The sabbath day includes all the Torah, and all secrets spring from it. Whoever keeps the sabbath is accounted as one who keeps the whole Torah.

Exodus16:2829 When some Israelites gather manna on Shabbat, God asks, "How long will you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? See, theLORD has given you the Sabbath …."
Violation of Sabbath is treated as violation of the whole corpus.

Exodus31:1617 Israel must "keep the Sabbath … as a perpetual covenantsign."
A sign represents the entire agreement it seals.

Ezekiel20:12 God says, "I gave them My Sabbaths to be a sign … that I,theLORD, sanctify them."
Sabbath becomes the public badge of Israel's sanctified identity.

Isaiah56:2 Blessed is one "who keeps the Sabbath … and keeps his hand from any evil."
Guarding Sabbath stands in for comprehensive righteousness.

The people of God are commanded to hold God's Sabbath in awe, that is, God's people must hold God's sanctuary in awe. God's Sabbath is God's sanctuary. Leviticus 19:30. Isaiah teaches that God will become the Sanctuary Isaiah 8:14. Jacob saw the Angel ascending on a ladder and said, this is none other than the house of God and the gate of heaven. Genesis 28:12-17. This Angel saved Israel from their distress. Isaiah 63:9.

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

---

I don't think it is consistent for Stephen to condemn the leaders of the Sanhedrin while the leaders are clearly innocent. Clearly those who profane the Sabbath (as you say Christ) are innocent, therefore under that line of reasoning those who killed him are innocent. Certainly you would agree a temple that is destroyed, even momentarily is profaned?

I did not say the Sabbath has anything to do with doing anything n my post. As I stated, the Sabbath is clearly a person; to observe that person is to keep the whole Torah.

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

---

I don't think it is consistent for Stephen to condemn the leaders of the Sanhedrin while the leaders are clearly innocent. Clearly those who profane the Sabbath (as you say Christ) are innocent, therefore under that line of reasoning those who killed him are innocent. Certainly you would agree a temple that is destroyed, even momentarily is profaned?

I did not say the Sabbath has anything to do with doing anything n my post. As I stated, the Sabbath is clearly a person; to observe that person is to keep the whole Torah.

---

Agree with your last sentence. I do not see the connection between Matthew 12 5 and Acts verses.

The Matthew verse Jesus is talking about the priests doing work on the Sabbath. The Acts verse the priests are guilty of killing Stephen.

May be I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

I agree with the original post, but I don't think it's anyway unique to the Sabbath. The Torah is a set of instructions for how to love God and how to love your neighbor as appropriate for a Bronze Age agricultural society. Keeping any part of the Torah can demonstrate a willingness to love God and your neighbor, and breaking any part of the Torah can demonstrate a lack of willingness to the do same. In short, to keep any part of the Torah is to keep the entire Torah, and to break any part of the Torah is to break the whole Torah.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I agree with the original post, but I don't think it's anyway unique to the Sabbath. The Torah is a set of instructions for how to love God and how to love your neighbor as appropriate for a Bronze Age agricultural society. Keeping any part of the Torah can demonstrate a willingness to love God and your neighbor, and breaking any part of the Torah can demonstrate a lack of willingness to the do same. In short, to keep any part of the Torah is to keep the entire Torah, and to break any part of the Torah is to break the whole Torah.

---

The scriptures themselves teach that Torah is light. Proverbs 6:23.

For this commandment is a lamp, this teaching [url=https://biblehub.com/hebrew/216.htm][is] a light,[/url] and the reproofs of discipline are the way to life,

The word teaching is literally torah in the scriptures. Therefore, the Torah is a light. Light is not something you keep, it is something you observe, and without it, you cannot see. As Jesus said, in the torah on the Sabbath the priests profaned the Sabbath by slaughtering the lamb on the sabbath, which is seemingly both required and forbidden by the torah. The priests desacrated the sabbath and did work on the sabbath, yet they were innocent.

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

---

I don't think it is consistent for Stephen to condemn the leaders of the Sanhedrin while the leaders are clearly innocent. Clearly those who profane the Sabbath (as you say Christ) are innocent, therefore under that line of reasoning those who killed him are innocent. Certainly you would agree a temple that is destroyed, even momentarily is profaned?

