PDA

View Full Version : Why Sunday


Pages : [1] 2 3

coksiw
12-19-2019, 01:28 PM
see in that the Christians did begin to gather together on Sunday in the New Testament.

[Act 20:7 NKJV] 7 Now on the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

(labor and traders used to get their gain daily, so this is an actual Christian gathering)
[1Co 16:2 NKJV] 2 On the first [day] of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

[Rev 1:10 NKJV] 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,

The name "Lord's Day" (different in greek to the "Day of the Lord") began to be used to refer to Sunday. As you can see in the early christian writings. So, it is probably correct to say that John was talking about Sunday.

Pulpit Commentary: The phrase had not yet become common in A.D. , as is shown from St. Paul writing, "on the first of the week" (1 Corinthians 16:2), the usual expression in the Gospels and Acts (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:19; Acts 20:7; comp. Mark 16:9). But from Ignatius onwards, we have a complete chain of evidence that ἡ Κυριακή became the regular Christian name for the first day of the week; and Κυριακή is still the name of Sunday in the Levant. "No longer observing sabbaths, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day" (Ign., 'Magn.,' 9.). Melito, Bishop of Sardis (A.D. 170), wrote a treatise περί Κυριακῆς (Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' IV. 26:2). Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 175), in an epistle to the Romans, mentions that the Church of Corinth is that day keeping the Lord's holy day (Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' IV. 23:11). Comp. also Clem. Alex., 'Strom.,' VII. 12:98 (p. 377, Potter); Tertull., 'De Con.,' 3. and 'De Idol.,' 14, where Dominicus dies is obviously a translation of Κυριακὴ ἡμέρα; and fragment 7 of the lost works of Irenaeus.

I wonder if the gathering on the first day of the week was because the first Christians were Jews even the ones in exile, and they observed the Sabbath (Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm), it was natural to keep going (since they didn't work that day) and gather with other Christians at homes after 6pm (Sunday at that point). Hence, Paul teaching until midnight "Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight."

Apparently, it became a day dedicated to seek the Lord together and do the Lord's Supper, that would work for both the Jews keeping the Sabbath and for the Gentiles.

Nicodemus1968
12-20-2019, 09:30 AM
see in that the Christians did begin to gather together on Sunday in the New Testament.

[Act 20:7 NKJV] 7 Now on the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

(labor and traders used to get their gain daily, so this is an actual Christian gathering)
[1Co 16:2 NKJV] 2 On the first [day] of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

[Rev 1:10 NKJV] 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,

The name "Lord's Day" (different in greek to the "Day of the Lord") began to be used to refer to Sunday. As you can see in the early christian writings. So, it is probably correct to say that John was talking about Sunday.

Pulpit Commentary: The phrase had not yet become common in A.D. , as is shown from St. Paul writing, "on the first of the week" (1 Corinthians 16:2), the usual expression in the Gospels and Acts (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:19; Acts 20:7; comp. Mark 16:9). But from Ignatius onwards, we have a complete chain of evidence that ἡ Κυριακή became the regular Christian name for the first day of the week; and Κυριακή is still the name of Sunday in the Levant. "No longer observing sabbaths, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day" (Ign., 'Magn.,' 9.). Melito, Bishop of Sardis (A.D. 170), wrote a treatise περί Κυριακῆς (Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' IV. 26:2). Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 175), in an epistle to the Romans, mentions that the Church of Corinth is that day keeping the Lord's holy day (Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' IV. 23:11). Comp. also Clem. Alex., 'Strom.,' VII. 12:98 (p. 377, Potter); Tertull., 'De Con.,' 3. and 'De Idol.,' 14, where Dominicus dies is obviously a translation of Κυριακὴ ἡμέρα; and fragment 7 of the lost works of Irenaeus.

I wonder if the gathering on the first day of the week was because the first Christians were Jews even the ones in exile, and they observed the Sabbath (Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm), it was natural to keep going (since they didn't work that day) and gather with other Christians at homes after 6pm (Sunday at that point). Hence, Paul teaching until midnight "Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight."

Apparently, it became a day dedicated to seek the Lord together and do the Lord's Supper, that would work for both the Jews keeping the Sabbath and for the Gentiles.

Good question. Was Sunday the beginning of the week then? I don’t see any problem if you want to have service on Saturday morning or night. With that said we are creatures of habit, and tradition so I don’t see churches changing from Sunday to Saturday. Also, the church isn't the building you attend on service times. The church is us, its the bride of Christ, so wherever you go you can have church.

One thing to mention and I’m sure it would’ve come up, that the Old Testaments was Sabbath and we understand all that. Now, New Testament says that the Holy Ghost is our rest we don’t need a physical day to rest as long as were “current” in the Holy Ghost we have rest.

coksiw
12-20-2019, 11:07 AM
Good question. Was Sunday the beginning of the week then? I don’t see any problem if you want to have service on Saturday morning or night. With that said we are creatures of habit, and tradition so I don’t see churches changing from Sunday to Saturday. Also, the church isn't the building you attend on service times. The church is us, its the bride of Christ, so wherever you go you can have church.

One thing to mention and I’m sure it would’ve come up, that the Old Testaments was Sabbath and we understand all that. Now, New Testament says that the Holy Ghost is our rest we don’t need a physical day to rest as long as were “current” in the Holy Ghost we have rest.

Brother, I am not advocating for Sabbath keeping. I am just curious about New Testament and very early writings about how the gathering on Sundays originated.

The first day of the week in the New Testament started on Saturday evening, at least for the Jews, and it seems to me natural that they still kept the Sabbath to go to the synagogues first and then gather in the evening with the brethren to break bread together and have a service. I may be wrong but I find it interesting, and I have not found any connection like this anywhere.
In addition to that, the resurrection and Pentecost were both on the first day of the week as Hebrews days (Sat 6pm to Sun 6pm).
All of that could have made the first day of the week the day of gathering and seeking the Lord together; later called "The Lord's day".

Esaias
12-20-2019, 06:02 PM
Good question. Was Sunday the beginning of the week then? I don’t see any problem if you want to have service on Saturday morning or night. With that said we are creatures of habit, and tradition so I don’t see churches changing from Sunday to Saturday. Also, the church isn't the building you attend on service times. The church is us, its the bride of Christ, so wherever you go you can have church.

One thing to mention and I’m sure it would’ve come up, that the Old Testaments was Sabbath and we understand all that. Now, New Testament says that the Holy Ghost is our rest we don’t need a physical day to rest as long as were “current” in the Holy Ghost we have rest.

I take it then you work 7 days a week and likely would require any employees you might have to work 7 days a week, too?

Evang.Benincasa
12-20-2019, 06:08 PM
Sunday was the day of the Sun in the Roman Empire. When the Constantine made Christianity the umbrella religion of the empire, he made Sunday the Church day. Why? Because Romans already were use to that being the day of the risen sun.

Esaias
12-20-2019, 06:17 PM
Brother, I am not advocating for Sabbath keeping. I am just curious about New Testament and very early writings about how the gathering on Sundays originated.

The first day of the week in the New Testament started on Saturday evening, at least for the Jews, and it seems to me natural that they still kept the Sabbath to go to the synagogues first and then gather in the evening with the brethren to break bread together and have a service. I may be wrong but I find it interesting, and I have not found any connection like this anywhere.
In addition to that, the resurrection and Pentecost were both on the first day of the week as Hebrews days (Sat 6pm to Sun 6pm).
All of that could have made the first day of the week the day of gathering and seeking the Lord together; later called "The Lord's day".

Pentecost was on a Sunday because the waving of the omer 50 days earlier happened to be on a Sunday that year. Which is why the resurrection happened on the first day of the week: that was the waving of the omer that year. Every year it might fall on a different day of the week, and thus so would Pentecost. This is why Christ was to rise "on the third day", not "on the first day of the week". There is literally zero significance to the first day of the week. Which is why the apostles and early Christians simply called it the first day of the week (while continuing to call the seventh day of the week "the sabbath").

There are no regular gatherings of Christians on the first day of the week recorded in Scripture. The ONE case in Acts was a meeting with Paul who was departing on the morrow (sunday morning), the meeting occurred at the end of the sabbath and went late into the night. Most sabbath keepers (that I know of, anyway) keep a service, however small or informal, at the end of the sabbath into the first day of the week. Jews do something similar. This was the origin of "vespers" or "evening service" by the way.

The day of the Sun god was never called "the Lord's Day" in the Bible, nor by anyone in post apostolic times except the catholic heretics. The only day of the week the Bible identifies as being "of the Lord" is the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, whose Lord is Jesus.

Sunday was sacred to many pagans, it was the day dedicated to the Sun and the sun god. Mithra, Sol Invictus, Amon-Ra, Baal, etc are all names for the sun god in different cultures. It was chosen by the catholic "fathers" because they were bringing in paganism. Constantine made it official. The whole thing is paganism, now with a Christian veneer. As all ancient pagans understood, every deity could go by many names. So Baal nowadays is mostly called "Jesus" by his followers. Another Jesus.

Nicodemus1968
12-20-2019, 09:01 PM
I take it then you work 7 days a week and likely would require any employees you might have to work 7 days a week, too?

I want to believe you understand what I meant if I wasn't clear enough. My HVAC job I only work 20 hours or less, then rest of my week is for the church.

Esaias
12-20-2019, 10:31 PM
I want to believe you understand what I meant if I wasn't clear enough. My HVAC job I only work 20 hours or less, then rest of my week is for the church.

You said we don't need a day of rest.

Evang.Benincasa
12-21-2019, 05:59 PM
I want to believe you understand what I meant if I wasn't clear enough. My HVAC job I only work 20 hours or less, then rest of my week is for the church.

20 hours or less? You must be making crazy folding money.

votivesoul
12-21-2019, 06:45 PM
see in that the Christians did begin to gather together on Sunday in the New Testament.

[Act 20:7 NKJV] 7 Now on the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

(labor and traders used to get their gain daily, so this is an actual Christian gathering)
[1Co 16:2 NKJV] 2 On the first [day] of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

[Rev 1:10 NKJV] 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,

The name "Lord's Day" (different in greek to the "Day of the Lord") began to be used to refer to Sunday. As you can see in the early christian writings. So, it is probably correct to say that John was talking about Sunday.

