₦airaland Forum

I say amen to that and join with all who have cried to the Father for Bisi's speedy recovery in Jesus' name. God bless.

Present sir and thank you for enquiring  .

God bless
TV

^{so that you know it's me - find Bro' Donnie on any Pastor Chris,Christ-Embassy related thread !}

As promised;

Original question;

The Bible says the only time a christian should divorce is if there is adultery, what if there is physical abuse?

First answer;

then get a divorce. I don't think the bible admonishes you to remain in a marriage where your life is in danger.

My take;
Ok, lets for discussions sake assume it's actualy life threatening extreme physical abuse? Do we head straight for divorce? No counselling, support network intervention or other mediation? No thought of healing and reconcilliation?

Are we equally assuming day broke and extreme physical violence sprung with it? no precursor warning or other reasons? Are we assuming this was a Godly union to start with? And if not, why look to scripture to end it, and at the same time give God a bad name? Why not look to the worldview or mindset on which the union was predicated - then again you probably did hence divorce! If you look to scripture and to God, why not at least consider healing?

A comment;

It seems that we have narrowed what the Bible actually teaches. Adultery is not the ONLY time (or reason for) a Christian divorcing. 1 Corinthians 7 details the various issues involved in divorce questions as well. What about the question of beliefs - "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not" (as in v. 12)? There are cases when people have been divorced on grounds of whether they had different worldviews - and verse 12 (in my opinion, at least) suggests that sometimes these disagreements may be so heated as to involved physical abuses.

In such cases, is it then Biblical to be separated? The answer is given in verse 15 - "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

Just my thoughts.

My thoughts;
Firstly, where does the bible suggest or even hint at a Christian instituted divorce for any other reason than adultery?
Secondly, in that it suggests seperation, does it necessarily imply divorce? and does divorce presume remarriage?
Thirdly, I would think that precisely what the bible does is discounts "worldview differences" as a reason for divorce.

A comment;

Not everything is written in black and white in the bible, you shld be able to let the Holy spirit guide you to taking the right decision.
Even though the bible doesnt say the believing party can leave a marriage, i believe strongly that also applies. What if the unbelieving party were a member of a secret cult? Would you sit there because the bible didnt give you express permission to leave?

My thoughts;
Maybe the bible is not always black and white, but it tends to give a unified whole if properly studied - Please be led 0! (easier said than done I know)
On what basis would you "strongly believe" something the bible doesn't say, suggest or even hint at. Especially when the bible is pretty clear on what it does say? What if they were a member of a secret cult. When did membership commence? before, during. I believe my earlier point about foundations in marriage apply and also trusting in the love and power of God. Why is divorce a starting point or a solution for one who practices Xtianity, trusts God and/or is Spirit led? Leaving is not synonymous with divorcing! Please!!


A comment;

(a) In John 8, Christ forgave the woman caught in the very act; and when He said that she should go and sin no more, I suppose that it did not mean that the woman in question was to remain unmarried.

My thoughts;
What it meant, was she was to go away and sin no more! If she was married and her husband forgave her, fine. If he decided to divorce her, he has no sin. Under the law, anyone seeking her hand in marriage would have been committing adultery. Under grace, I would at best posit that if she were in a position to remarry - all things being new - that would be with the full understanding of what marriage entails.

A comment;

(b) what about the woman in John 4? She had had 5 husbands and the man she was with was not her husband (v. 18). What would she do - divorce and remain unmarried - or remarry?

My thoughts;
Firstly it is hard for us to know the exact detail of her situation. If "the one she was with" was someone elses husband, should he not return to his wife? Would you advise she kept and married him in that situation? Again, under grace, I would posit a best position. She was from that point saved - all things become new - thats not to say it is suddenly clear cut. If all her previous 5 husbands had remarried and had strong unions, could she be forced to go back to any of them? If there was someone free to marry her under grace and she was in a position to, would I decry it? Probably not, but with the caveat as previous.