I did not say the Sabbath has anything to do with doing anything n my post. As I stated, the Sabbath is clearly a person; to observe that person is to keep the whole Torah.

---

Agree with your last sentence. I do not see the connection between Matthew 12 5 and Acts verses.

The Matthew verse Jesus is talking about the priests doing work on the Sabbath. The Acts verse the priests are guilty of killing Stephen.

May be I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

---

As Jesus said in Matthew 12:4, in the torah on the Sabbath the priests profaned the Sabbath by slaughtering the lamb on the sabbath, which is seemingly both required and forbidden by the torah. The priests desacrated the sabbath and did work on the sabbath, yet they were innocent. You say Jesus is the Sabbath. The priests of the Sanhedrin desecrated the Sabbath by killing Jesus. Stephen accused the sanhedrin of desecrating the sabbath (killing God) and implicated the Sanhedrin is guilty. However, Jesus also said those who profane the sabbath are innocent. Therefore, the priests (sanhedrin) who profaned the sabbath (Jesus) are innocent. It just seems inconsistent to me that Stephen is implying the priests are guility when they in fact were apparently innocent.

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

---

I don't think it is consistent for Stephen to condemn the leaders of the Sanhedrin while the leaders are clearly innocent. Clearly those who profane the Sabbath (as you say Christ) are innocent, therefore under that line of reasoning those who killed him are innocent. Certainly you would agree a temple that is destroyed, even momentarily is profaned?

I did not say the Sabbath has anything to do with doing anything n my post. As I stated, the Sabbath is clearly a person; to observe that person is to keep the whole Torah.

---

Agree with your last sentence. I do not see the connection between Matthew 12 5 and Acts verses.

The Matthew verse Jesus is talking about the priests doing work on the Sabbath. The Acts verse the priests are guilty of killing Stephen.

May be I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

---

As Jesus said in Matthew 12:4, in the torah on the Sabbath the priests profaned the Sabbath by slaughtering the lamb on the sabbath, which is seemingly both required and forbidden by the torah. The priests desacrated the sabbath and did work on the sabbath, yet they were innocent. You say Jesus is the Sabbath. The priests of the Sanhedrin desecrated the Sabbath by killing Jesus. Stephen accused the sanhedrin of desecrating the sabbath (killing God) and implicated the Sanhedrin is guilty. However, Jesus also said those who profane the sabbath are innocent. Therefore, the priests (sanhedrin) who profaned the sabbath (Jesus) are innocent. It just seems inconsistent to me that Stephen is implying the priests are guility when they in fact were apparently innocent.

---

I do not agree with your analogy. Seems like two different to things to me.

Jesus was talking about priests doing priestly work on the Sabbath.

Stephen was talking about the Sanhedrin killing Jesus.

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

---

I don't think it is consistent for Stephen to condemn the leaders of the Sanhedrin while the leaders are clearly innocent. Clearly those who profane the Sabbath (as you say Christ) are innocent, therefore under that line of reasoning those who killed him are innocent. Certainly you would agree a temple that is destroyed, even momentarily is profaned?

I did not say the Sabbath has anything to do with doing anything n my post. As I stated, the Sabbath is clearly a person; to observe that person is to keep the whole Torah.

---

Agree with your last sentence. I do not see the connection between Matthew 12 5 and Acts verses.

The Matthew verse Jesus is talking about the priests doing work on the Sabbath. The Acts verse the priests are guilty of killing Stephen.

May be I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

---

As Jesus said in Matthew 12:4, in the torah on the Sabbath the priests profaned the Sabbath by slaughtering the lamb on the sabbath, which is seemingly both required and forbidden by the torah. The priests desacrated the sabbath and did work on the sabbath, yet they were innocent. You say Jesus is the Sabbath. The priests of the Sanhedrin desecrated the Sabbath by killing Jesus. Stephen accused the sanhedrin of desecrating the sabbath (killing God) and implicated the Sanhedrin is guilty. However, Jesus also said those who profane the sabbath are innocent. Therefore, the priests (sanhedrin) who profaned the sabbath (Jesus) are innocent. It just seems inconsistent to me that Stephen is implying the priests are guility when they in fact were apparently innocent.

