because it was required of
them to do so by the same LAW - ("And on the seventh day ye shall have an holy convocation;
ye shall do no servile work. " - Num. 28:25)

(d) that they did not transgress the Law is obvious because they did nothing forbidden by
the Law - such as:
* to kindle any fire (Exo. 35:3)
* to bear any burden (Jer. 17:22)

Now it is interesting that Num. 28:25 clearly qualifies the type of work theyr were forbidden to engage in - "SERVILE work". Unless anyone has a reason to assume that plucking corn with the hands was the same thing as harvesting with a sickle, there is no reason to assume that the Lord and the disciples "BROKE" (transgressed) the Law. To allege that He "broke" the Law, one might have to explain HOW that affirms that He fulfilled the same LAW that He broke (Matt. 5:17).

If there's something I might have inadvertently overlooked, I'd be glad to consider it.

Many blessings.

@pilgrim.1
Bravo! Bravo!
nice one,
iam impressed,
but would they listen?
well sha, the truth is bitter
but continue!
God is with you.

@Pilgrim.1.

Thanks for the prompt response.

I am somewhat mystified why you would quote Deuteronomy 23:25, as that is in no way - specifically, generally or in context - impinging on the law relating to the sabbath.

I must also say here that you are implying that the Pharisees were "incorrect" in their charge that the disciples of Christ were acting unlawfully by plucking (which is to harvest, to work) grains of corn on the sabbath day.

The Deuternomical stipulation is one of nieghbourly kindliness - alms even - as was demonstrated by Ruth gleaning in Boaz fields, and in no way overrides the "no work" on a sabbath rule.

Further work is not defined by the use of an implement. Carrying a burden - which would not be dependant on the size of said burden or use of a mechanical aid - is work.

However, in applauding your persuasions as to why you felt the Lord might have broken the LAW in Matthew 12 (and demonstrating the same with the verses you quoted), here's WHY I rather don't agree that He broke the Law.

The letter my dear, the letter. Not the intent. You refusal to see the difference stops you from understanding - or accepting - the truth of the matter and seeing the deeper meaning.

I'd like you to see that Jesus actually chose the Sabbath day to go "through the corn". But then, He also had Deut. 23:25 in mind when He chose that very day. Was "plucking the ears of corn to eat" on the Sabbath day considered a transgression (breaking) against the Law? I don't think so - for the following reasons:

Re your quote above, you seem to claiming to know exactly what was going through the Lords mind - party to the divine plan - at the time? Funny, the Lord never mentioned that scripture in response to the Pharisees charge? He spoke about sacrifice and mercy, the very same concept of letter and intent, word and requirement that I have been trying to outline.

(a) the Law clearly stipulated that plucking the ears with the hand and eating it in the field
   was quite a different thing from moving a sickle to the standing corn (Deut. 23:25).

   (b) it would be WORK to harvest with a sickle, take the harvested corn home, and then to
   prepare it for a MEAL - as you quoted in Exo. 16:23.

   (c) that the Lord Jesus chose the Sabbath day to go to the field does not contravene the
   stipulation of Exo. 16:25 ("let no man go out of his place on the seventh day". WHY? For
   the simple reason that people moved about on the Sabbath day, because it was required of
   them to do so by the same LAW - ("And on the seventh day ye shall have an holy convocation;
   ye shall do no servile work. " - Num. 28:25)

   (d) that they did not transgress the Law is obvious because they did nothing forbidden by
   the Law - such as:
      * to kindle any fire (Exo. 35:3)
      * to bear any burden (Jer. 17:22)

In turn;

a.
The poor and needy were by this stipulation allowed to "glean" in the fields of their wealthier neighbours. Imagine if they were permitted to go in with harvesting implements and containers, and then cart the produce away? Would that not be a travesty. that stipulation was about alms. Being limited to plucking manually and eating while in situ, meant the provision for alms was not abused and in any event it was not a provision that overrode the sabbath stipulations.

b.
Wrong as above. It was considered work on the sabbath if any activity was carried out to prepare - be that harvest in the field, transport to the home or cook - on the sabbath day.

c.
Exodus 16:25 and beyond disproves your claim. It clearly shows that the act of "gathering" - by whatever means manual or mechanical - was considered work.