Pulpit Commentary: The phrase had not yet become common in A.D. , as is shown from St. Paul writing, "on the first of the week" (1 Corinthians 16:2), the usual expression in the Gospels and Acts (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:19; Acts 20:7; comp. Mark 16:9). But from Ignatius onwards, we have a complete chain of evidence that ἡ Κυριακή became the regular Christian name for the first day of the week; and Κυριακή is still the name of Sunday in the Levant. "No longer observing sabbaths, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day" (Ign., 'Magn.,' 9.). Melito, Bishop of Sardis (A.D. 170), wrote a treatise περί Κυριακῆς (Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' IV. 26:2). Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 175), in an epistle to the Romans, mentions that the Church of Corinth is that day keeping the Lord's holy day (Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' IV. 23:11). Comp. also Clem. Alex., 'Strom.,' VII. 12:98 (p. 377, Potter); Tertull., 'De Con.,' 3. and 'De Idol.,' 14, where Dominicus dies is obviously a translation of Κυριακὴ ἡμέρα; and fragment 7 of the lost works of Irenaeus.

I wonder if the gathering on the first day of the week was because the first Christians were Jews even the ones in exile, and they observed the Sabbath (Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm), it was natural to keep going (since they didn't work that day) and gather with other Christians at homes after 6pm (Sunday at that point). Hence, Paul teaching until midnight "Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight."

Apparently, it became a day dedicated to seek the Lord together and do the Lord's Supper, that would work for both the Jews keeping the Sabbath and for the Gentiles.

Acts 20:7 looks poorly translated. See here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/20-7.htm

Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων

En de mia te ton sabbaton

It seems to read better simply as "Then, on one of the sabbaths...".

votivesoul
12-21-2019, 06:55 PM
Acts 20:7 looks poorly translated. See here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/20-7.htm

Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων

En de mia te ton sabbaton

It seems to read better simply as "Then, on one of the sabbaths...".

1 Corinthians 16:2 looks like it could be re-translated, too. See here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/16-2.htm

κατὰ μίαν σαββάτου

kata mian sabbatou

It seems to read better simply as "According to each sabbath...".

In both cases, there is no word for "day", either in Acts 20:7 or in 1 Corinthians 16:2. Translators are reading the mia as an ordinal here, then reading sabbatos as a metonym for "week", thus thinking mia refers to the first of the week, which must refer to the first day. But that seems an overwrought attempt at defending (or perhaps concealing) an anti-Sabbath ideology that is otherwise absent from the Covenants of the Holy Scriptures, Old and New.

Tithesmeister
12-21-2019, 07:08 PM
Perhaps the question should be reframed.

Which days of the week would it be impermissible to gather together for the purpose of worshiping God?

coksiw
12-21-2019, 08:01 PM
I am honestly not looking for a specific day, I was just curious about the Sunday thing. For me, each day is a valid day to seek God and gather with other saints.

Nicodemus1968
12-22-2019, 07:40 AM
20 hours or less? You must be making crazy folding money.

HVAC is a great Business Trade. :thumbsup

mfblume
12-23-2019, 07:15 PM
There is no command in the New Testament to hold meetings on any certain day. If Sunday works easiest, then do so. I see no correction of anyone in the Book of Acts to not worship certain days but only on sabbath, nor do I see commands to only worship on Sunday. Either way, it’s not there in a commandment form, despite the fourth commandment, which I have shown is not an issue, seeing as we keep the sabbath day by learning to rest in Christ’s work.

1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Sabbatarians explain that Paul did not want to have to collect money when he arrived, and rightly so. But the fact is that they gathered to collect money on that first day of the week, regardless. It does not mention that it was, therefore, the day that they always gathered. It is also true that Paul did not direct them to worship Sun-days. But that’s just the point! They did worship on Sundays, but not as a form of obedience to a commandment.

It is also insisted that nothing says that they had to leave their homes to do this. But that does not indicate they did not leave their homes. If people were told to gather money for Paul on the first day of the week, then it would be redundant and silly, to be honest, if it was to be done at home. What would make a difference between gathering funds on the third day of the week, if it was done at home? The only sense that there is in telling people to gather money on the first day was because they would meet together away from their homes in a com-mon house owned by one of them, or wherever. The location was not the issue.

There is no indication that it was not a time of worship for them. However, if Paul told them that they were to gather the first day of the week, it sounds like a regular thing, though not always every single week. It sounded like a thing to do temporarily for every first day of the week. The first day of the week was set aside, but only for so many weeks so far as gathering money was concerned. Since he said, “that there be no gatherings when I come,” then it would mean that it could not be every week of every year. If Paul was there, and they did this gathering every single week of the year, there would be gatherings when he came, which he distinctly said he did not want that to be the case.

At any rate, that does not mean that they did not gather for worship every first day. Why would he tell them to do this the first day of the week if they were gathering on sabbaths weekly, anyway? Why not collect the money on sabbath, if they regularly gathered there every week? It appears to say that they gathered the first day regularly, and in a certain period of time that Paul referred to was when they would gather money specifically to help the other churches. That would inform us that they were not gathering on sabbaths.

Why designate the first day of a certain period of time, if they weren’t already gathering that day? If they gathered on the sabbath for worship, why else would Paul tell them to gather again to raise money the very next day for a certain period of first days of the week gatherings, when it could have been done on the sabbath during regular times of worship?

coksiw
12-23-2019, 07:38 PM
However, if Paul told them that they were to gather the first day of the week, it sounds like a regular thing, though not always every single week. It sounded like a thing to do temporarily for every first day of the week. The first day of the week was set aside, but only for so many weeks so far as gathering money was concerned. Since he said, “that there be no gatherings when I come,” then it would mean that it could not be every week of every year. If Paul was there, and they did this gathering every single week of the year, there would be gatherings when he came, which he distinctly said he did not want that to be the case.


"gathering" there means of collecting money as in "collections", not as in "us gathering together".


At any rate, that does not mean that they did not gather for worship every first day. Why would he tell them to do this the first day of the week if they were gathering on sabbaths weekly, anyway? Why not collect the money on sabbath, if they regularly gathered there every week? It appears to say that they gathered the first day regularly, and in a certain period of time that Paul referred to was when they would gather money specifically to help the other churches. That would inform us that they were not gathering on sabbaths.


The first day of the week could be referring to the Jewish calendar, where the it started Saturday evening, after the Sabbath, but the same actual day as the Sabbath.

mfblume
12-23-2019, 08:23 PM
However, if Paul told them that they were to gather the first day of the week, it sounds like a regular thing, though not always every single week. It sounded like a thing to do temporarily for every first day of the week. The first day of the week was set aside, but only for so many weeks so far as gathering money was concerned. Since he said, “that there be no gatherings when I come,” then it would mean that it could not be every week of every year. If Paul was there, and they did this gathering every single week of the year, there would be gatherings when he came, which he distinctly said he did not want that to be the case.

"gathering" there means of collecting money as in "collections", not as in "us gathering together".

Thanks! But why bother to change the day of the week if they were already there on Sabbath a day before?


At any rate, that does not mean that they did not gather for worship every first day. Why would he tell them to do this the first day of the week if they were gathering on sabbaths weekly, anyway? Why not collect the money on sabbath, if they regularly gathered there every week? It appears to say that they gathered the first day regularly, and in a certain period of time that Paul referred to was when they would gather money specifically to help the other churches. That would inform us that they were not gathering on sabbaths.
The first day of the week could be referring to the Jewish calendar, where the it started Saturday evening, after the Sabbath, but the same actual day as the Sabbath.

The point is that it is still not the seventh day to the Jews. So, if it was in the morning or evening after the sundown on saturday, it's still not sabbath. So, that would make it no difference if it was Sunday morning.

And, tying this to the preceding response you presented above, it's still changing days of the week from seventh to first of the next, in the eyes of their cultural adherents, again, making it no difference if it was Sunday morning.

Dordrecht
12-23-2019, 09:04 PM
Perhaps the question should be reframed.

Which days of the week would it be impermissible to gather together for the purpose of worshiping God?


Uh?

Esaias
12-23-2019, 09:05 PM
Thanks! But why bother to change the day of the week if they were already there on Sabbath a day before?



The point is that it is still not the seventh day to the Jews. So, if it was in the morning or evening after the sundown on saturday, it's still not sabbath. So, that would make it no difference if it was Sunday morning.

And, tying this to the preceding response you presented above, it's still changing days of the week from seventh to first of the next, in the eyes of their cultural adherents, again, making it no difference if it was Sunday morning.

Everyone was to lay by him in store on the first of the week. This means on the first (day) of the week each person was to do his accounting and determine and set aside how much he was going to contribute to the Poor Jerusalem Saints' Relief Fundraiser. Such activities would likely not have been done on the Sabbath, so the first day of the week would make sense. The reason given was so that there wouldn't be a sudden hustling trying to figure out how much each could give when Paul showed up. Everything would be ready to go.

As a Sabbath keeper, I can say from personal experience that his instructions make perfect sense. For Sabbath keepers, the first day of the week serves as the "monday" if you will. Plans and preparations for the week are made on this day, including accounting of upcoming financial expenditures, etc. It just seems to work out that way if your life follows a Sabbath-based pattern. Has for us, anyways.

There were no regular church gatherings on the first day of the week in the Bible. In Acts it was a special after Sabbath meeting because Paul was leaving on the morrow. In the passage in Corinthians there is no church gathering or assembly in view at all, it is personal and family/household financial allocation of funds for a specific particular act of charity.

Esaias
12-23-2019, 09:07 PM
Perhaps the question should be reframed.

Which days of the week would it be impermissible to gather together for the purpose of worshiping God?

Any day the sermon is on Abraham's tithing, I guess?

coksiw
12-23-2019, 09:27 PM
Well, the disciples gathered daily for multiple reasons: you can simply search for "daily" in the book of Acts.

But for whatever reason, Sunday became the day over time. We meet on Sunday twice an twice during the week. Sunday is definitely a tradition at this point. It is off for most people, even for many of those that work 6 days a week.

Esaias
12-23-2019, 09:31 PM
1 Corinthians 16:2 looks like it could be re-translated, too. See here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/16-2.htm

κατὰ μίαν σαββάτου

kata mian sabbatou

It seems to read better simply as "According to each sabbath...".

In both cases, there is no word for "day", either in Acts 20:7 or in 1 Corinthians 16:2. Translators are reading the mia as an ordinal here, then reading sabbatos as a metonym for "week", thus thinking mia refers to the first of the week, which must refer to the first day. But that seems an overwrought attempt at defending (or perhaps concealing) an anti-Sabbath ideology that is otherwise absent from the Covenants of the Holy Scriptures, Old and New.

The question then is mian sabbatou etc a common first century Greek phrase for "first of the week" or "one of the sabbaths" ?

Esaias
12-23-2019, 09:39 PM
But for whatever reason, Sunday became the day over time.