---

I do not agree with your analogy. Seems like two different to things to me.

Jesus was talking about priests doing priestly work on the Sabbath.

Stephen was talking about the Sanhedrin killing Jesus.

---

John the Baptist said Jesus is the Lamb of God. John 1:29. The sanhedrin was merely carrying out its priestly duty to sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath. Jesus himself said those who profane the sabbath or sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath are innocent.

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

---

I don't think it is consistent for Stephen to condemn the leaders of the Sanhedrin while the leaders are clearly innocent. Clearly those who profane the Sabbath (as you say Christ) are innocent, therefore under that line of reasoning those who killed him are innocent. Certainly you would agree a temple that is destroyed, even momentarily is profaned?

I did not say the Sabbath has anything to do with doing anything n my post. As I stated, the Sabbath is clearly a person; to observe that person is to keep the whole Torah.

---

Agree with your last sentence. I do not see the connection between Matthew 12 5 and Acts verses.

The Matthew verse Jesus is talking about the priests doing work on the Sabbath. The Acts verse the priests are guilty of killing Stephen.

May be I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

---

As Jesus said in Matthew 12:4, in the torah on the Sabbath the priests profaned the Sabbath by slaughtering the lamb on the sabbath, which is seemingly both required and forbidden by the torah. The priests desacrated the sabbath and did work on the sabbath, yet they were innocent. You say Jesus is the Sabbath. The priests of the Sanhedrin desecrated the Sabbath by killing Jesus. Stephen accused the sanhedrin of desecrating the sabbath (killing God) and implicated the Sanhedrin is guilty. However, Jesus also said those who profane the sabbath are innocent. Therefore, the priests (sanhedrin) who profaned the sabbath (Jesus) are innocent. It just seems inconsistent to me that Stephen is implying the priests are guility when they in fact were apparently innocent.

---

I do not agree with your analogy. Seems like two different to things to me.

Jesus was talking about priests doing priestly work on the Sabbath.

Stephen was talking about the Sanhedrin killing Jesus.

---

John the Baptist said Jesus is the Lamb of God. John 1:29. The sanhedrin was merely carrying out its priestly duty to sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath. Jesus himself said those who profane the sabbath or sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath are innocent.

---

Again, I do not follow your line of reasoning. Maybe it is me.

And I believe God pre ordained what the Sanhedrin did to Jesus. So maybe Jesus is absolving them of blame.

Actually, Jesus's sacrifice absolved all of our sins and blame. If we will accept it.

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

---

I don't think it is consistent for Stephen to condemn the leaders of the Sanhedrin while the leaders are clearly innocent. Clearly those who profane the Sabbath (as you say Christ) are innocent, therefore under that line of reasoning those who killed him are innocent. Certainly you would agree a temple that is destroyed, even momentarily is profaned?

I did not say the Sabbath has anything to do with doing anything n my post. As I stated, the Sabbath is clearly a person; to observe that person is to keep the whole Torah.

---

Agree with your last sentence. I do not see the connection between Matthew 12 5 and Acts verses.

The Matthew verse Jesus is talking about the priests doing work on the Sabbath. The Acts verse the priests are guilty of killing Stephen.

May be I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

---

As Jesus said in Matthew 12:4, in the torah on the Sabbath the priests profaned the Sabbath by slaughtering the lamb on the sabbath, which is seemingly both required and forbidden by the torah. The priests desacrated the sabbath and did work on the sabbath, yet they were innocent. You say Jesus is the Sabbath. The priests of the Sanhedrin desecrated the Sabbath by killing Jesus. Stephen accused the sanhedrin of desecrating the sabbath (killing God) and implicated the Sanhedrin is guilty. However, Jesus also said those who profane the sabbath are innocent. Therefore, the priests (sanhedrin) who profaned the sabbath (Jesus) are innocent. It just seems inconsistent to me that Stephen is implying the priests are guility when they in fact were apparently innocent.

---

I do not agree with your analogy. Seems like two different to things to me.

Jesus was talking about priests doing priestly work on the Sabbath.

Stephen was talking about the Sanhedrin killing Jesus.

