----- Original Message -----
Sent:
Thursday, 13 March, 2003 08:58
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Lord of the Sabbath
Izzy wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand your
question. Of course both
> of them are guilty of breaking the
10 commandments.
Are you sure? The law commands
that the Sabbath breaker be put to death by
stoning. Therefore, only the
Sabbath Breaker is guilty. The other guy
carried out the death sentence for
breaking the Sabbath.
David, You are
going to confuse me if you don�t differentiate between whether you are
talking about today (NT times) or OT times. I assumed you were talking about
today. Are these all going to be trick questions? J
Izzy wrote:
> Of course Bill did a worse thing
by injuring (not loving) another
> person while disobeying (not
loving) God. Fred just disobeyed
> (did not love)
God.
Can you explain your answer? Even
if you consider Bill a murderer, is that
worse than Sabbath breaking? Both
are capital offenses, so what would make
one worse than the other?
Wouldn't it be worse to sin against God rather
than sinning against your
neighbor?
I can�t explain why
God had certain rules and regs in the OT. Phillip Brown (if you read what I
mentioned to begin this conversation) explains it this way:
The law teaches us that sin brings death. But
men knew that all the way back to Adam. God wrote the law in
stone. God clearly defined sin. When we study the Old Testament
law, you can generally determine atonement from sin by looking at the
penalty. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). If the penalty
was death, it was sin. �The first use of the word is the penalty for
Adam eating the fruit. That's in Genesis 2:17, 3:3,4. By
studying all the verses that use this word, I was able to see a clear
distinction between acts of sin, and acts that bring atonement from
sin. Most of the acts of sins that bring death can be easily related
to one of the ten commandments.
Breaking any of the ten commandments, either
literally or in the heart, is sin. And the wages of sin is death
(Romans 6:23). On the other hand, there were many acts that you did so
that you didn't die. The wording was always clear. These were acts you
did for atonement of sin. In the King James, it's generally worded,
"that he die not." As Moses went into Egypt, after seeing the burning
bush, circumcision was done so that the Lord would not kill Moses (Exodus
4:24-26). The circumcision was done after the Lord had set out to kill
Moses, and the circumcision stopped the death of Moses. The sacrifices
and offerings were done for atonement. The lack of doing any of these
Old Testament ordinances, or regulations, never carried the death
penalty. They were always acts done specifically for atonement; to
avoid the death for sins that do carry the death penalty. That is why
they were abolished when Christ was crucified. Christ is now our
atonement, these older things were but shadows of Christ's
atonement.
All I know is that
in my heart I feel convicted if I don�t keep the Sabbath, whereas I don�t
feel convicted to keep the OT festivals and food rules. I don�t criticize
those who do, but I don�t think it is necessary.
Does this answer
your question? I�m not trying to be argumentative, just to answer you.
Izzy