That "whatever reason" was the pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath position of the Church of Rome being enforced throughout catholicism until it was official Holy Tradition, then being continued by Protestants who sought to divorce it from Holy Tradition and Magisterium by concocting "Sabbath transference" theories interpreting the fourth commandment as applicable to Sunday, followed by evangelical Protestants and Pentecostals not wanting to go against the tide of both religious and secular tradition.

mfblume
12-23-2019, 09:41 PM
Jesus arose the first day of the week.

He appeared to Thomas the next first Day of the week.

Paul preached the first day in Acts 20:7.

1 Cor 16 says they were to gather offerings for Paul on the first day.

Paul said that he lived AS a Jew to win the Jews, and he preached in synagogues on the sabbath, not to hear a sermon for himself, but to reach the jews gathered together to learn about God, meaning it was not their "church gather".

There is no note about the church keeping sabbath and attending church meetings in anything near or close to the references that refer to the first day of the week that distinctly mention the church and the first day. Why don't we read the church gathered the seventh day? The church gathered Sabbath? We only read of Paul reaching Jews in synagogues on sabbath, and nothing about the actual church being directed and/or said to do things on the seventh day.

If the two references in Acts 20 and 1 Cor 16 were not about church gatherings on the first day, they're still distinctly for the church and on the first day, and nothing similar can be found about sabbath for the church to offset the lean toward First Day worship. It's always only Paul preaching to jews on the sabbath.

It's far too vague to use anything in the New Testament to promote sabbath keeping. Like so many other beliefs, if that were the case there would have been much more elaboration made about it in the epistles and Acts than there is, if it were true.

Esaias
12-23-2019, 10:09 PM
Jesus arose the first day of the week.

Not because of any significance to the first day of the week. Rather, the significance was the "third day" after crucifixion. That third day happened to be on the first day of the week that year. The profession of faith in 1 Cor 15 makes no mention of the first day, but rather "the third day".

He appeared to Thomas the next first Day of the week.

John 20:26 shows that He appeared to Thomas on a Monday at the earliest, most likely a Tuesday.

Paul preached the first day in Acts 20:7.

He may have preached ON the first day of the week in that verse but I doubt he "preached the first day" in that verse. lol Anyways, that was a special meeting because he was leaving the next morning (going on a journey on sunday). Besides which common early Christian and first century Jewish custom was to gather for prayer at the end of the Sabbath during a meeting that bridged the end of the Sabbath and the beginning of the first day. Jews call it havdalah (separation), Christians called it Vespers or Lamplighting. It usually included the Lord's Supper or bread breaking and fellowship meal, still common among Sabbath keepers, some Orthodox churches, and most orthodox synagogues.

1 Cor 16 says they were to gather offerings for Paul on the first day.

It was a collection for poor Christians in Jerusalem in anticipation of a prophesied famine, financial business and accounting usually takes place on the first day of the week for Sabbath keepers.

Paul said that he lived AS a Jew to win the Jews, and he preached in synagogues on the sabbath, not to hear a sermon for himself, but to reach the jews gathered together to learn about God, meaning it was not their "church gather".

Gentiles requested and he agreed to preach the gospel to them more in depth, on the next Sabbath. He taught circumcision and uncircumcision aren't what matters but what matters is keeping the commandments of God. He specificly ruled out any commandment breaking as being incompatible with the Christian faith. Living as a Jew does not refer to obeying God's commandments, but refers to his conformity to CUSTOM when in company with Jews (as long as said custom did not include separation from Greek believers).

There is no note about the church keeping sabbath and attending church meetings in anything near or close to the references that refer to the first day of the week that distinctly mention the church and the first day. Why don't we read the church gathered the seventh day? The church gathered Sabbath? We only read of Paul reaching Jews in synagogues on sabbath, and nothing about the actual church being directed and/or said to do things on the first day.

Actually there is a ton of "note" but antisabbatarians ignore it. The mere fact the New Testament thoroughly and consistently refers to the seventh day of the week as "the Sabbath" says a lot. Especially considering non Sabbath keepers don't speak that way unless they are arguing against the Sabbath. The faulty premise underlying all these errors is "if it isn't spelled out in the NT it didn't happen and is not applicable." But this is backwards not only to logic but the NT itself. The proper approach is "unless the NT says otherwise all things remain in place."

If the two references in Acts 20 and 1 Cor 16 were not about church gatherings on the first day, they're still distinctly for the church and on the first day, and nothing similar can be found about sabbath for the church to offset the lean toward First Day worship. It's always only Paul preaching to jews on the sabbath.

It's far too vague to use anything in the New Testament to promote sabbath keeping. Like so many other beliefs, if that were the case there would have been much more elaboration made about it in the epistles and Acts than there is, if it were true.

If the Sabbath had been abrogated or replaced, it would create just as much if not more controversy than the issue of circumcision and the Levitical offerings. Those latter two disputes are detailed thoroughly throughout the NT. The supposed abrogation or modification of the Sabbath? Crickets. Ergo, you have it backwards. The lack of Sabbath polemics in the NT is prima facie evidence it wasn't a debated issue.

mfblume
12-23-2019, 10:09 PM
That "whatever reason" was the pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath position of the Church of Rome being enforced throughout catholicism until it was official Holy Tradition, then being continued by Protestants who sought to divorce it from Holy Tradition and Magisterium by concocting "Sabbath transference" theories interpreting the fourth commandment as applicable to Sunday, followed by evangelical Protestants and Pentecostals not wanting to go against the tide of both religious and secular tradition.

I agree some people do it for that reason. But it's not the only one. Multitudes of people believe like me that there is no more holy days and that the Lord arose Sunday, Jesus showed Thomas his wounds Sunday, Paul preached Sunday, and Paul collected offerings Sunday. Not a holy day, no better day than any other. But linked to spiritual events with a spiritual message of the first day -- new creation, not old creation's seventh day.

mfblume
12-23-2019, 10:12 PM
If the Sabbath had been abrogated or replaced, it would create just as much if not more controversy than the issue of circumcision and the Levitical offerings. Those latter two disputes are detailed thoroughly throughout the NT. The supposed abrogation or modification of the Sabbath? Crickets. Ergo, you have it backwards. The lack of Sabbath polemics in the NT is prima facie evidence it wasn't a debated issue.

There is much more in Galatians 4 which has always been my main argument as you know. The antecedent for the tutors and governors under which Israel, in times before Christ came, were taught is not pagan calendar days but Gal 3's refernec et law as a schoolmaster.

That alone seals it for me, and these other references are strong supports, far more than there is anything for sabbath day worship of the early church. Far more.

Esaias
12-23-2019, 10:17 PM
I agree some people do it for that reason. But it's not the only one. Multitudes of people believe like me that there is no more holy days and that the Lord arose Sunday, Jesus showed Thomas his wounds Sunday, Paul preached Sunday, and Paul collected offerings Sunday. Not a holy day, no better day than any other. But linked to spiritual events with a spiritual message of the first day -- new creation, not old creation's seventh day.

Without realising it, you are arguing for Sunday sacredness. Spiritual significance... that's why we gather every single Sunday to corporately worship God... Friend, that is the very essence of "holy day keeping".

As for new creation, the Sabbath is part of the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 66:22-23).

Esaias
12-23-2019, 10:19 PM
There is much more in Galatians 4 which has always been my main argument as you know. The antecedent for the tutors and governors under which Israel, in times before Christ came, were taught is not pagan calendar days but Gal 3's refernec et law as a schoolmaster.

That alone seals it for me, and these other references are strong supports, far more than there is anything for sabbath day worship of the early church. Far more.

If the law as a tutor means the 4th commandment need not be obeyed once one becomes a Christian, then not only may the Christian dispense with Sabbath keeping, but they may dispense with every other commandment of God as well, for exactly the same reason.

mfblume
12-23-2019, 10:35 PM
Without realising it, you are arguing for Sunday sacredness. Spiritual significance... that's why we gather every single Sunday to corporately worship God... Friend, that is the very essence of "holy day keeping".

As for new creation, the Sabbath is part of the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 66:22-23).
We talked abut this before. God does not require me to go to church sabbath or Sunday. That's the bottom line.

Arguing about what you assume my belief leads to, or it's alleged logical conclusion that I don't engage in, is not actually dealing with what I believe.

mfblume
12-23-2019, 10:37 PM
If the law as a tutor means the 4th commandment need not be obeyed once one becomes a Christian, then not only may the Christian dispense with Sabbath keeping, but they may dispense with every other commandment of God as well, for exactly the same reason.

Strawman because as I explained many times sabbath is fulfilled not replaced or abrogated. The shadow days are gone.

Esaias
12-23-2019, 10:47 PM
Strawman because as I explained many times sabbath is fulfilled not replaced or abrogated. The shadow days are gone.

Actually it isn't a strawman. You argue law was a tutor therefore we aren't under the tutor therefore we don't keep the Sabbath day holy. The same reasoning applies to everything comprehended under the term "law".

Esaias
12-23-2019, 10:52 PM
We talked abut this before. God does not require me to go to church sabbath or Sunday. That's the bottom line.

Arguing about what you assume my belief leads to, or it's alleged logical conclusion that I don't engage in, is not actually dealing with what I believe.

I am dealing with what you SAY. The logical conclusions to your arguments are what they are.

mfblume
12-23-2019, 11:17 PM
Actually it isn't a strawman. You argue law was a tutor therefore we aren't under the tutor therefore we don't keep the Sabbath day holy. The sane reasoning applies to everything comprehended under the term "law".

The tutor role was the mundane shadow preparing for the spiritual rest Christ would bring. Fulfilled, again. The concept or principle led to the actuality in the spirit. It made the reality in the spirit easy to understand.

mfblume
12-23-2019, 11:20 PM
I am dealing with what you SAY. The logical conclusions to your arguments are what they are.

No and it is not dealing with what I believe and what i say I believe. The logical conclusion is where I stand now, not something I do not stand in.

Esaias
12-23-2019, 11:22 PM
The tutor role was the mundane shadow preparing for the spiritual rest Christ would bring. Fulfilled, again. The concept or principle led to the actuality in the spirit. It made the reality in the spirit easy to understand.

Sounds great! I mean seriously I agree with this. BUT if one concludes from this "therefore we don't have to do what the fourth commandment says to do" then it necessarily applies to every jot, tittle, both tablets of the Big Ten and everything in between - in the same exact way.

mfblume
12-23-2019, 11:23 PM
If we follow Paul's narrative in the sequence he gave it to the church there, reading through chapter 3 and on into chapter 4 in the order he wrote it, we do not come across any reference to idols until 4:8.