---

John the Baptist said Jesus is the Lamb of God. John 1:29. The sanhedrin was merely carrying out its priestly duty to sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath. Jesus himself said those who profane the sabbath or sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath are innocent.

---

Again, I do not follow your line of reasoning. Maybe it is me.

And I believe God pre ordained what the Sanhedrin did to Jesus. So maybe Jesus is absolving them of blame.

Actually, Jesus's sacrifice absolved all of our sins and blame. If we will accept it.

---

In Genesis 48:16 the angel of the lord forgave sins without sacrifice. I think God can forgive sins of his own will if he desires.

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

---

I don't think it is consistent for Stephen to condemn the leaders of the Sanhedrin while the leaders are clearly innocent. Clearly those who profane the Sabbath (as you say Christ) are innocent, therefore under that line of reasoning those who killed him are innocent. Certainly you would agree a temple that is destroyed, even momentarily is profaned?

I did not say the Sabbath has anything to do with doing anything n my post. As I stated, the Sabbath is clearly a person; to observe that person is to keep the whole Torah.

---

Agree with your last sentence. I do not see the connection between Matthew 12 5 and Acts verses.

The Matthew verse Jesus is talking about the priests doing work on the Sabbath. The Acts verse the priests are guilty of killing Stephen.

May be I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

---

As Jesus said in Matthew 12:4, in the torah on the Sabbath the priests profaned the Sabbath by slaughtering the lamb on the sabbath, which is seemingly both required and forbidden by the torah. The priests desacrated the sabbath and did work on the sabbath, yet they were innocent. You say Jesus is the Sabbath. The priests of the Sanhedrin desecrated the Sabbath by killing Jesus. Stephen accused the sanhedrin of desecrating the sabbath (killing God) and implicated the Sanhedrin is guilty. However, Jesus also said those who profane the sabbath are innocent. Therefore, the priests (sanhedrin) who profaned the sabbath (Jesus) are innocent. It just seems inconsistent to me that Stephen is implying the priests are guility when they in fact were apparently innocent.

---

I do not agree with your analogy. Seems like two different to things to me.

Jesus was talking about priests doing priestly work on the Sabbath.

Stephen was talking about the Sanhedrin killing Jesus.

---

John the Baptist said Jesus is the Lamb of God. John 1:29. The sanhedrin was merely carrying out its priestly duty to sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath. Jesus himself said those who profane the sabbath or sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath are innocent.

---

Again, I do not follow your line of reasoning. Maybe it is me.

And I believe God pre ordained what the Sanhedrin did to Jesus. So maybe Jesus is absolving them of blame.

Actually, Jesus's sacrifice absolved all of our sins and blame. If we will accept it.

---

I think you are erring when you say Christ is the Torah. The scriptures themselves teach that Torah is light. Proverbs 6:23. God created light. Genesis 1:3. Are you claiming God created Jesus? Wasn't wisdom with God at the foundations of the earth when it was created?

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

---

I don't think it is consistent for Stephen to condemn the leaders of the Sanhedrin while the leaders are clearly innocent. Clearly those who profane the Sabbath (as you say Christ) are innocent, therefore under that line of reasoning those who killed him are innocent. Certainly you would agree a temple that is destroyed, even momentarily is profaned?

I did not say the Sabbath has anything to do with doing anything n my post. As I stated, the Sabbath is clearly a person; to observe that person is to keep the whole Torah.

---

Agree with your last sentence. I do not see the connection between Matthew 12 5 and Acts verses.

The Matthew verse Jesus is talking about the priests doing work on the Sabbath. The Acts verse the priests are guilty of killing Stephen.

May be I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

---

As Jesus said in Matthew 12:4, in the torah on the Sabbath the priests profaned the Sabbath by slaughtering the lamb on the sabbath, which is seemingly both required and forbidden by the torah. The priests desacrated the sabbath and did work on the sabbath, yet they were innocent. You say Jesus is the Sabbath. The priests of the Sanhedrin desecrated the Sabbath by killing Jesus. Stephen accused the sanhedrin of desecrating the sabbath (killing God) and implicated the Sanhedrin is guilty. However, Jesus also said those who profane the sabbath are innocent. Therefore, the priests (sanhedrin) who profaned the sabbath (Jesus) are innocent. It just seems inconsistent to me that Stephen is implying the priests are guility when they in fact were apparently innocent.