27 Now it happened that some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather, but they found none. 28 And the Lord said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29 See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

d.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What was forbidden by law was work. Gathering, plucking, collecting, whatever, were all considered work. You have to refuse to see that or your position falls apart. Kindly accept gracefully.

Now it is interesting that Num. 28:25 clearly qualifies the type of work theyr were forbidden to engage in - "SERVILE work". Unless anyone has a reason to assume that plucking corn with the hands was the same thing as harvesting with a sickle, there is no reason to assume that the Lord and the disciples "BROKE" (transgressed) the Law. To allege that He "broke" the Law, one might have to explain HOW that affirms that He fulfilled the same LAW that He broke (Matt. 5:17).

How does this read? You say "servile work" was forbidden, without actually saying what servile work is. You then state a tautology about manual work with or without implements being different, so?

You go on to say He fulfilled law. As previously requested, please explain what you understand by the term fulfil, and how was the law fulfilled by the Lord?

If there's something I might have inadvertently overlooked, I'd be glad to consider it.

Overlooking is not the issue here, it's honest interpretation.

God bless
TV

Hi TV01,

Your persuasions again appreciated - and a few things that should be carefully considered.

TV01:

I am somewhat mystified why you would quote Deuteronomy 23:25, as that is in no way - specifically, generally or in context - impinging on the law relating to the sabbath.

What I offered by actually quoting Deuteronomy 23:25 was precisely what the Lord had in mind for Him to have chosen to go out to the cornfield on the Sabbath day. The reason He did that was to demonstrate the very same point that they had been overlooking the LAW in its proper contexts and as applied in ALL aspects, and not in partial considerations.

Let me remind you again of yet another instance where the Lord Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy in that same Matthew 12. Again I'll quote it:

Matt. 12:11
'And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep,
and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?'

Just pause and think for a moment what verse in the OT Law would have crossed their mind as the Lord reminded them of the very same thing which they allowed? Here, if I was a Jew, this is the verse that would cross my mind that the Lord was pointing to:

Deut. 22:1 & 4
'Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them:
thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother. . .Thou shalt not see thy brother's
or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to
lift them up again.'

Now, suppose one of their ox or sheep "shall fall" into a pit on the same sabbath day, would they have ignored the stipulations in Dueteronomy 22:1-4 because it happened on "the sabbath day"? That was precisely what the Lord Jesus pointed out to them as being partial in the Law (remember Mal. 2:9?).

There was only one reason why the Pharisees had watched every single move the Lord made especially on the sabbath days - "that they might accuse Him" (Matt. 12:10)! These gentlemen already had an agenda, and it was clear that they were not interested at all in what the Law said, but rather to use the same Law to accuse Jesus!

However, they fell for their own games when the Lord deliberately chose the sabbath day to go out to the cornfields - being carefuly to keep within the stipulations of the same Law when He did so - and the ensuing event shows how He caught them in their hypocritc interpretations of the Law.

The other issues to follow.

TV01,

TV01:

I must also say here that you are implying that the Pharisees were "incorrect" in their charge that the disciples of Christ were acting unlawfully by plucking (which is to harvest, to work) grains of corn on the sabbath day.

Precisely so, I affirm that the Pharisees were "incorrect" in their allegation against the Lord and His disciples. I've earlier distinguished the fact that they (i.e., the Lord and His disciples) were NOT acting "un[/b]lawfully" - because there's nothing to indicate in [b]Matthew 12 that they transgress Deut. 23:25.

In the first instance, the Lord would not encourage them to "BREAK" (transgress) the Law, else that would constitute them as transgressors; as well openly deny that Jesus was sinless - for He "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). Infact, He openly challenged them at one time:

John 8:46
'Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?'

If anyone was sure among the same interpreters of the Law that He had broken (trangressed) the Law, why then could they not show it when He openly challenged them?

No, the Pharisees got it wrong - and they had tried to use their ulterior motive to ensnare Jesus and His disciples. Rather than shy away from them, He boldly chose to go to the field on the sabbath day and demonstrate how they were being partial and hypocritical in their use of the Law.