Galatians 4:8.. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

You claim that is what elements oo the world and tutors and governors refer to in verses 2-3, or at least elements of the world (if perhaps you recognize tutors and governors of verse 3 as LAW). That is by no means the antecedent to verses written before it. Note what is written before verse 8.

Galatians 4:1-7.. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; ..(2).. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. ..(3).. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: ..(4).. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, ..(5).. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. ..(6).. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. ..(7).. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

To follow Paul's context, you cannot take verse 8 and claim that is the antecedent of what verses 2 and 3 refer to as tutors and governors, or the elements of the world. How on earth can tutors and governors refer to the same thing that "service unto them which by nature are no gods" refers to?..

Tutors and governors are the schoolmaster that Paul mentioned in chapter 3! And that is LAW! How can you not see that? LAW is the antecedent for the reference to elements of the world, and tutors and governors.

To take something written AFTER verses 3 and 4, such as verse 8's reference to "service unto them which by nature are no gods," and claim that is "the elements of the world" is to violate all grammar and comprehensive reading. ANTE in ANTECEDENT means BEFORE. You do not write about something, such as "elements of the world" and "governors and tutors" and mean idolatry and paganism that is not written until afterwards, if those phrases actually refer to idolatry. You look at what is written before verses 3 and 4 of chapter 4 to find the antecedent, and lo and behold that is LAW in Chapter 3. In fact, it repeats LAW in 4:5.

To say that his readers knew what he meant about idolatry, as though idolatry was what those phrases in verse 3 and 4 actually meant, without Paul having to actually write the reference to idolatry before verses 3 and 4 is grand assumption and inserting into the text things which you cannot prove whatsoever.

The reason he mentioned "service unto them which by nature are no gods" is because these pagans weer involved in the Old Covenant as converts to it before they came to Christ, and Pau noted that they were returning to bondage of law, which is what the warder references of chapter 3 already stated quite clearly.

He, therefore, mentioned "service unto them which by nature are no gods" as a side thought that they were orginally pagans before they came into Judaism, after which they were saved by Christ, and not the basic reference he's using to compare to tutors and governors who oversee an heir.

mfblume
12-23-2019, 11:24 PM
Sounds great! I mean seriously I agree with this. BUT if one concludes from this "therefore we don't have to do what the fourth commandment says to do" then it necessarily applies to every jot, tittle, both tablets of the Big Ten and everything in between - in the same exact way.

Not really. It's not not doing the day but doing what the day foreshadowed.

The temple was a shadow so we don't have a temple. Sacrifices were Shadows of Christ too. We dont offer animals still, though.

Esaias
12-23-2019, 11:32 PM
No and it is not dealing with what I believe and what i say I believe. The logical conclusion is where I stand now, not something I do not stand in.

Are trinitarians genuine monotheists?

My point is that some of your arguments necessarily lead to conclusions. Whether you adhere to your argumentation all the way to their logical end or not doesn't change what those arguments actually consist in.

Example: "We have church every Sunday because of spiritual reasons..." Conclusion? You keep Sunday as a holy day (a day separate and distinct from other days). You disagree with that conclusion, and I understand why. But the conclusion is there nonetheless. Holy means separate and dedicated to divine purposes. There you have it. Sundaykeeping isn't "whatever was required under the 4th commandment is now applied to Sunday" necessarily. It is at its most basic the regular observance of Sunday as a day devoted to religious practices, you do Sundays differently than you do the other days of the week.

Example: We're not under the law, it has been fulfilled, therefore we don't need to do the specific thing the law said to actually do. So pick any command, and this reasoning applies.

Esaias
12-23-2019, 11:35 PM
Gotta go to bed. That alarm rings awful early in the morning... lol

Evang.Benincasa
12-24-2019, 05:11 AM
Not trying to jam anything up here, but it sounds like there should be no day off? No sabbath? Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?

mfblume
12-24-2019, 06:36 AM
Are trinitarians genuine monotheists?

My point is that some of your arguments necessarily lead to conclusions. Whether you adhere to your argumentation all the way to their logical end or not doesn't change what those arguments actually consist in.

Example: "We have church every Sunday because of spiritual reasons..." Conclusion? You keep Sunday as a holy day (a day separate and distinct from other days). You disagree with that conclusion, and I understand why. But the conclusion is there nonetheless. Holy means separate and dedicated to divine purposes. There you have it. Sundaykeeping isn't "whatever was required under the 4th commandment is now applied to Sunday" necessarily. It is at its most basic the regular observance of Sunday as a day devoted to religious practices, you do Sundays differently than you do the other days of the week.

Example: We're not under the law, it has been fulfilled, therefore we don't need to do the specific thing the law said to actually do. So pick any command, and this reasoning applies.

Again, the logical conclusions to my view are the positions I am in now. I believe what I currently believe because of those scriptures I shared and my interoretation of them. They led me to where I am and what I'm doing. I'm not at the position that you claim is the logical conclusion. Why? Because they're not the logical conclusion.

mfblume
12-24-2019, 06:37 AM
Not trying to jam anything up here, but it sounds like there should be no day off? No sabbath? Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?

Rest whatever day works. Not even our secular laws allow no rest.

coksiw
12-24-2019, 07:33 AM
Thank you mfblume and Esaias for the debate. I'm learning a lot of stuff. I hope you guys do not end up on each other's nerves, though.

coksiw
12-24-2019, 07:40 AM
Not trying to jam anything up here, but it sounds like there should be no day off? No sabbath? Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?

I heard once that the communists tried to change the week to 10 days and rest only once every 10 days. It didn't work out, people got burnt.
Even though, we do not keep the Sabbath as in the law, people do need a break from work every 7 days.
The early church gathered or at least were busy in the things of the Lord even on workdays.

Daily corporate prayer at the temple:
[Act 2:46 NKJV] So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,

Daily evangelism, at least:
[Acts 2:47 NKJV] praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Daily prayer, and teaching:
[Acts 5:42 NKJV] And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus [as] the Christ.

Daily serving at the tables:
[Acts 6:1 NKJV] Now in those days, when [the number of] the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.

Daily evangelism:
[Acts 16:5 NKJV] So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Daily evangelism:
[Acts 17:17 NKJV] Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the [Gentile] worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.

I'm not saying that every single Christian was involved in daily things or that the prayer was daily for every single person; simply that they did not limit themselves to a specific day, every day was suitable to teach, preach, pray, and serve at the tables.

coksiw
12-24-2019, 07:43 AM
...financial business and accounting usually takes place on the first day of the week for Sabbath keepers.


Brother, would you please give some references regarding that statement? If that's accurate then it brings a new insight to that verse. Thanks.

Evang.Benincasa
12-24-2019, 12:22 PM
I heard once that the communists tried to change the week to 10 days and rest only once every 10 days. It didn't work out, people got burnt.
Even though, we do not keep the Sabbath as in the law, people do need a break from work every 7 days.
The early church gathered or at least were busy in the things of the Lord even on workdays.

Daily corporate prayer at the temple:
[Act 2:46 NKJV] So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,

Daily evangelism, at least:
[Acts 2:47 NKJV] praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Daily prayer, and teaching:
[Acts 5:42 NKJV] And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus [as] the Christ.

Daily serving at the tables:
[Acts 6:1 NKJV] Now in those days, when [the number of] the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.

Daily evangelism:
[Acts 16:5 NKJV] So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Daily evangelism:
[Acts 17:17 NKJV] Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the [Gentile] worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.

I'm not saying that every single Christian was involved in daily things or that the prayer was daily for every single person; simply that they did not limit themselves to a specific day, every day was suitable to teach, preach, pray, and serve at the tables.

That is because the church in Jerusalem was communal and the daily thing was a way of life for the fledgling church. Yet, the Greek to this day calls Saturn's day the sabbath which is Σάββατο, but Sun's day is called the Lord's day in Greek Κυριακή. The same goes for the Spanish, French, Italian. Yet, what we have been given today is from the Latin Rome Saturni, and Solis. Κυριακή and Domenica were handed down through history as meaning the Lord's Day, and Saturni known by Christians (and Judeans) as Σάββατο.

mfblume
12-24-2019, 02:36 PM
Thank you mfblume and Esaias for the debate. I'm learning a lot of stuff. I hope you guys do not end up on each other's nerves, though.

Esaias is a good man.

Esaias
12-24-2019, 07:03 PM
Thank you mfblume and Esaias for the debate. I'm learning a lot of stuff. I hope you guys do not end up on each other's nerves, though.

Ha! We go at it but brother Blume is one of the good guys. He just needs to come over to my side of the aisle then he shall reach perfection. :happydance

Brother, would you please give some references regarding that statement? If that's accurate then it brings a new insight to that verse. Thanks.

I meant that as an observation based on my experience and that of others' I have known. I wasn't saying "the Bible says do your accounting on the first day of the week." Sabbath keeping establishes a certain rhythm to life. It affects how a person views and manages time. I have seen it in my life, my family members, and other people's lives as well. They all have acknowledged Sabbath keeping establishes a certain rhythm and flow if you will to everything. It doesn't happen overnight, necessarily, but ingrains itself into the very fabric of daily life.

When the Sabbath ends, the week is over with. The week's business is over with. A new week begins. New business. Stuff carried over from previously has been paused, and now picks back up as if it were basically a new round in the ring. The first day of the week just fits naturally as the day to plan the week out. That would include taking stock of your money situation and what expenditures you will have. Allocating funds to whatever purposes, etc.

Now granted some folks are just plain random and disorganised anyway, especially financially. But that's more of a "them" issue than a Sabbath or not issue.

Esaias
12-24-2019, 07:08 PM
Not trying to jam anything up here, but it sounds like there should be no day off? No sabbath? Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?

If the fourth commandment ("as written") is no longer obligatory, it means God does NOT expect anyone to give their employees a day off at all, ever, as a matter of ethics. A boss can be a slave driver and demand 7 day work weeks ad infinitum, and there is no valid and just ground of complaint against such a man. The Bible would classify such a boss as an unrighteous extortioner, but do away with the moral obligation of the 4th commandment and you do away with any possibility of being rightfully upset about such employment policies.

Esaias
12-24-2019, 07:14 PM
Again, the logical conclusions to my view are the positions I am in now. I believe what I currently believe because of those scriptures I shared and my interoretation of them. They led me to where I am and what I'm doing. I'm not at the position that you claim is the logical conclusion. Why? Because they're not the logical conclusion.

If the following is true:

Fourth commandment fulfilled by Jesus THEREFORE we don't have to do what the fourth commandment actually says.

Then the following is also true:

The law and the prophets fulfilled by Jesus THEREFORE we don't have to do what the law and the prophets actually say to do.