A comment;

(b) If the divorce is irrecinciliable (especially if it was an unbeliever who walks away), then it seems (to me) that verse 15 does not hold a believer bound under such cases.

My thoughts;
A tricky one in truth. What if the unbeliever leaves a young spouse and remarries, or even remarries several times? What if there are offspring/step-families all over the place? What if the Christian abandoned is young and childless?

Thats why sound doctrine and scriptural understanding are great, but being Spirit led is in my opinion preferable. I would hasten to add that trust in God and/or the two should ensure a blessed union. Before and during.

God bless
TV

_{ps - My thoughts are just that, my thoughts. Based on my understanding, experience and revelation. Literal understanding and experience may differ, but true revelation will not - but could it be deeper? - as There is One Spirit. Hence my rider that everyone should seek God and seek to be led by the Spirit themselves. I still seek the demise of the MOGmyth.}

sheniqua:
My Lord!
Tv01 long time,we had a great time back in some other threads with my old name
welcome back

Hi Sheniqua, normally I would ask aka? to save myself the embarrassment, but I'll take a risk. Dru is that you?

4 Him:
If we only loved our spouses as Christ loved the church we wont even be discussing this issue in the first place. Divorce is usually not the first problem, it started long before.

A pertinent point methinks. Although I would say that contradicts with some of the points you made before. If that mindset is there bofore and during - by God's grace and tender mercies -  there will be no after!

Way too many - in my opinion anyway - erroneously discursive points such as "bad marriage", "abusive marriage", "valid reasons to leave". The relatonship was almost certainly bad or rocky before it was solemnised. Escape routes are then sought - twisting or re-interpreting scripture to fit - after the fact.

It would be way more honest if people seeking divorce were to point to error/sin before or when they got married. Does something perfect or merely good suddenly turn bad? Surely good would get better?  When it goes wrong after the fact, it's hypocritical and plain blasphemous when all of a sudden the marriage is bad or there are reasons to leave. Ergo the relationship was in all likelihood never good, or there were not sufficient reason or proof to tie the knot in the first place.

The bible doesnt espouse divorce - pun intended - for any reason. What it espouses is biblically based (or even better Spirit-led) wedded union.
In reading left to right - yes I know some scripts do - nonsense can be made of the divine beauty and order of scripture.
Starting a discussion about proper Christian marriage from the perspective of divorce can lead astray!

I take issue with some earlier comments. I'll try and attend to those next time permitting.

God bless
TV

eezzy:
but I believe the best thing to do is just pray and allow the Spirit of God to give you guidance.

I agree, although I doubt that anything contradictory to scripture will come forth. But I do know that sometimes a mere literal interpretation or academic understanding can be way off the mark.

eezzy:
Scriptures can be translated in many ways and many times we translate them to suit

Again true. Even an honest approach without illumination can be wrong. But an interpretation by one in a "bad marriage" is hardly likely to be right.

eezzy:
The scripture in 1st corinthians says if the unbeliever leaves, then the believing partner
is not bound - suggesting (only in my opinion) freedom from the law of marriage, whereby the law says
you can only remarry after death of a spouse.

Pause for thought here. This is one area I wonder about. Ideally a true practising - let alone living Christian - should not marry outside the faith. But what if it was prior to conversion? or if one partner falls away? What if he or she moves on too remarry? even a number of times? So in truth, some case may not be open and shut doctrinally - and hopefully all Xtians should seek guidance and ideally be Spirit led, before and during. Some scenarios would be unthinkable, let alone unbearable. Even living by scripture alone, I think the starting point should always be "ideal".

eezzy:
This scripture is used in most churches to stop mostly ladies
from moving away sometimes from very bad marriages. Yet in my opinion, God hates Divorce
but loves the divorcee becuase divorced or not you are still His child and he does not despise you
just because you left an abusive marriage.

I question some of the thinking here. Particularly the "most churches" and "mostly ladies" bits. Generalisations at best.