TV01:

The Deuternomical stipulation is one of nieghbourly kindliness - alms even - as was demonstrated by Ruth gleaning in Boaz fields, and in no way overrides the "no work" on a sabbath rule.

This doesn't really make any sense to me - because Deuteronomy is simply a re-iteration of the Law which already was given! All the laws of kindess, love, alms, etc were already given - and they were only re-iterated (emphasized by repetition) in Deuteronomy.

For instance, (a) the Decalogue (aka Ten Commandments) were already given in Exodus 20 - and then reiterated in Deuteronomy 5; (b) the commandments for Tithes were already given in Leviticus 27 and Numbers 18, but again reiterated in Deuteronomy 12, 14 and 26.

Now, isn't it interesting that the Law that mentioned the sabbath in Exodus 20 also reiterated the same Law of the sabbath in Deuteronomy 5? Have a look:

Exodus 20:8-10
'Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle,
nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed
the sabbath day, and hallowed it.'

Deuteronomy 5:12-14
'Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.  - - >> **
Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath
of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor
any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and
thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.'

** _{('as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee' - because it was already given in Exodus 20.)}

Of course Deuteronomy was also concerned with the sabbath Law - and care was taken to understand it and applay it. This was the point that the Pharisees missed (or were hypocritically neglecting), and in their ulterior motives were seeking to ensnare Christ and His disciples.

More to come.

TV01,

TV01:

Further work is not defined by the use of an implement. Carrying a burden - which would not be dependant on the size of said burden or use of a mechanical aid - is work.

Indeed, "carrying a burden. . is work" - and we find a warning to "bear no burden on the sabbath day" in Jer. 17:22. But we should note again that there's nothing to indicate in Matthew 12 that the Lord or His disciples were "carrying a burden".

TV01:

However, in applauding your persuasions as to why you felt the Lord might have broken the LAW in Matthew 12 (and demonstrating the same with the verses you quoted), here's WHY I rather don't agree that He broke the Law.

The letter my dear, the letter. Not the intent. You refusal to see the difference stops you from understanding - or accepting - the truth of the matter and seeing the deeper meaning.

However that may be, I still await your explication to show that the Lord actually broke the Law or had acted "UN[/b]lawfully".

TV01:

Re your quote above, you seem to claiming to know exactly what was going through the Lords mind - party to the divine plan - at the time?

I don't make any special claims. If you have any verses to counter what I shared, we'd be delighted to read it.

TV01:

Funny, the Lord never mentioned that scripture in response to the Pharisees charge?

He did not mention that Scripture ([b]Deut. 23:25) in response, and there's no doubt that His deliberately choosing to go to the cornfield on the sabbath day meant that He was quite aware what that scripture said.

TV01:

He spoke about sacrifice and mercy, the very same concept of letter and intent, word and requirement that I have been trying to outline.

Here I'd like you to always keep the following in mind:

(a) the issues of "sacrifice" and "mercy" were also mentioned in "the Law and the prophets". Earlier than that, the Lord had already cautioned them about the same "mercy" in Matthew 9:13 ("But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice". However, because they were more interested in "accusing" Him (Matt. 12:10), they had sought to use their own partial adherence to the Law to ensnare Him and His disciples.

(b) what is the use of talking about "letter" and "intent" when you have not been able to explicate those terms clearly enough? Is it not clear that the case of the Lord choosing to go to the cornfield on the sabbath was a question that hinges on what was "written"? Now, what indeed was written in the Law concerning those that went out to the field on the sabbath?

(c) how can you maintain two very OPPOSITE things and claim that they are the same? I still would like you to clearly and simply come to terms with your allegation that the Lord "BROKE" the Law, while trying to justify the opposite thing that He fulfilled the same Law that you claim He supposedly broke!

TV01:

In turn;

a.
The poor and needy were by this stipulation allowed to "glean" in the fields of their wealthier neighbours. Imagine if they were permitted to go in with harvesting implements and containers, and then cart the produce away? Would that not be a travesty. that stipulation was about alms. Being limited to plucking manually and eating while in situ, meant the provision for alms was not abused and in any event it was not a provision that overrode the sabbath stipulations.