Pick any command, ANY, found in "the law". The law was fulfilled, therefore....

Do you see the reasoning here?

Esaias
12-24-2019, 07:15 PM
Esaias is a good man.

There is none good but God, brother.

:thumbsup

Esaias
12-24-2019, 07:38 PM
I heard once that the communists tried to change the week to 10 days and rest only once every 10 days. It didn't work out, people got burnt.
Even though, we do not keep the Sabbath as in the law, people do need a break from work every 7 days.
The early church gathered or at least were busy in the things of the Lord even on workdays.

Daily corporate prayer at the temple:
[Act 2:46 NKJV] So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,

Daily evangelism, at least:
[Acts 2:47 NKJV] praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Daily prayer, and teaching:
[Acts 5:42 NKJV] And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus [as] the Christ.

Daily serving at the tables:
[Acts 6:1 NKJV] Now in those days, when [the number of] the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.

Daily evangelism:
[Acts 16:5 NKJV] So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Daily evangelism:
[Acts 17:17 NKJV] Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the [Gentile] worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.

I'm not saying that every single Christian was involved in daily things or that the prayer was daily for every single person; simply that they did not limit themselves to a specific day, every day was suitable to teach, preach, pray, and serve at the tables.

And, every day was suitable for those things under the law, as well. The 4th commandment is not "six days shalt thou work and do no ministry"... :thumbsup

votivesoul
12-24-2019, 10:45 PM
The question then is mian sabbatou etc a common first century Greek phrase for "first of the week" or "one of the sabbaths" ?

I haven't yet seen the claim made by lexicographers that the phrase is used as an idiom to refer to the first of the week. But if it's out there, I'd like to know.

mfblume
12-25-2019, 08:47 PM
If the fourth commandment ("as written") is no longer obligatory, it means God does NOT expect anyone to give their employees a day off at all, ever, as a matter of ethics. A boss can be a slave driver and demand 7 day work weeks ad infinitum, and there is no valid and just ground of complaint against such a man. The Bible would classify such a boss as an unrighteous extortioner, but do away with the moral obligation of the 4th commandment and you do away with any possibility of being rightfully upset about such employment policies.

Employers for the most part do not care whatsoever about the Law of God. It's just common sense to have a day of rest. But the issue actually is if that day has to be the seventh of the week?

Esaias
12-25-2019, 09:04 PM
Employers for the most part do not care whatsoever about the Law of God. It's just common sense to have a day of rest. But the issue actually is if that day has to be the seventh of the week?

Common sense? From whence cometh this common sense?

The issue isn't whether employers care about God's law. The issue is, if an employer demands 7 day work weeks from his employees, nobody has any righteous reason to complain. Yet, the Bible is clear such people are exactors, extortioners, unrighteous, oppressors, etc.

Evang.Benincasa
12-26-2019, 05:25 AM
If there isn’t a physical day of dedication, then why?
Why would that arise and why would it be important that we only have a spiritual rest and not a physical one?

mfblume
12-26-2019, 08:28 AM
Common sense? From whence cometh this common sense?

The issue isn't whether employers care about God's law. The issue is, if an employer demands 7 day work weeks from his employees, nobody has any righteous reason to complain. Yet, the Bible is clear such people are exactors, extortioners, unrighteous, oppressors, etc.
Common sense is the need for a day of rest. Even science realizes that without it, labourers simply cannot do what they otherwise could. That's an assessment that's totally apart from scripture.

Evang.Benincasa
12-26-2019, 08:31 AM
Common sense is the need for a day of rest. Even science realizes that without it, labourers simply cannot do what they otherwise could. That's an assessment that's totally apart from scripture.

Why did God Himself rest on the Sabbath?

Could it of had a deeper meaning? Jesus telling us to come under His yoke and there we will have sabbath?

Evang.Benincasa
12-26-2019, 09:16 AM
In Antarctica, sabbath would last WEEKS! That WOULD be a problem! seventh sundown to sundown would be WEEKS where the sun rises and sets after weeks at a time in Antarctica. lol

I remember you posting this in the eschatology section years ago. Could you expand on this thought? Would this also indicate that the Hebrew Sabbath was only regional, and held to a geographical setting? Let me just give you some thoughts. In India the religion of Hinduism cannot really be practiced outside of India. Because its holy places as rivers are only found in India, and when the vedas were being written no Hindu believed their religion would be practiced in a foreign country. The American Indian has the same problem as does the Muslim which must make a pilgrimage every year to Hajj in Mecca. Yes, the Muslim as well as the Hindu will give explanation that you as an adherent to their religion must at least make a holy pilgrimage once you in your lifetime but that is pretty much guru, and Imam will give some excuse why it isn't necessary to make these religious rituals as the original believers did when their religion was exclusively in the land of its nativity. Rabbinical Judaism takes from the Bible and uses 1 Kings 8:44, 1 Kings 8:47-49. Therefore the Rabbinical Talmudic Jews face the east to pray towards Jerusalem, and the Muslims do the same with Mecca. Both groups taking a religion which in time past was totally dependent on its geographic location.

So, Brother Blume, would you also say that the sabbath, according to the biblical people of that time was geographical?

Esaias
12-26-2019, 09:58 AM
Common sense is the need for a day of rest. Even science realizes that without it, labourers simply cannot do what they otherwise could. That's an assessment that's totally apart from scripture.

So common sense affirms and supports the fourth commandment. :thumbsup

Esaias
12-26-2019, 10:05 AM
Why did God Himself rest on the Sabbath?

Could it of had a deeper meaning? Jesus telling us to come under His yoke and there we will have sabbath?

Good question. God didn't rest in the sense of recuperation after exertion. Rather, He simply ceased in His work of Creation. Not of course that He never did anything after that, but that He was making the heavens and the earth and their contents for six days then He stopped. He then blessed that seventh day, and hallowed it (sanctified it or set it apart for holy purposes). Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man. Clearly then God "rested" on that day to give man something. Not merely an opportunity to rest our bodies from labour, but also an opportunity to teach man about regulating his life in honour to God the Creator. By doing that a pattern is established - our work culminates in glory to God (ought to, anyway). Lots of lessons and principles associated with the Sabbath. It's always a joy to draw out the hidden treasures of the Word. :highfive

Evang.Benincasa
12-26-2019, 10:18 AM
Good question. God didn't rest in the sense of recuperation after exertion. Rather, He simply ceased in His work of Creation. Not of course that He never did anything after that, but that He was making the heavens and the earth and their contents for six days then He stopped. He then blessed that seventh day, and hallowed it (sanctified it or set it apart for holy purposes). Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man. Clearly then God "rested" on that day to give man something. Not merely an opportunity to rest our bodies from labour, but also an opportunity to teach man about regulating his life in honour to God the Creator. By doing that a pattern is established - our work culminates in glory to God (ought to, anyway). Lots of lessons and principles associated with the Sabbath. It's always a joy to draw out the hidden treasures of the Word. :highfive

Therefore God would continue to rest on the sabbaths, to be with His family?
Correct?

Esaias
12-26-2019, 10:43 AM
Therefore God would continue to rest on the sabbaths, to be with His family?
Correct?

Hmm. He calls His Sabbaths "appointments", set times for meeting with His people. I don't think it's a matter of Him ceasing some activity but rather of us ceasing our routine activities in order to meet with Him in various ways. So then it sounds like you are asking "Does God keep the Sabbath?" which I think is a very interesting question that opens up a line of thought I had not really considered before. Does God keep Sabbath?

I think in a sense yes He does, in that He seems to reckon time according to the calendar He gave in the Bible. But not in the sense of regularly ceasing from His usual activities (He has no need of recuperation). Interesting idea, that God participates with us in the things we do. Does God go to church with us? In a sense yes. At least I would hope so, no sense going to church without Him.

Evang.Benincasa
12-26-2019, 12:36 PM
Hmm. He calls His Sabbaths "appointments", set times for meeting with His people. I don't think it's a matter of Him ceasing some activity but rather of us ceasing our routine activities in order to meet with Him in various ways. So then it sounds like you are asking "Does God keep the Sabbath?" which I think is a very interesting question that opens up a line of thought I had not really considered before. Does God keep Sabbath?

I think in a sense yes He does, in that He seems to reckon time according to the calendar He gave in the Bible. But not in the sense of regularly ceasing from His usual activities (He has no need of recuperation). Interesting idea, that God participates with us in the things we do. Does God go to church with us? In a sense yes. At least I would hope so, no sense going to church without Him.

Now that we have gone from a hill in Jerusalem to a worldwide worship center. He still has a time to meet us, and that on a day seperated for all of us. Now not that He needs to take a load off, and catch some rays on the porch. No, it is a time of worship, were we all come together (God first and foremost) and have communion with Him. Maybe I'm reading to much into it?

mfblume
12-26-2019, 01:02 PM
When we read that Paul stated that Law was a schoolmaster, the question arises as to whether or not any Law ought to be followed if something such as the sabbath day commandment is no longer obligatory. It seems to imply that we don't have to do what the law and the prophets actually say to do if the law and the prophets were fulfilled by Jesus.

This question is related to the same argument that says that violating any of the other 10 Commandments is acceptable if violating one of the 10 Commandments is acceptable. And, of course, that is not the case.

In order to understand exactly what Paul meant by the Law standing as a schoolmaster until Jesus arrived, and Christ being the end of the law for those who believe, we can compare this to another passage written by Paul.

Hebrews 9:8-10 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: (9) Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; (10) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

The Two Tabernacles that were mentioned in Hebrews chapter 9 depicting the Two Covenants, the First Tabernacle speaks of Law. You could not enter the second tabernacle so long as the first one was standing. The Law had to be removed so that we could enter the New Covenant. So, when we read that reformation occurred when meats, drinks, diverse washings and carnal ordinances were no longer imposed, we learn exactly what is actually over and ended. He spoke about ceremonial rites along with the overall method of urging yourself toward good works without the power of God enabling us.

In order to understand how Law is described as this kind of method, we must turn to Paul’s more elaborate explanation on the issue in the Letter to the Romans.

Romans Chapter 7 explained that the service to God that was described as “oldness of the letter” was compared to the New Covenant’s manner of “newness of Spirit.” He went on and explained that Law imposed demands for Israel to do what Paul described in the same chapter as performance of the good deeds of the Law.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
He specifically said that we are delivered from the Law just as much as a woman whose husband died is set free from her marriage by that death. Paul used this comparison of marriage as it is laid out in the writings of the Law itself. Deuteronomy 22:22-4, Leviticus 20:10, and Exodus 20:14 all speak against adultery. That’s the reason that he told them that he spoke to them who knew the Law (Rom. 7:1). Any Law that exists only has dominion over a man so long as he is alive. It has the right to command him and direct and even punish him. But when he dies, the servant is freed from his master, so to speak.
What Law did Paul refer to when he spoke to those who knew the Law, and understood that the Law has power over a person during his or her lifetime? It was obviously the Old Covenant Law. And that same Law, according to the context of Chapter 7, was compared to a cruel husband from whom the wife seeks to be delivered. This deliverance requires a death.