---

I do not agree with your analogy. Seems like two different to things to me.

Jesus was talking about priests doing priestly work on the Sabbath.

Stephen was talking about the Sanhedrin killing Jesus.

---

John the Baptist said Jesus is the Lamb of God. John 1:29. The sanhedrin was merely carrying out its priestly duty to sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath. Jesus himself said those who profane the sabbath or sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath are innocent.

---

Again, I do not follow your line of reasoning. Maybe it is me.

And I believe God pre ordained what the Sanhedrin did to Jesus. So maybe Jesus is absolving them of blame.

Actually, Jesus's sacrifice absolved all of our sins and blame. If we will accept it.

---

I think you are erring when you say Christ is the Torah. The scriptures themselves teach that Torah is light. Proverbs 6:23. God created light. Genesis 1:3. Are you claiming God created Jesus? Wasn't wisdom with God at the foundations of the earth when it was created?

---

Jesus stated He was the fulfillment of the Law. I believe Him.

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is the Torah, the fulfillment of the Law. He is therefore the ultimate Sabbath, the ultimate Shalom.

---

How do you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:5 (the priests desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent) with Stephens' accusation in Acts 7 51-53?. As you say, as Jesus is the Sabbath, the priests who desecrated him are innocent.

---

What I believe Matthew 12 5 is saying is that the Pharisees and rigid observers of the Law do not understand what the Sabbath really is. It is shalom, a rest in the peace of God.

It is not about refraining from doing things, it is about obtaining shalom, the peace that only Jesus gives. God wants us to always be in communion with Him because He loves us and it brings us peace.

If you are a born again believer, Jesus via the Holy Spirit, is always with you. So you have the peace that the true spirit of the Sabbath brings.

---

I don't think it is consistent for Stephen to condemn the leaders of the Sanhedrin while the leaders are clearly innocent. Clearly those who profane the Sabbath (as you say Christ) are innocent, therefore under that line of reasoning those who killed him are innocent. Certainly you would agree a temple that is destroyed, even momentarily is profaned?

I did not say the Sabbath has anything to do with doing anything n my post. As I stated, the Sabbath is clearly a person; to observe that person is to keep the whole Torah.

---

Agree with your last sentence. I do not see the connection between Matthew 12 5 and Acts verses.

The Matthew verse Jesus is talking about the priests doing work on the Sabbath. The Acts verse the priests are guilty of killing Stephen.

May be I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

---

As Jesus said in Matthew 12:4, in the torah on the Sabbath the priests profaned the Sabbath by slaughtering the lamb on the sabbath, which is seemingly both required and forbidden by the torah. The priests desacrated the sabbath and did work on the sabbath, yet they were innocent. You say Jesus is the Sabbath. The priests of the Sanhedrin desecrated the Sabbath by killing Jesus. Stephen accused the sanhedrin of desecrating the sabbath (killing God) and implicated the Sanhedrin is guilty. However, Jesus also said those who profane the sabbath are innocent. Therefore, the priests (sanhedrin) who profaned the sabbath (Jesus) are innocent. It just seems inconsistent to me that Stephen is implying the priests are guility when they in fact were apparently innocent.

---

I do not agree with your analogy. Seems like two different to things to me.

Jesus was talking about priests doing priestly work on the Sabbath.

Stephen was talking about the Sanhedrin killing Jesus.

---

John the Baptist said Jesus is the Lamb of God. John 1:29. The sanhedrin was merely carrying out its priestly duty to sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath. Jesus himself said those who profane the sabbath or sacrifice the lamb on the sabbath are innocent.

---

Again, I do not follow your line of reasoning. Maybe it is me.

And I believe God pre ordained what the Sanhedrin did to Jesus. So maybe Jesus is absolving them of blame.

Actually, Jesus's sacrifice absolved all of our sins and blame. If we will accept it.