There! From what you have just admitted, what then was the basis of your using Matthew 12 to allege that the Lord and His disciples were BREAKING the Law? If reading Deuteronomy 23:25 shows clearly that was what happened in Matthew 12 - and you can admit that plucking manually and eating while in situ was not a provision that overrode the sabbath stipulations, how then could you use the same thing to accuse the Lord and the disciples of acting "[b]un[/b]lawfully"?

TV01,

TV01:

b.
Wrong as above. It was considered work on the sabbath if any activity was carried out to prepare - be that harvest in the field, transport to the home or cook - on the sabbath day.

But then, there's nothing in Matthew 12 to indicate that they used the sickle in harvesting, nor that transported the corn to their homes, nor even that they cooked or kindled any fires on the sabbath day.

TV01:

c.
Exodus 16:25 and beyond disproves your claim. It clearly shows that the act of "gathering" - by whatever means manual or mechanical - was considered work.

27 Now it happened that some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather, but they found none. 28 And the Lord said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29 See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

How would they have been controverting Exodus 16:25 when the Law clearly stipulated that they did not engage in SERVILE work according to Numbers 28:25?

Besides, were the disciples said to have been "gathering" in Matthew 12? Did you earlier try to equate "plucking manually and eating while in situ" as being the same thing as to "go in with harvesting implements and containers, and then cart the produce away"?? On what basis then would you be applying "harvesting with the sickle" to the case of plucking with the hands in Matthew 12, whereas they are not treated as being the same thing in Deut. 23:25?

TV01:

d.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What was forbidden by law was work. Gathering, plucking, collecting, whatever, were all considered work. You have to refuse to see that or your position falls apart. Kindly accept gracefully.

Please reconsider what the Law said, and not what anyone was "considering" as work. The Law clearly qualified the type of work that should not be done on the sabbath - and that was SERVILE work (Num. 28:25)! We would have to consider all issues according as we find them clearly enunciated in the Law, instead of accepting "gracefully" even though the Pharisees were wrong!

Please TV01, I just want to learn this of you: is there a difference between mere "work" and "SERVILE work"?

TV01:

How does this read? You say "servile work" was forbidden, without actually saying what servile work is. You then state a tautology about manual work with or without implements being different, so?

If you want me to point out the various things that connote what SERVILE work was, then I ask you to please again consider carefully that these things have already been outlined earlier:

[list]
[li]to kindle any fire (Exo. 35:3 - "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day."[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]to bear any burden (Jer. 17:21 - "Thus saith the LORD; Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem"[/li]
[/list]

Now when you come to Numbers 28:25, you can verify for yourself that it clearly qualifies the type of work that they were to refrain from - SERVILE work. Plucking grains with hands to eat "in situ" was not considered servile work as would be if they had used the sickle to the corn - and the distinction was made in Deuteronomy 23:25.

TV01:

You go on to say He fulfilled law. As previously requested, please explain what you understand by the term fulfil, and how was the law fulfilled by the Lord?

I trust we shall have occasion to do so at the proper time. Suffice to say that the Lord Himself declared His fulfilling ALL things written in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Him (Luke 24:44); and Scripture bears testimony that He was without sin at any point (Heb. 4:15).

At the present, I'd like us to address the current issue about your allegation that the Lord broke the Law. You cannot be claiming two very opposite things and making them the same.

Breaking the Law is not the same thing as Fulfilling that same Law; for if at any point He broke the Law, that would mean that He transgressed the Law - and you would not then be speaking of a Saviour without sin!

TV01, let me ask you these two questions:

  (a) do you acknowledge that 'breaking' the Law constitutes the very same thing as 'transgressing' the Law?

  (b) do you then acknowledge that the Lord NEVER broke the Law since Scripture testifies He was without sin?

TV01:

Overlooking is not the issue here, it's honest interpretation.

I've done my bit to present an honest interpretation - all things considered.

Cheers.

bigfred:

@pilgrim.1
Bravo! Bravo!
nice one,
iam impressed,
but would they listen?
well sha, the truth is bitter
but continue!
God is with you.