I abhor and decry physical violence - especially men against the weaker vessels and I have seen it live - but it cuts both ways.
Abuse is relative and difficult to define in some cases. Women wage war differently and I had my eyes opened to provocation and goading in another real life case. Abuse was her aim as it meant the law sided with her and she agitated and when the abuse didn't happen, she made it up. Please don't let's generalise.

In a marriage - entered into with a sacrificial love mindset - of true professing Xtians, who would enter planning abuse of any sort? And if it came, it would be a challenge and time of dependance on the Lord. Again I acknowledge difficult scenarios.

Some people think a limited budget is abuse. I know of people who leave for multitude of reasons but dress it up abuse. I don't think saying God loves the divorcee but hates divorce quite cuts it. There is to much of a sense of selfish desire behind a lot of cases.

Pray tell, what is a "bad marriage" who defines that? I shudder at that. There will be trying times, challenges. If you are committed to it you persevere and endure. What of barreness? Impotency? or all the others possible - Lord have mercy - scenarios. A "bad marriage" has many perspectives. A good one is one built on sound Christian principles, practice, but ultimately faith in and dependance on The Lord.

Think deeply, you marry and there are trying times, so you leave, not temporary seperation whilst seeking healing, but divorce. Who did you trust to start with? Who are you trusting through it. Does the love and power of God only kick in after divorce?

To often it's about what we want our own desires our own image. God did not instutute a bad institution and He can certainly fix "bad marriages".

Thanks for sharing.

God bless
TV

It depends what you refer to, or who you ask!

Welcome back Syrup, it's a pleasure to read your reasoned discourse. Even more so seeing as there's a distinct lack of it on this thread nowadays.

This discussion has progressed somewhat so I'll share my thoughts in bullet point. I stand to be challenged of course, it's been a while.

1. Christian marriage is for life
2. Divorce is only permissable - not obligatory - where there is adultery
3. Divorce for adultery is never better than 2nd best, mercy triumphs over judgement
4. Divorce means that one refuses to forgive and or/one refuses to repent. Condemning both to singlehood.
5. To marry a divorcee is not allowed, its a sin
6. Remarriage is permissable only in the event of death. "Till death do us part"
7. Seperation is a burden that may have to be carried. Hopefully as a possible precursor to reconcilliation.

Why does it always have to be extreme "life in danger abuse" used to justify man made avenues for divorce? Biblically that is at best grounds for seperation. Knowing you cannot willfully divorce and remarry should lead you to bring all of your might into seeking healing and effecting reconcilliation. Hopefully this aligns with my points above.

Either you shouldn't or you can't.

God bless
TV

ps ~ to answer the question posed, NO!

Hiya,

KAG:
"the idea is"

Or you could say "The as yet unproven fact is", or "the belief without supporting evidence is" = "Faith"

KAG:
In any case, as far as I can tell, the problem isn't so much causing life to arise from non-life

Please re-read the links you posted. It was clearly stated as hypothetical. I post excerpts;

Microspheres
Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—the first step on the road to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history.

Further work revealed that these amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called microspheres. Fox has gone so far as to describe these formations as protocells, protein spheres that could grow and reproduce. They might be an important intermediate step in the origin of life. Microspheres might have served as a stepping stone between simple organic compounds and genuine living cells.

Microsphere
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Microspheres)• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Glass microsphere.
This article largely refers to microspheres or protein protocells as small spherical units postulated by some scientists as a key stage in the origin of life. The term microsphere is otherwise widely being used in various areas, such as, materials and pharmaceutical sciences, for spherical particles composed of various natural and synthetic materials with diameters in the micrometer range.

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that many simple biomolecules could be formed spontaneously from inorganic precursor compounds under laboratory conditions designed to mimic those found on Earth before the evolution of life. Of particular interest was the substantial yield of amino acids obtained, since amino acids are the building blocks for proteins.

In 1957, Sidney Fox demonstrated that dry mixtures of amino acids could be encouraged to polymerize upon exposure to moderate heat. When the resulting polypeptides, or proteinoids, were dissolved in hot water and the solution allowed to cool, they formed small spherical shells about 2 μm in diameter—microspheres. Under appropriate conditions, microspheres will bud new spheres at their surfaces.

