7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

One quick point: it is obvious I and brother Blume have very different views on the identity, purpose, and characteristics of both the Galatian heretics and Colossian errorists. My thread on First century Jewish sects and Christianity deals with this issue, and en tachei I will be posting a more thorough analysis of both subjects in that thread. I just wanted to say that there is a growing consensus among many scholars (outside of Sabbath keeping theologians, by the way) that are in general agreement with what I have been proposing on the subject. The old traditional consensus is beginning to give way to advances in scholarship, archeology, paleography, history, grammar, and especially the relatively recent freedom to express non-mainline views without suffering major loss or persecution.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

NO NO NO . ELEMENTS of the world are NECESSARY FUNDAMENTALS under which THE FATHER APPOINTED the heirs, Israelites, to live under before Christ came, to keep them there for Christ., from which he would bring them out when he came. How are pagan days NECESSARY FUNDAMENTALS that the FATHER APPOINTED HEIRS to be under? For that is what you are claiming they were appointed by the father to be under, since Gal 4:2 says the FATHER appointed them to be under the tutors of the elementary things.

1. If elements of the world are "necessary fundamentals appointed by God" then the elements in Gal 4:9 to which gentiles were RETURNING were "necessary fundamentals appointed by God." Which means that heathen gentile religion (devil worship) included "necessary fundamentals appointed by God." Which is ridiculous.

2. If elements of the world are "necessary fundamentals appointed by God" then the elements ("rudiments") of the world consisting in manmade ascetic ordinances of false Gnostic religion (Colossians ch 2) were also "necessary fundamentals appointed by God." Which, again, is ridiculous.

3. Galatians 4:1-7 is not about being redeemed from obligation to obey God, but is about being redeemed from sin. God did not redeem people FROM the law, but from SIN. Isaiah 50:1 says God's people (under the law) were sold because of their sins (transgressions, ie violations of God's commandments), and Isaiah 52:3 promises redemption to them apart from money. This is confirmed in 1 Peter 1:18, which says the church was redeemed apart from silver and gold. It further says they were redeemed from their empty lifestyle inherited by tradition from their ancestors, which cannot possibly mean they were redeemed from the empty lifestyle of God's commandments received by a direct visible manifestation of God and mediated by a true prophet of God. All have been redeemed from sin, it doesn't say or even imply anyone was redeemed from obligation to obey God's commandments.

4. Romans 7 proves that those under the law were in bondage - not to the law of God, but to the law (rule, dominion, power) of SIN (lawbreaking). Thus, the elements of the world are not the commandments of God. Paul is not saying the elements of the world ARE the "tutors and governors that are the commandments of God." Paul is saying that just like a child, though he is destined to be heir of all, is under BONDAGE (subject to the power of another), likewise we, though destined to be heirs of all, were also in bondage. The parallel he is making is between the heir under bondage and not free to enjoy the inheritance living no differently than a slave, and the redeemed who likewise were previously in bondage TO SIN AND THE STOICHEION OF THE COSMOS/WORLD ORDER. To suggest that the elements of the world are the "necessary fundamentals of the Divinely ordained law of God" is to stretch the analogy too far, because it contradicts everything ELSE he said about God's law, about what exactly people are in bondage to, and what our redemption actually results in. In other words, your interpretation violates the hermeneutic laid down by Christ Himself in John 10:35, which directs to harmonize all Scripture on any given topic.

5. Galatians 4:10 uses phraseology which is neither Scriptural nor even Jewish. That is, "days, months, times, and years" is neither a Biblical nor Jewish phrase referring to the moedim of God. This has been recognized by various scholars, who see here a definite Pauline reference to a nonbiblical religious calendar. Some have suggested this is referring to the voluminous feast and fast days of rabbinic or Essene Judaism (which added as obligatory numerous festivals and fasting days, rules, etc to the religious calendar, or in some sectarian cases involved a completely different calendar altogether purportedly of Divine origin; cf. the book of Jubilees), while others have suggested the phrase (and context) are likely to be referring to either Jewish, Gnostic or wholly heathen astrological observances. The well accepted Biblical term, thoroughly familiar to all Jews of the time, for the holy days and moedim (appointments) of God is "feast days (holy days), new moons, and Sabbaths" (Hosea 2:11, Ezekiel 45:17, other passages have shortened forms of the same phrase). Furthermore, the majority of original apostolic GENTILE believers were already quite familiar with the phraseology, as most early gentile Christians often attended synagogues and kept Sabbath (at least as far as attending synagogue worship) prior to becoming Christians. It is therefore no objection to this that Paul would invent a term unknown to Scripture, himself, Jews, Jewish Christians, Gentiles, and Gentile Christians, to describe something for which a clear, well known, well used Biblical and religious term already existed, just because he was writing to a largely gentile group of believers.

[Esaias]

God, the real God (Jesus Christ) created everything in six days, and ceased creating on the seventh day. He blessed and hallowed (sanctified and made holy) the seventh day.

He gave Israel His law, including the Ten Commandments, which Israel was supposed to teach the nations (Deut 4:6-8, Isaiah 2:2-3). The Fourth Commandment was to remember that seventh day Sabbath and keep it holy, primarily by reenacting (imitating) God's cessation of creative labour. This serves as a memorial to the One True Creator God.

Just like the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the crucified (and risen) Messiah. It, too, is a reenactment or imitation of what Jesus did at the Last Supper.

Baptism likewise is a memorial to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and reenacts His own baptism as well as serving as a symbolic reenactment of His death, burial, and resurrection.