Thanks for your warm encouragements. I'll do my humble best to continue in presenting what little I've learnt from His WORD. Blessings.

Good morning Pilgrim.1,

Appreciate your posts. As ever in response I shall try and be as brief as possible and posit scripturally based points as I understand them.

I could choose to drag this out point by point, but I suppose it will be more beneficial all round if I cut to the chase.

Please reconsider what the Law said, and not what anyone was "considering" as work. The Law clearly qualified the type of work that should not be done on the sabbath - and that was SERVILE work (Num. 28:25)! We would have to consider all issues according as we find them clearly enunciated in the Law, instead of accepting "gracefully" even though the Pharisees were wrong!

Please TV01, I just want to learn this of you: is there a difference between mere "work" and "SERVILE work"?

I asked you this very question in a previous post, as you used it without defining it. No problems, I will show from your posts and from scripture that a definition serves no purpose, unless one insissts on reading something into it that is not there and serves only to muddle things. And I'm sure that's not your intention.

At the present, I'd like us to address the current issue about your allegation that the Lord broke the Law. You cannot be claiming two very opposite things and making them the same.

Breaking the Law is not the same thing as Fulfilling that same Law; for if at any point He broke the Law, that would mean that He transgressed the Law - and you would not then be speaking of a Saviour without sin!

TV01, let me ask you these two questions:

(a) do you acknowledge that 'breaking' the Law constitutes the very same thing as 'transgressing' the Law?

(b) do you then acknowledge that the Lord NEVER broke the Law since Scripture testifies He was without sin?

Again, I will answer your questions - even though mine were not - and still proceed to show why your position is wrong.

a.
Yes, breaking = transgressing.

b.
I acknowledge that The Lord never broke the law.

Pilgrim.1, you stated this;

pilgrim.1:

Indeed, "carrying a burden. . is work" - and we find a warning to "bear no burden on the sabbath day" in Jer. 17:22. But we should note again that there's nothing to indicate in Matthew 12 that the Lord or His disciples were "carrying a burden".

And subsequently asked this

pilgrim.1:

However that may be, I still await your explication to show that the Lord actually broke the Law or had acted "UNlawfully".

Scripture shows this;

John 5:5 Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, "Do you want to be made well?" 7 The sick man answered Him, "Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down before me." 8 Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your bed and walk." 9 And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked. And that day was the Sabbath. 10 The Jews therefore said to him who was cured, "It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed." 11 He answered them, "He who made me well said to me, 'Take up your bed and walk.'" 12 Then they asked him, "Who is the Man who said to you, 'Take up your bed and walk'?" 13 But the one who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, a multitude being in that place. 14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you." 15 The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." 18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

The Lord acted as follows;

1. Healed a man on the sabbath
2. Told a man to carry his bed - bear a burden - on the sabbath day
3.Declared His healing as "work"
4. Made Himself equal with God

I'm sure point 4 is a moot point for us, and for this discussion, as we both acknowledge His Deity. But on points 1 and 2, the law was clearly broken. And on point 2, broken as you yourself have clearly stated.

For those who understand the difference between the "letter" and the "righteous requirement", there is no issue or contradiction here.

You have insisted that there is no such dichotomy, so whtever appraoch you take - and as long as it's honest - you cannot fail to see that the "Pharisees" rightly declared the law to have been broken.

Your insistance that to keep one means having to keep the other and to void one means to void the other, leaves you with the conundrum of having to accept that the The Lord broke the law, whilst at once claimin that He was a sinless saviour. Or deny what scripture clearly states and introduce yet another dance to the mix. I hear no music.

I would rather leave it there, but one more point before I conclude

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Pilgrim.1,

1. How can those without law - who do not know it or have never had it delivered to them - be righteously judged and condenmed by it?

2. Likewise, How do those whithout the law - who do not know it or have never had it delivered to them - do the things in the law and righteously fulfil it?

God bless
TV

TV01,

I understand your difficulty; but at the same I'm glad you're gradually coming round to see your contradictions even more. All the same, I'll try in my busy schedule to demonstrate WHERE the inconsistencies in yours occur repeatedly; and then go on to address your recent concerns in more detail - especially as regards John 5 (I'd hoped you would refer to that at some point). 