Job compared death to a sleep, after having questioned the reason for his birth because of all of his calamities. In having described his longing to not live, he then stated that the servant is then free from his master (Job 3:19).

While Paul was speaking about the Law of Moses, he noted that death was indeed involved in the effort to free us from this marriage to Law. So, the oldness of the letter is understood to be a miserable existence like the marriage of a woman to miserable husband, because man cannot successfully keep it. Paul describes that misery in the remaining verses of the chapter, including his words about the anguish of desiring to keep the law but finding that there is a force of sin in his flesh that disables him from doing so.
Paul said that the manner in which God delivers us from the Law is through the death of Jesus Christ, which is evident by understanding that Romans 7:25 refers back to 7:6.

Romans 7:4-6 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. (6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 7:24-25 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (25) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

By comparing these passages, we clearly see that the motions of sin are in our bodily members, and cause the fruit of death to come forth. This is the reason that Paul cried out to learn who could deliver him from his body of death. The answer was God and that God must deliver us from the Law, because the motions of sin were caused by the law. He explained that, when Law commanded him to not covet, he suddenly could not resist the over-whelming urges to covet.

Romans 7:7-8 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. (8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Sin used the Law like a weapon to kill the law-keeper. Law was not the evil entity whatsoever. The enemy was sin that used Law to slay the law-keeper when the Law was ordained to give life. It would have given life had there not been sin in our bodies.
Therefore, the death that frees a person from Law took place through Jesus Christ’s vicarious death that counted as our own deaths. So, the woman who could be freed from the marriage to her husband by a death, rep-resents a believer whose death took place through Jesus Christ, like a proxy-death, and is thereby freed from the Law.

God freed Paul from the miserable body that contained sin through the means of Jesus Christ’s death that counted as Paul’s. For this reason, Romans 6:3 ex-plained that baptism into Jesus is actually being baptized into Christ’s death, making His death count as our own. Our deaths with Jesus mean that His death counted as ours.

Paul then introduced the explanation for what he wrote in verse 6 about he newness of the Spirit.

Let us understand first that the letter that describes the Law was considered to be old.¬ And the Spirit was considered new. The Old Covenant was focused on the letter, and the New Covenant emphasizes the Spirit. So, when we read a summary of the problem that Paul described when he said that he served the law of sin with his body while he serves the law of God with his mind, we understand that he referred to the desire to keep the law and obey its deeds, but he was unable to perform with his body what he agreed within his mind. So far as his mind was concerned, it was in effect keeping the Law simply by having agreed and willed to obey it. But, of course, that is useless if one is unable to carry that willingness through into actual deeds by having his body fulfill those demands.

He then continued in Chapter 8, and said that, because his flesh could not carry out those demands in actual activities, he must not walk after that flesh. Here we see a manner of speaking that Paul used. We must understand this manner of speaking correctly, or miss the purpose that it plays as we read further into Chapter 8.

What does it mean to walk after the flesh?

After having stated that he desired to obey the law in his mind but was unable to perform it using his flesh, he then stated that he served the law of God with his mind. However, he served the law of sin with his flesh. We can, therefore, conclude that the phrase “walking after the flesh” described the attempts to focus on one’s body and carry out those commandments after a person agreed with the Law that he or she was meant to obey it.
We read that, instead of walking after the flesh, we must walk after the Spirit in order to avoid condemnation.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

What is this condemnation?

It’s easy to misunderstand this verse by not reading it in context with the last few verses before it in Chapter 7. It sounds as though Paul wrote that we do not have to be afraid of condemnation from God and wind up in hell if we refuse to walk after the flesh by committing sins and wicked acts. However, the Letter to the Romans was not originally written with chapter divisions that can easily make one think that there are completely different thoughts in one chapter than those that we read on the previous one. The condemnation that Paul referred to was related to what he described as the misery that he wrote about in the latter part of Chapter 7. Putting the verses from the end of Chapter 7 together with the beginning of Chapter 8, and noticing that both sets of vers-es speak of the flesh and the Spirit will cause us to grasp the intended understanding.

continued...

mfblume
12-26-2019, 01:02 PM
...continued.



Romans 7:23-8:3 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (24) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (25) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (8:1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The law of Paul’s mind in 7:23 was the Law of Moses that he willed in his mind and agreed to perform. But there was another law of sin and death in the bodily members of his flesh – his literal arms and legs, etc. And this other law warred against the Law of his mind.
At this point in the reading, we must understand what Paul meant by having written that a law in his members warred against the law of his mind.

When Paul wrote of a law warring against another law, he wrote of the word “law,” describing a series of events that could be predicted if the same conditions were present in each case. For this same reason, the law of gravity is called a law.

When you are in the condition of being on the earth, and you release an object into the air, it falls to the ground. It doesn’t matter where on earth you are, so long as you are on the earth and hold something and then release it, it falls every time, unless the conditions change for the object that you release.

If you held a kite with string, and released the kite with the wind blowing around you, it would not fall but it would be carried by the wind up into the air. That is because another condition is involved, and it's actually part of another law called the law of aerodynamics. If the object has the conditions that are favourable to allow wind to carry the object into the air, it will not fall.


But we are speaking about an object such as a ball, rock or apple. It has no qualities that categorize it under something which is aerodynamic to cause it to not fall to the ground when released.

Because the release of such an object always causes it to fall to the ground when all of the same conditions are met, it is called a law. It happens every time, and you can predict it. That is somewhat of a different use of the word law than what is intended to be understood when Paul wrote of the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is not a manner that explains why the physics of an object that is met with certain conditions causes the object to react in the same way every time. The Law of Moses is a Law of codified jurisdictions where a judge has set certain precedents in order that must be carried out. And if the conditions of violating those commandments exists, the penalties that the same law outlines will be carried out every time.

This means that Paul wrote about a war that ensues when we agree with God’s Law that commands us to obey its precedents, and seek to carry them out with our flesh. He said that this war is one that we cannot win. We will inevitably fail if we seek to obey the Law of Moses with our flesh. It happens every time. Instead of fulfilling the Law of Moses with our flesh, we will fulfill the law of sin and death with our flesh.

Therefore, Paul said that we must not walk after that flesh. It must be recognized that Romans 7:25-8:1 connects the thought of the flesh being used to serve God with the act of walking after the flesh as the cause for condemnation to come upon us. Because we wind up serving the law of sin and death with the flesh, then we can avoid that condemnation by not walking after that flesh. This shows us that the condemnation is not the penalty of going to hell, although people who do sin will suffer hell, but it is saying that it’s the condemnation of suffering the misery of being unable to fulfil the law of God with our bodies and, instead, fulfilling the law of sin and death.

This can only mean that we cannot take the futile route that Paul described as holding a willingness to obey the Law of God in our minds, but being unable to perform that Law with our flesh.

The description that Paul provided about the failure to serve God, was not only called the oldness of the letter, but also walking after the flesh. So, serving God in the old-ness of the letter is walking after the flesh. Walking after the Spirit is something entirely different. We must take what Paul described as the means of failure in Romans Chapter 7 and realize that there is another means of serving God that won’t fail and is called newness of the Spirit.

After having described the method of Paul’s failure as a life of walking after the flesh, he then stated that we should walk after the Spirit, and proceeded to outline the following points.

Romans 8:1-5 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.


Notice that Paul not only wrote that there is no condemnation to those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit, but he also said the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. So, the walk after the Spirit achieves something that the oldness of the letter is unable to cause us to achieve. That something is the law’s righteousness. This informs us that a walk after the Spirit that sees us delivered from the Law is not deliverance from the need for us to obtain the righteousness of the Law. What same righteousness that oldness of the letter required was the righteousness that the newness of Spirit fulfills in our lives.

Paul explained that the Law could not fulfill that righteousness in us. We are then told that God accomplished something in order to see that righteousness fulfilled in us. He did it by sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. In other words, because sin was in our flesh and condemned us to defeat, Jesus would take the sin in his flesh to condemn it!

He condemned the condemner!


Paul continued to explain that people who are after the flesh and people who mind and focus their thoughts on the things of the flesh. This gives us a further clue as to how walking after the flesh is struggling in the method to serve God by the oldness of the letter. The struggle that Paul wrote about in Chapter 7 involved minding the things of the flesh. Instead, the walk after the Spirit that we must engage in is defined as minding the things of the Spirit.

Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Because verse 5 begins with the word “for”, we must see how that the facts stated in this verse are the reasons for what we read before this verse. Read them together now.

Romans 8:3-5 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

The reason that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in people who don’t walk after the flesh but after the Spirit is that people who are in the flesh mind the things of the flesh. The success in dealing with sin and being righteous before God has to do with what we mind, or think about. He then explains why that is the case.

Romans 8:6-7 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Rather than suffer condemnation, we can experience peace. Paul compares the results that exist in our hearts when we walk after the flesh and fail, or what after the flesh and succeed – condemnation versus peace. The fleshly mind leads to death

Paul described his failure to keep the laws of God as an experience of death. The Law was ordained to life but he found that it led to his death. That death was inflicted on him by the power of sin that used Law like a killing weapon. He did not mean a natural, physical death, obviously, but a form of spiritual death. The reason that it kills is due to the fact that the fleshly-thinking mind can never be subject to the Law of God.
He alluded to this earlier in Chapter 7 as follows:

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

continued...

mfblume
12-26-2019, 01:03 PM
...continued.


The law is spiritual, therefore, a fleshly mind cannot be subject to it. This shows us that the fleshly mind renders a person carnal. So, when we read, “but I am carnal, sold under sin,” we are intended to understand that it means “but my mind is on fleshly things, causing me to be sold under sin.”

Minding the things of the flesh is putting our primary attention on those things. And having that mush regard on fleshly things clashes with God. How is it that Paul focused his thoughts toward the fleshly things by trying to serve God in the oldness of the letter?
When we consider that Genesis revealed how the first three days of creation, that represented the Old Covenant were the times God formed that which was without form in order to fill those formed places with active movement, we get a hint about what minding the things of the flesh is all about. There was no active and vibrant life in the forming stage of creation, like the Law did not administer life but death. The term “spirit” in the Hebrew is related to the concept of life. Jesus Christ’s words were spirit and life. His words are all of the truths of the New Covenant. God breathed into Adam the breath of Life and became a living soul. Movement and activity were seen int eh stars, sun and moon. It was seen in the water creatures, birds and land creatures. Everything in the latter three days involved active movement. Everything in the first three days involved forming places for that movement and activity.