---

I think you are erring when you say Christ is the Torah. The scriptures themselves teach that Torah is light. Proverbs 6:23. God created light. Genesis 1:3. Are you claiming God created Jesus? Wasn't wisdom with God at the foundations of the earth when it was created?

---

Jesus stated He was the fulfillment of the Law. I believe Him.

---

To be the fulfillment of something does not mean it is equated with the thing fulfilled. Just because Jesus did not break the law does not mean he is the law.

It's an interesting thought. The sanhendrin being innocent just like the priest killing the lamb on the Sabbath. But I think there's some superseding principles. Here we see Jesus is saying they are guilty.

Matthew 21:3846 (ESV): 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.' 39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" 41 They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons."
42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" 'The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord's doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'?
43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. 44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. 46 And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.

Matthew 23:3136 (ESV): Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

it is more explicit than that:

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.'

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's an interesting thought. The sanhendrin being innocent just like the priest killing the lamb on the Sabbath. But I think there's some superseding principles. Here we see Jesus is saying they are guilty.

Matthew 21:3846 (ESV): 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.' 39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" 41 They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons."
42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" 'The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord's doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'?
43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. 44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. 46 And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.

Matthew 23:3136 (ESV): Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

---

You are not reading Matthew 21:38-46 correctly. Jesus taught he is the vine. John 15:1, therefore he is not the heir spoken of in the passage, but the vine, the firstborn.

God clearly took the kingdom away from Israel. Ezek 30:12; 1 Sam 15:28. But the righteous remained with Judah by Kebar. Ezekiel 1. The Kingdom of God is returned to Israel, after Jesus's time. The stone destroyed Rome. Daniel 7:7.

God does not punish anyone until their measure is full. Job 20:22. Therefore, to fill up a measure means the person is not yet deserving of punishment. Scripture teaches God will never foresake his covenant with the people's fathers. Deut 4:31.

I'm curious is this like Hebrew roots teaching or something?

It's my understanding Jesus is Israel. There is not another nation or group of people apart from Jesus that can claim to be Gods people.

The destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple were the final nail in the coffin so to speak about the old covenant.

Zobel said:

---

it is more explicit than that:

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.'

---

You are missing the rest of the quote.... the full quote is:

Psalm 69:4: "Those who hate me without cause are more than the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause who seek to destroy me."

Jesus isn't referring to the chief priests. The priests were very limited in their number. The sanhedrin had at most 71 members. I would certainly hope Jesus had more than 71 hairs on his head...

I think the key to the passage lies with the head.

The hairs of the head are like the roots of spiritual light that extend into the worlds; each hair is a channel through which the Divine Presence flows.

Light comes to our world from stars. These stars are metaphorically linked to the sons of god.

Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

The sons of God are those rebellious angels. Genesis 6:2,4 The "sons of God" who saw that the daughters of men were beautiful..

The fallen angels are those powers and principalities who killed Jesus's disciples. As Jesus said, those who hate me will hate my disciples. The Sanhedrin did not kill Jesus's disciples, but Rome and other leaders did.

codker92 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

it is more explicit than that:

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.'

---

You are missing the rest of the quote.... the full quote is:

Psalm 69:4: "Those who hate me without cause are more than the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause who seek to destroy me."

Jesus isn't referring to the chief priests. The priests were very limited in their number. The sanhedrin had at most 71 members. I would certainly hope Jesus had more than 71 hairs on his head...

I think the key to the passage lies with the head.

The hairs of the head are like the roots of spiritual light that extend into the worlds; each hair is a channel through which the Divine Presence flows.

Light comes to our world from stars. These stars are metaphorically linked to the sons of god.

Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

The sons of God are those rebellious angels. Genesis 6:2,4 The "sons of God" who saw that the daughters of men were beautiful..

The fallen angels are those powers and principalities who killed Jesus's disciples. As Jesus said, those who hate me will hate my disciples. The Sanhedrin did not kill Jesus's disciples, but Rome and other leaders did.

---

What does Hebrew Roots mean to you? Saying Israel is Jesus is just incorrect. Israel still exists and God's temple still exists. The Angel of the Lord forgives sins and is described as God's temple.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I'm curious is this like Hebrew roots teaching or something?