The Inconsistencies in Yours.

(1) I'd asked that you reconcile the two very opposite ideas of breaking the Law and fulfilling the same - since they're not the same things. You'd just have to take one, for you cannot maintain two opposite things and assume to make them equal.

Now, I happily acknowledge that you've offered that the Lord did NOT break the Law. Be that as it may, you yet immediately contradicted that position by insisting that He broke the Law - which is your persuasion and understanding of John 5! Let me quote the relevant sections in yours:

A.

TV01:

a.
Yes, breaking = transgressing.

b.
I acknowledge that The Lord never broke the law.

B.

TV01:

The Lord acted as follows;

1. Healed a man on the sabbath
2. Told a man to carry his bed - bear a burden - on the sabbath day

. . .But on points 1 and 2, the law was clearly broken. And on point 2, broken as you yourself have clearly stated.

I think it is obvious that you're denying the very same thing that you claim to acknowledge. On the one hand, you that the Lord NEVER broke the Law; then following that, you assert that the Law was clearly BROKEN!

The question now is if you actually have a consistent position at all; or you're simply not interested in finding out the real issues for yourself?

I'll pause here in between my busy schedules to let you have time enough to clearly state a consistent position - and DEFEND it from Scripture. If you believe that the Lord BROKE the Law, you cannot then maintain an opposite proposition that He NEVER broke the Law.

Please let me know where you stand. I'll still be online for a while, and when I'm less busy, will walk you through the issues you're missing.

Meanwhile. . .

TV01:

I will answer your questions - even though mine were not

. . could you let me know which of your questions were not addressed in mine?

Cheers.

Hi Pilgrim.1,

My position is clear and has been repeated often enough.

The law is fulfilled at the intent level, not necessarily by slavish adherence to the letter.

As the Lord always fulfilled the intent, adherence to the letter is of no import.

If you want out, please say so. In fact you don't even have to say, just stop posting. There is absolutely no need to pretend you don't know my position or feign ignorance of my particular perspective.

If I say "The Lord broke the law" it can mean only one of two things within the confines of this discussion.

1. based on my stance ~ the letter or the intent.
2. based on yours, which makes no such distinction ~ the totality.

I post on that basis, and clearly outlined this in my last post. Read it as such and if you still don't understand, be sure to ask.

The weathered ploy of claiming "contradiction" is not in the spirit of this discussion my dear, although in letter terms you frequently resort to it as a delaying tactic . The end is nigh!

And please, focus on the questions in my last post. Thanks.

This particular dance is niether new nor appealing. Try another one.

God bless
TV

_{Pele 0 about your "busy schedule", se you'll find time before Xmas ?}

TV01,

TV01:

If you want out, please say so. In fact you don't even have to say, just stop posting. There is absolutely no need to pretend you don't know my position or feign ignorance of my particular perspective.

If that is just another way of saying you want out, please say so - and don't assume that by such you'd hope to see me off.

The point is simple: you repeatedly have continued to hold TWO OPPOSITE claims which up until now you have failed to simply defend from Scripture.

1. The Lord NEVER broke the Law

2. The Lord BROKE the Law

Who do you hope to wayo with such voodoo?

Talk straight and be honest. Don't pretend that wrapping this thing under such bogus incosistencies you hope to beg pilgrim.1 to stop posting.

Let me know what you're defending - either (1) He broke the Law; or (2) He never did.

Whichever you choose, please defend it simply by demonstrating from Scripture. If you don't want to - you can simply take a leave and bow out graciously.

Cheers.

TV01,

TV01:

And please, focus on the questions in my last post. Thanks.

I've asked that you state them, if I inadvertently missed them. This silly attitude of wailing and screaming when you continue to post tomes of incosistencies is hardly accentuating anything honest in you. How many times did I ask that you addressed my questions and you never obliged the requests?

If you're going to discuss, do so. If not, please don't try the usual caterwauls to litter this thread.

Regards.

@Pilgrim.1

You dey here dey query people.I am curious as to your sudden loss of interest in backing up the astonishing claims you made in the other thread.