The physical forming of places was all about the Old Covenant in symbolic form. Minding the things of the Spirit is focusing our thoughts on activity and life. The earthly things are used to prepare for the spiritual things. We will not find life in the forming aspect of God’s work.

There is also the reference to the administration of death that Paul wrote about in 2 Corinthians Chapter 3 that we must apply to this concept of minding the things of the flesh. We then realize that focus on the things of the law is minding the things of the flesh, for there is no life in the things of Law.

We are said to be dead in trespasses and sins in Ephesians 2:1, which are the results in the lives of those who fail to keep the law and commit sins. This, again, is the kind of death that Paul described in Romans Chapters 7 through 8.

The flesh, itself, is not a wicked thing. Paul stated that in his flesh there dwelled the culprit called sin. Since Law was comprised of rituals and ceremonies that involved materialistic concentration on physical efforts that our flesh must carry out, and because sin is in that flesh, then death is bound to ensue. Focusing on rites and ceremonies that urge flesh to act stirs up the sin that is inside that flesh to cause us to commit sins.

Again, please don’t forget that the thing that Paul stated was over and ended was comprised of the foods, drinks, diverse washings and carnal ordinances of Law. The aspects of Law that are about moral issues including the need to not engage in homosexuality, adultery and murder, etc.

mfblume
12-26-2019, 01:04 PM
So common sense affirms and supports the fourth commandment. :thumbsup

The aspect of the fourth commandment that speaks of a day to rest, but not necessarily the SEVENTH day, yes. And that goes back to what I said about Romans stating the heathens do by nature what the law says.

mfblume
12-26-2019, 01:09 PM
I remember you posting this in the eschatology section years ago. Could you expand on this thought? Would this also indicate that the Hebrew Sabbath was only regional, and held to a geographical setting? Let me just give you some thoughts. In India the religion of Hinduism cannot really be practiced outside of India. Because its holy places as rivers are only found in India, and when the vedas were being written no Hindu believed their religion would be practiced in a foreign country. The American Indian has the same problem as does the Muslim which must make a pilgrimage every year to Hajj in Mecca. Yes, the Muslim as well as the Hindu will give explanation that you as an adherent to their religion must at least make a holy pilgrimage once you in your lifetime but that is pretty much guru, and Imam will give some excuse why it isn't necessary to make these religious rituals as the original believers did when their religion was exclusively in the land of its nativity. Rabbinical Judaism takes from the Bible and uses 1 Kings 8:44, 1 Kings 8:47-49. Therefore the Rabbinical Talmudic Jews face the east to pray towards Jerusalem, and the Muslims do the same with Mecca. Both groups taking a religion which in time past was totally dependent on its geographic location.

So, Brother Blume, would you also say that the sabbath, according to the biblical people of that time was geographical?

Yes, exactly. Like the temple. It was in Jerusalem and you had to go there for the three feasts. But now it is spirituallly everywhere. Sabbath foreshadowed a universal opportunity for people to rest because it is not based on what time period the sun is in relation tot eh earth to cause physical days.

mfblume
12-26-2019, 01:22 PM
Why did God Himself rest on the Sabbath?

Could it of had a deeper meaning? Jesus telling us to come under His yoke and there we will have sabbath?

I think the contrast of yokes is seen in the New Testament. That verse you quoted goes along with Acts 15 where the yoke of Moses could not be borne. And I think Jesus' yoke is a sabbath beyond a mere day.

From what I read, Esaias agrees that the sabbath day foreshadowed the spiritual priesthood of Christ on the throne. He just thinks we do not have to dispose of the shadow just because we have the "body".

Jesus's humanity rested and relied wholly on the Spirit, and we are invited to enter that rest, too. It's ceasing from the works that Hebrews 4 spoke about in telling us that we can find grace to help in the time of need at his throne of mercy.

Evang.Benincasa
12-26-2019, 02:27 PM
I think the contrast of yokes is seen in the New Testament. That verse you quoted goes along with Acts 15 where the yoke of Moses could not be borne. And I think Jesus' yoke is a sabbath beyond a mere day.

From what I read, Esaias agrees that the sabbath day foreshadowed the spiritual priesthood of Christ on the throne. He just thinks we do not have to dispose of the shadow just because we have the "body".

Jesus's humanity rested and relied wholly on the Spirit, and we are invited to enter that rest, too. It's ceasing from the works that Hebrews 4 spoke about in telling us that we can find grace to help in the time of need at his throne of mercy.

Matthew 11:28-30 Jesus then goes to say that those who are weary from their hard work that Jesus is the one who gives rest. Work and rest can only be understood through the schoolmaster who utilized the the physical work week, and the physical sabbaths to the students. In Acts 15:10 (as you so kindly pointed out) we have the yoke of bondage which was Moses' precepts imposed by the harding of Israel's hearts. Jesus is telling the students of Moses that His Gospel is the rest which causes the weary to rest. Cease from all work, Hebrews 4:4, Hebrews 4:9-10.

mfblume
12-26-2019, 03:03 PM
Matthew 11:28-30 Jesus then goes to say that those who are weary from their hard work that Jesus is the one who gives rest. Work and rest can only be understood through the schoolmaster who utilized the the physical work week, and the physical sabbaths to the students. In Acts 15:10 (as you so kindly pointed out) we have the yoke of bondage which was Moses' precepts imposed by the harding of Israel's hearts. Jesus is telling the students of Moses that His Gospel is the rest which causes the weary to rest. Cease from all work, Hebrews 4:4, Hebrews 4:9-10.

Amen!

Evang.Benincasa
12-26-2019, 04:29 PM
Now, while all this is evidence, we still have days in which we gather together. The apostles met daily, went from house to house, breaking bread. Still we have specific commands which concern murder, the taking of life through passion, idolatry, bearing false witness, using God's name falsely, having any other gods other than the God, honoring parents, not betraying your spouse by adultery thereby desecrating what God has joined together, theft, desiring anything that your near brother owns, and not honoring a day of rest which is called the sabbath. When we are told that the OT has been satisfied and that the law no longer applies we still have moral law which applies to us. Therefore, it seems to me, that the keeping of a day of rest is part of the moral law?

mfblume
12-26-2019, 05:15 PM
Now, while all this is evidence, we still have days in which we gather together. The apostles met daily, went from house to house, breaking bread. Still we have specific commands which concern murder, the taking of life through passion, idolatry, bearing false witness, using God's name falsely, having any other gods other than the God, honoring parents, not betraying your spouse by adultery thereby desecrating what God has joined together, theft, desiring anything that your near brother owns, and not honoring a day of rest which is called the sabbath. When we are told that the OT has been satisfied and that the law no longer applies we still have moral law which applies to us. Therefore, it seems to me, that the keeping of a day of rest is part of the moral law?

The issue at hand is whether or not the day of rest has to be the seventh day. Resting itself is not so moral, I think, as it is common sense. But to speak of a seventh day, and not another day of the week, is more ritualistic and regarding an actual day as holy, after Paul stated we are not to keep holy days in Gal 4.

Esaias
12-26-2019, 06:43 PM
Now, while all this is evidence, we still have days in which we gather together. The apostles met daily, went from house to house, breaking bread. Still we have specific commands which concern murder, the taking of life through passion, idolatry, bearing false witness, using God's name falsely, having any other gods other than the God, honoring parents, not betraying your spouse by adultery thereby desecrating what God has joined together, theft, desiring anything that your near brother owns, and not honoring a day of rest which is called the sabbath. When we are told that the OT has been satisfied and that the law no longer applies we still have moral law which applies to us. Therefore, it seems to me, that the keeping of a day of rest is part of the moral law?

Yes, exactly. It isn't just a day of rest, in and of itself, however. By remembering the Sabbath day to keep it holy, we are by our action declaring who our God is, that our God is "the Lord of the Sabbath", the Creator of heaven and earth. Our schedule itself winds up being constructed to the glory and honour of God.

Will any ole day do? Think about baptism, it's basically a quick bath. Will any ole dunking do? Or should we do the dunking that God instructs us to do? Immersion in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, vs any ole dunking? Seems we cannot really honour God by doing things other than as He specified? So it makes sense to me do it like the Bible says: "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy... the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God."

Why wouldn't a Christian want to remember the day God sanctified as a memorial to Who He is?

Esaias
12-26-2019, 06:49 PM
But to speak of a seventh day, and not another day of the week, is more ritualistic and regarding an actual day as holy, after Paul stated we are not to keep holy days in Gal 4.

How is Sunday church service, EVERY Sunday, not "ritualistic" and not making Sunday a day set apart from the other days for corporate worship? In fact, how is footwashing not ritualistic? The Lord's Supper? Baptism? Lifting hands in prayer? Standing for the reading of the Word of God? Altar call at end of just about every service? Greeting one another? Prayer service in the prayer room before the main service? Anointing the sick with oil? Laying on hands for ordination, healing, deliverance, receiving the Holy Ghost? Wearing your Sunday best? And a dozen other things most of us do as Christians?

Also, Paul never said "we are not to keep holy days".

Evang.Benincasa
12-26-2019, 07:33 PM
The issue at hand is whether or not the day of rest has to be the seventh day. Resting itself is not so moral, I think, as it is common sense. But to speak of a seventh day, and not another day of the week, is more ritualistic and regarding an actual day as holy, after Paul stated we are not to keep holy days in Gal 4.

In Galatians 4:10 Paul is directing the readers to not being contentious over the calendar. From what we are reading in Galatians and the other epistles is that the different rabbinical schools could of been making issue concerning the calendar. Yet, the issue wasn't about the seventh day. Romans 14:5 Paul asks that their disputes concerning the calendar be settled in their own minds. while in Colossians 2:16 Paul speaks of the calendar not to be a point of judgement, that Christ had brought all under the power of the cross, and therefore the calendar was a shadow and that the shadow stemmed from the Body which is Christ's. Still my question is, concerning the seventh day isn't it part of the moral law?

Evang.Benincasa
12-26-2019, 07:36 PM
How is Sunday church service, EVERY Sunday, not "ritualistic" and not making Sunday a day set apart from the other days for corporate worship? In fact, how is footwashing not ritualistic? The Lord's Supper? Baptism? Lifting hands in prayer? Standing for the reading of the Word of God? Altar call at end of just about every service? Greeting one another? Prayer service in the prayer room before the main service? Anointing the sick with oil? Laying on hands for ordination, healing, deliverance, receiving the Holy Ghost? Wearing your Sunday best? And a dozen other things most of us do as Christians?