It's my understanding Jesus is Israel. There is not another nation or group of people apart from Jesus that can claim to be Gods people.

The destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple were the final nail in the coffin so to speak about the old covenant.

---

Jesus literally said salvation comes from the Jews. John 4:22

Read the next verse. Being Jewish or worshiping Jews or following the Torah as means to salvation or righteousness will profit you nothing. Judaism is an Antichrist religion. Denying Jesus. There is only one way to the father. Through Jesus. Not genetics. There will never be a Jewish nation that is Gods people. Teaching anyone that genetics play a role in anyone's salvation or adhering to an ancient religion that doesn't even have its temple anymore is heresy.

The restoration of the nations scattered at the Tower of Babel have been returned to Jesus. He is king of kings and lord of lords. ALL nations and all people are under His authority now.

codker92 said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I'm curious is this like Hebrew roots teaching or something?

It's my understanding Jesus is Israel. There is not another nation or group of people apart from Jesus that can claim to be Gods people.

The destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple were the final nail in the coffin so to speak about the old covenant.

---

Jesus literally said salvation comes from the Jews. John 4:22

---

Agree. And Jesus was a Jew. As were the disciples and Paul.

I enjoy Jewish perspective on these topics.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Read the next verse. Being Jewish or worshiping Jews or following the Torah as means to salvation or righteousness will profit you nothing. Judaism is an Antichrist religion. Denying Jesus. There is only one way to the father. Through Jesus. Not genetics. There will never be a Jewish nation that is Gods people. Teaching anyone that genetics play a role in anyone's salvation or adhering to an ancient religion that doesn't even have its temple anymore is heresy.

The restoration of the nations scattered at the Tower of Babel have been returned to Jesus. He is king of kings and lord of lords. ALL nations and all people are under His authority now.

---

The next verse quotes from Jeremiah. Look, the days are coming," declaresYahweh, "and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Jeremiah 31:31. The new covenant is with Israel and Judah.

You're misunderstanding and misrepresenting it. Case in point, why did God destroy the second temple if your view point is correct? And furthermore why is there not yet another temple? Simply the old covenant has passed away and being a son of Abraham has nothing to do with genetics.

The best analogy for all of this is what's given to us in the Bible. A marriage. The nation of Israel was first married to God. But committed adultery. And thus was put to death. God (Jesus) also dies to remarry. And the new covenant is the new marriage to His new Bride (The church). There is no second wife. The first wife was put to death (culminated in the 2nd temple destruction).

And all of this is an analogy for the severity of sin and salvation and remaining faithful. (Once saved always saved is itchy ear doctrine spoken of in Timothy IMO)

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

You're misunderstanding and misrepresenting it. Case in point, why did God destroy the second temple if your view point is correct? And furthermore why is there not yet another temple? Simply the old covenant has passed away and being a son of Abraham has nothing to do with genetics.

The best analogy for all of this is what's given to us in the Bible. A marriage. The nation of Israel was first married to God. But committed adultery. And thus was put to death. God (Jesus) also dies to remarry. And the new covenant is the new marriage to His new Bride (The church). There is no second wife. The first wife was put to death (culminated in the 2nd temple destruction).

And all of this is an analogy for the severity of sin and salvation and remaining faithful. (Once saved always saved is itchy ear doctrine spoken of in Timothy IMO)

---

First, I object to your use of the terms as you state them, but I am responding using your words for the sake of convenience.

Second, God did not destroy the second temple nor is there any scripture showing such. Believe it or not, there were large groups of Jews who did not sacrifice at the second temple for various reasons. For one, the temple did not house the ark of the covenant. Therefore, God's presence was never in the second temple. In the book of Ezekiel, God's presence leaves the temple. There is no passage detailing its return. I have already discussed this -- but Jacob himself stated that the Angel of the Lord housed God's presence. That is, the angel of the Lord was God's sanctuary -- the temple. So the original house of God was the Angel of Lord. God's presence did join the ark and the temple until later with Moses.

Third, your assertion is true in some ways. However, God himself had two wives. Israel and Judah. God has never divorced Judah. As you may recall, there was a kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judah. God only divorced Israel, he did not divorce Judah.

Last, I suppose this shall serve as your rebuke.