There is no Scripture where either Jesus or the apostles said "Do not keep the Sabbath." There is no Scripture that says "You are free from the moral obligation to remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy."
The passages usually cited by Sabbath breakers don't actually say what they interpret them to mean. Romans 14 does not mention the Sabbath, and the context clearly has to do with personal preferences and NOT with God's preferences. If God esteems something that you don't, He expects you to be transformed by the renewing of your mind (thoughts and opinions) to be conformed to His revealed will. He does not just say "Well, YOU are the final authority on whether or not My values are worthwhile, so do as you please."

Galatians 4 is cited to prove that Sabbath keeping is bondage and not for Christians. But then so would the Lord's Supper and Sunday church services be bondage and not for Christians! You all (who bother having church at all, that is) attend meetings (holy convocation, sacred assembly) on a recurring regular basis (almost always Sunday). Most oneness Pentecostals celebrate the Lord's Supper once a year on New Year's. This is observing a day, a year, a "time". So if Galatians 4 teaches against religious time keeping and regularly recurring religious celebrations, like Sabbath keeping, it means you Sunday church goers and those of you who celebrate the Lord's Supper once a year or however often are in the same boat.

Does it not strike anyone as strange, that they should believe a doctrine that makes room for, allows, and even promotes the observance of pagan holy days (Baal/Mithra's birthday aka Christmas, the weekly Day of the Sun God, the mid winter New Year's Day, etc,) while supposedly condemning the holy Sabbath of God, a sacred, sanctified day of God's own choosing? Strange indeed.

"Oh, I don't observe Sunday, Christmas, or New Year's." Of course not. You just go to church to worship your God every Sunday, celebrate the birth of your God every Christmas, and celebrate the death of your God every mid-winter New Year's. The protestations ring a bit hollow, though.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, no preterite tense in the verse, then? Thanks!

There's no thanks for you to extend, because, like I said, context clearly shows that it's speaking from the time perspective of when those rites were initiated during the old Covenant.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And what did the Law "try to get us to do" in the Fourth Commandment?

the spirit gets us to do what the law foreshadowed in the fourth Commandment

[mfblume]

Just a note before I get onto the rest of your points, my cell phone is what I've been typing on to some extent, and the spell correct is really messing up some words on me. Apologies.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

There's no thanks for you to extend, because, like I said, context clearly shows that it's speaking from the time perspective of when those rites were initiated during the old Covenant.

The grammar is crystal clear, the things are (present tense) a shadow of things to come (future tense). Acknowledging the grammar of what is actually written would of course refute your position, thus your vague referring to "context" as a means to rewrite the text with a past tense. You do not seem to realize this is, once again, a case of eisegesis: you assume what is going on in the verse, then interpret the phrases to support the assumption, even to the point of contradicting the plain grammar. Just like the Baptists do with 1 Peter 3:21, or trinitarians do with 1 John 5:7.

The critical assumption you make is "the Sabbath Commandment is changed to allow for not keeping the Sabbath DAY holy", although you have no such declarations in the Bible which would serve as the record of such a momentous change. Then, you appeal to passages like Colossians in order to "prove" your assertion, BUT are oblivious to the fact that you must first make the aforementioned assumption in order to interpret these passages as supporting the assumption.

That's called circular reasoning, and is qualitatively no different than trinitarians, who find all sorts of "supporting passages", but who have to have the doctrine in place FIRST and use it as a lens through which they interpret the so called supports.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

the spirit gets us to do what the law foreshadowed in the fourth Commandment

You said the Spirit causes us to do what the Law tried, but failed, to do. I asked what did the Law try to get us to do in the Fourth Commandment. Your response does not answer the question. The reason is because it is plain to anyone that Law, in the Fourth Commandment, was "trying to get" people to remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy.

If what you said is true, that the spirit causes us to do what the Law tried to get us to do, then it follows necessarily that the spirit causes us to remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy. Thus, your vague deflection on the answer. A straightforward answer ("the Fourth Commandment wanted people to do thus and so") would expose the inconsistency in your argumentation and essentially end the debate.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Just a note before I get onto the rest of your points, my cell phone is what I've been typing on to some extent, and the spell correct is really messing up some words on me. Apologies.

No problem, I've been using my phone exclusively as well, which is a huge pain.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You said the Spirit causes us to do what the Law tried, but failed, to do. I asked what did the Law try to get us to do in the Fourth Commandment. Your response does not answer the question. The reason is because it is plain to anyone that Law, in the Fourth Commandment, was "trying to get" people to remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy.

If what you said is true, that the spirit causes us to do what the Law tried to get us to do, then it follows necessarily that the spirit causes us to remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy. Thus, your vague deflection on the answer. A straightforward answer ("the Fourth Commandment wanted people to do thus and so") would expose the inconsistency in your argumentation and essentially end the debate.

I disagree. Just as prophecies of animal sacrifices in a new temple in Ezekiel are not meant to be literally carried out, due to the fact that Christ ended sacrifices on the cross, making these prophecies a set of imagery depicting spiritual blessings of Christ's sacrifice that are intended to be understood, the sabbath day is not meant to be carried out in any future time, neither now or in a new heaven and earth seeing as Paul already stated that such days are not meant to be kept in Galatians 4, despite your difference of interpretation of that passage of Paul.

We have to understand everything in the bible concerning what we must do, or what's prophesied to be done, through the statements in the New Testament that directly deal with such things, and see a harmony between them. Since Paul said we must not keep Law's holy days, months or years, then the only way to honour that and at the same time keep the fourth commandment is to realize the fourth commandment applies to us spiritually. NO OTHER COMMANDMENT is like that, so no need to ask which other commandments are spiritualized.