Although roughly cellular in appearance, microspheres in and of themselves are not alive. Although they do reproduce asexually by budding, they do not pass on any type of genetic material. However they may have been important in the development of life, providing a membrane-enclosed volume which is similar to that of a cell. Microspheres, like cells, can grow and contain a double membrane which undergoes diffusion of materials and osmosis. Sidney Fox postulated that as these microspeheres became more complex they would carry on more lifelike functions. They would become heterotrophs, organisms with the ability to absorb nutrients from the environment for energy and growth. As the amount of nutrients in the environment decreased, competition for those precious resources increased. Heterotrophs with more complex biochemical reactions would have an advantage in this competition. Over time organisms would evolve that used photosynthesis to produce energy.

KAG:
one finds that life can come from non-life.

Au contraire! It gave rise to more of it's kind. Organic non-life I would call it. Please excuse my terminology, I'm no scientist.

KAG:
The thing is, though, it isn't specific enough to the conception of RNA and DNA, etc.

Which makes absolute sense. As it's not life it need'nt be specific. It can't concieve and needs no genetic material to pass on.

Biogenesis I believe is the scientific term. Or "after/according to it's kind" as the "The Uncreated Creator" says (and did)

Excerpts from Genesis 1.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

God bless
TV

KAG:
"Non-living" things, after a long process, became living.

- Kindly document and/or replicate.

KAG:
First, no faith is necessarily required.

- If you cannot replicate as requested above, then obviously it is.

How you doing bro? Been a real long time indeed. I remember the groundnut you requested I bring for you when coming down. Thats a long time ago now.

I'm well bro'. Thank you very much for asking. I stop by most days. Just don't post very much anymore. I still like peanuts tho' .

God bless
TV

It's been a while and I probably should'nt. But here goes. It's not an endorsement, direction or doctrine. Apologies if it's been posted previously. Greetings and love to all. God bless .TV.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uszqc3E7SvQ&feature=related

~Dupe~

Hi Dru,

Loooooooooooongest time. Good to see you are still in fine fettle.

May Jehovah bless you

TV

Greetings all,

Hope everyone's well.

I thought this discussion started off quite well.
But it very quickly detoured down a cul-de-sac about salvation by law or grace? And some other not so relevent side roads.

I don't think anyone of the discussants are unclear about salvation by grace and subsequent works of faith.

As ever I hate to make it about people, so may I suggest that contributors talk around what they think are the hallmarks of a true believer/disciple of Christ - at whatever level of walk/sevice/circumstance - and indeed traits/action/conduct/behaviour that run contrary to such a profession.

We have our Lord and Master as template, as well as the biblical record of the lives and responses of many early saints.

It may also help to define or at least understand what individuals mean by or consider to be a false prophet. For example, I could say my view is that anyone that has not personally encountered the risen Lord, subsequently entered into onging communion with Him and been specif ically instructed to speak is false, regardless of whether or not what is spoken is true.

It could be by levels. So for example if I had a poor understanding of law/works/grace salvation by dint of my being a baby in Christ, but did not presume to teach or lead and still earnestly sought Gods truth, that would be viewed accordingly. However if I pesumed to lead a large number of those who claimed - or indeed truly sought after God in Christ Jesus - and taught such as gospel truth, would that not be a different case?

Trying to judge or even appraise the motives or actions of individuals could be difficult and is usually charged. Said person could have changed, thier stance on a particular point could have changed. In both instances for good or bad, better or worse. Oft times we judge with the seeing of the eye, or our judgment may be clouded by association, again good r bad. Please stick with the One who changeth not.

It's good to see you are all well and in truth it was an excuse to drop in and say hi to many I have a deep affection for and think fondly of. Hi guys.

For those who seek him with an unyieling fervour, you have no need of any mediator.

I pray that The Lord Himself with stoke that yearning for Him. For those that truly love Him, may your love never grow cold.

Nothing but love.

TV

Hi Analytical,

How are you? I trust all's well. Good to hear you are still with us. Is it me or has the religion thread deteriorated somewhat.

I do stop by most days, but for the main refrain from posting, partly due to the reason I stated above, but mostly for the reason I stated prior (I think it was in the "The young man wearing the Linen cloth" thread).

To be honest, I'd love to share. I actually wanted to post something advising when I got to that point - I honestly think of a lot of the posters here as brethren and our discourse as fellowship - but that would have been initiating something and then lapsing into silence. Anyway, another lengthy doctrinal discussion was the last thing I wanted.

I really want to lay hold of what I believe the truth of the gospel is, and then talk it as one living it experientially and not merely spouting doctrine.

I must say, I have had some paradigm shifts in what most of the "crew" would probably consider orthodoxy, but it would be hard to focus on my walk and take the time to discuss all the different elements. So for now I press on and when there's anything to report - and if I am given leave - I'll certainly be back.

I'll leave you with this;

Luke 6:40 - A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.

Who are we striving to be like? who's the teacher?? and when are we "perefectly" trained??

God bless
TV

^{ps: apologies for somewhat diverting the thread  .}

You said it all yourself sir.

Businesses advertise their products. Commerce implies an exchange (there'll be money changing hands somewhere! )

It shall be well with the righteous.

Could the people who believe that God did not create the "white man" and those that believe that the white man "created God" please put heads together and discuss. Not that this thread isn't wierd enough as it is .

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1643011#msg1643011 date=1194011343]1 Timothy 1:8

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.[/quote]1 Timothy 1:9 ~ knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person

I begin to grasp that as "bodily exercise is to godliness", so is doctrinal/theological excellence to knowing The Lord.

Discussions around the law, whilst not without merit, are far from where we need to be.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1643002#msg1643002 date=1194011217]The going's been good all the same. How's yours coming on?[/quote]Fine thanks.

Truth is, I've had something of a paradigm shift - although not overnight - in my comprehension of the gospel and hence in my walk of faith. It's profoundly affected the way I view and understand scripture.

There something of the "Fear & Trembling" about me and my walk now.

How's you and yours?

God bless
TV

Hiya Pilgrim.1,

I'm well thank you very much for asking. Just taking leave from posting, although I've stopped by to "have a look" most days. I've followed your various discursive forays on the board. My, you have been busy . Hope you are not letting your zeal for theological learning interfere with your studies.

Take care Miss.

God bless
TV

Missing me Pilly ?

Ah, ah? How could you omit Reverends, Presbyters, Popes, GO's, Daddy' and Mummy' in the Lord, Prophetess to the Nations, Covering Apostles, Metropolitans, Regional co-ordinators, Conference heads, ad infinitum, ad nauseum!!!!

@Pilgrim.1,

There is absolutely no shame in realising and admitting your error. Please take it to the nth degree, I'm here.

Please demonstrate the decency and integrity whose absence you so decry in others and respond to my my post - #26 - of today.

Trying to ignore it, pretend to read contradiction in my statement and insinuate that I'm looking for a way out has become tediously characteristic of you.

You called me out, initiated the thread, set the tone and posed the questions. Went puce when at first I thought better of it and now that I've taken out the time and effort to clearly ouline my position - based on scripture & with the utmost decorum- and contrast it against your own, you immediately revert to type and try and make it a gutterfight.

You appoint yourself judge and jury and you still seek recourse to improvised technicalities. All your promises to "walk us through", "enlighten" and "educate". So tan? Is that it? A quick road block and excuses of being busy ?

So, post #26 please, if you are willing and able that is.

Thanks & God bless
TV

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 ?}

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;

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1448924#msg1448924 date=1188495723]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".[/quote]And subsequently asked this

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1448924#msg1448924 date=1188495723]However that may be, I still await your explication to show that the Lord actually broke the Law or had acted "UNlawfully".[/quote]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

@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 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