Also, Paul never said "we are not to keep holy days".

What I'm asking is that the sabbath is part of the moral law? If that is true then it isn't just about ritual. You not commiting murder isn't ritualistic, or giving honor to your parents with respect. Not to commit adultery, isn't practiced through ritual, or it would be some meaningless command done out of duty, not of love.

Esaias
12-26-2019, 09:10 PM
What I'm asking is that the sabbath is part of the moral law? If that is true then it isn't just about ritual. You not commiting murder isn't ritualistic, or giving honor to your parents with respect. Not to commit adultery, isn't practiced through ritual, or it would be some meaningless command done out of duty, not of love.

Yes, the fourth commandment is moral law. It contains the following elements:

1. Honour God by sanctifying the day He instructed to be sanctified.
2. Imitate God by ceasing from "secular work" .
3. Love your neighbour by abstaining from exacting labour from them on that day, allowing them to keep Sabbath (an equality is in view, all, rich and poor, free and bond, paterfamilias and children, master and servant, even the animals, all free from mundane labour to join in a mutual honouring of God).

The Sabbath serves as a bridge between loving God and loving your neighbour.

Let's talk a moment about honouring parents, which you mentioned. If Dad wants no phones at the dinner table and everyone to say grace together before eating, would it be honouring him if.a son said "Look, I love and honour you on a daily basis as part of who I am, so I don't need these dinnertime rituals of putting my phone away and waiting and praying with everyone before stuffing my face"?

As for ritual, a ritual is anything done in a particular way. Is it ritual for a believer to regularly give ten percent of their money to the work of God? It CAN be empty ritual, or it can be an act of love. Is telling your wife you love her, before leaving for work each morning, a ritual? Sure it is. Is it meaningless? Rote duty? It can be, or it can be an act of devotion and a sign of love.

Do we abstain from idolatry out of bare duty? Or because we love God?

"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments."

Love causes us to fulfill our duty. Duty is really essentially moral obligation. It is doing what is right, what is DUE, what we ought to do.

People get baptised for all the wrong reasons. But that doesn't stop sincere believers from being baptised. People pray as a matter of mere obligation, like punching the time clock, with no real love for God. Their prayers are nigh worthless. But that doesn't stop the saints from praying.

Besides, it's really not that difficult to put aside personal business/work for one day, and spend time with God, both privately and corporately. :)

Esaias
12-26-2019, 09:16 PM
If Jesus is Lord of all my life, then isn't He Lord of my schedule, too?

votivesoul
12-27-2019, 11:05 AM
We are created in the image of God, as His representatives and messengers. We live in imitation of Him. This can mean many things, and I believe sometimes, we get too much of this wrong, but chiefly, the way in which we image God the most, in my opinion, is as creators. The first commandment to Adam and Eve was to reproduce after their kind, that is, create!

The Sabbath of God was a time in which God could, as it were, reflect and enjoy the goodness of all that He had made. Think of it: He knew it was all going to come down soon enough. The serpent, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve's deception, Adam's transgression, and thousands of years until the Christ would undo all the undoing of creation.

God resting then, I think, in a manner of speaking, was time taken, as it were, to enjoy the good times, the pure times, the times when all was right with the world and not a single thing was amiss. After Genesis 3, it's not until Revelation 20-21 that all that went wrong gets fixed. How many millennia is that? Who knows for sure.

So, why are we given the Sabbath? As imagers of God, we are creators like Him. We have time enough each week to survey all we have, by His good grace, created, that is, our personal world, our family, our home, our church, our neighborhood, and enjoy it for all it is worth. Because all of it entropies in time. Life doesn't stay great forever. Hurts, pains, sorrows, and losses all come. Tears will be, if not constant, at least consistent.

If you and your family have been able to, by God's good grace, create a good life out of this fallen and ready to pass away world, then take the time you have been given, and cease from your works long enough to really appreciate how wonderful and amazing it is that you've got something good going when the rest of the world lives in hell 24/7.

There's your reason to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Life is too fast, and it passes in blinks of the eye. Set apart the necessary time, week by week, to memorialize it and sanctify it in your hearts, so you can slow life down and really become present in the moment. Our lives are a vapor, our days are like smoke. Sabbath is the means whereby we construct something solid, temporary as the case may be until our mortality puts on immortality, and so, that which is temporary becomes eternally permanent.

Enjoying Sabbath now prepares us for the forever rest we are going to experience then.

Esaias
12-27-2019, 11:10 AM
We are created in the image of God, as His representatives and messengers. We live in imitation of Him. This can mean many things, and I believe sometimes, we get too much of this wrong, but chiefly, the way in which we image God the most, in my opinion, is as creators. The first commandment to Adam and Eve was to reproduce after their kind, that is, create!

The Sabbath of God was a time in which God could, as it were, reflect and enjoy the goodness of all that He had made. Think of it: He knew it was all going to come down soon enough. The serpent, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve's deception, Adam's transgression, and thousands of years until the Christ would undo all the undoing of creation.

God resting then, I think, in a manner of speaking, was time taken, as it were, to enjoy the good times, the pure times, the times when all was right with the world and not a single thing was amiss. After Genesis 3, it's not until Revelation 20-21 that all that went wrong gets fixed. How many millennia is that? Who knows for sure.

So, why are we given the Sabbath? As imagers of God, we are creators like Him. We have time enough each week to survey all we have, by His good grace, created, that is, our personal world, our family, our home, our church, our neighborhood, and enjoy it for all it is worth. Because all of it entropies in time. Life doesn't stay great forever. Hurts, pains, sorrows, and losses all come. Tears will be, if not constant, at least consistent.

If you and your family have been able to, by God's good grace, create a good life out of this fallen and ready to pass away world, then take the time you have been given, and cease from your works long enough to really appreciate how wonderful and amazing it is that you've got something good going when the rest of the world lives in hell 24/7.

There's your reason to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Life is too fast, and it passes in blinks of the eye. Set apart the necessary time, week by week, to memorialize it and sanctify it in your hearts, so you can slow life down and really become present in the moment. Our lives are a vapor, our days are like smoke. Sabbath is the means whereby we construct something solid, temporary as the case may be until our mortality puts on immortality, and so, that which is temporary becomes eternally permanent.

Enjoying Sabbath now prepares us for the forever rest we are going to experience then.

Hey, that's very good! Excellente! :highfive :yourock

votivesoul
12-27-2019, 11:38 AM
Thanks, Esaias

It seems to me that God's first rest was a climax, a point of culmination, in which that which was formerly formless and void, was now perfectly formed and full, replete with life and hope and goodness.

Imagine if you spent great amounts of time and money and effort building a house, and finally, the day arrives when a barren plot of land is going to be your home, the first thing you might want to do is, have a seat on your sofa, put your arm around your wife, sit your kids on your lap, and bask for a while.

Why is that instinct in us? Why do we like taking a step back and admiring the work of our own hands? Paint a wall and if you've done a good job, you're pleased. Put a crib together getting ready for baby number one, or baby number ten, and you see in yourself the divine spark placed there by God. You are a maker, like Him. You savor those moments. The child comes and you are in awe of God as you see his or her face for the first time, unconditionally in love with someone you have never met, that you and your wife created nine months earlier in the most intimate and powerful and profound relationship you can ever have with another human being.

Rebuild an engine and hear it roar or purr as the case may be, and you can't help but smile. Tag-team a piano down the stairs with your brother and you and he just might high-five each other, glad no one got hurt.

These are the little things we rejoice in every day. All these little life moments where we exercise our capacity to create and reenact and embody our roles as imagers of God. Sabbath is the memorial for all of this. I can think of no good reason why not to take time each week, as a typology for the creation of Genesis 1, to do exactly what God Himself did.

mfblume
12-27-2019, 05:56 PM
We are created in the image of God, as His representatives and messengers. We live in imitation of Him. This can mean many things, and I believe sometimes, we get too much of this wrong, but chiefly, the way in which we image God the most, in my opinion, is as creators. The first commandment to Adam and Eve was to reproduce after their kind, that is, create!

The Sabbath of God was a time in which God could, as it were, reflect and enjoy the goodness of all that He had made. Think of it: He knew it was all going to come down soon enough. The serpent, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve's deception, Adam's transgression, and thousands of years until the Christ would undo all the undoing of creation.

God resting then, I think, in a manner of speaking, was time taken, as it were, to enjoy the good times, the pure times, the times when all was right with the world and not a single thing was amiss. After Genesis 3, it's not until Revelation 20-21 that all that went wrong gets fixed. How many millennia is that? Who knows for sure.

So, why are we given the Sabbath? As imagers of God, we are creators like Him. We have time enough each week to survey all we have, by His good grace, created, that is, our personal world, our family, our home, our church, our neighborhood, and enjoy it for all it is worth. Because all of it entropies in time. Life doesn't stay great forever. Hurts, pains, sorrows, and losses all come. Tears will be, if not constant, at least consistent.

If you and your family have been able to, by God's good grace, create a good life out of this fallen and ready to pass away world, then take the time you have been given, and cease from your works long enough to really appreciate how wonderful and amazing it is that you've got something good going when the rest of the world lives in hell 24/7.

There's your reason to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Life is too fast, and it passes in blinks of the eye. Set apart the necessary time, week by week, to memorialize it and sanctify it in your hearts, so you can slow life down and really become present in the moment. Our lives are a vapor, our days are like smoke. Sabbath is the means whereby we construct something solid, temporary as the case may be until our mortality puts on immortality, and so, that which is temporary becomes eternally permanent.

Enjoying Sabbath now prepares us for the forever rest we are going to experience then.

What are your thoughts on Galatians 4:1-11?

mfblume
12-27-2019, 06:00 PM
How is Sunday church service, EVERY Sunday, not "ritualistic" and not making Sunday a day set apart from the other days for corporate worship? In fact, how is footwashing not ritualistic? The Lord's Supper? Baptism? Lifting hands in prayer? Standing for the reading of the Word of God? Altar call at end of just about every service? Greeting one another? Prayer service in the prayer room before the main service? Anointing the sick with oil? Laying on hands for ordination, healing, deliverance, receiving the Holy Ghost? Wearing your Sunday best? And a dozen other things most of us do as Christians?

Also, Paul never said "we are not to keep holy days".Attending a meeting to hear the word of God is not ritualistic unless we feel the actual day and the mere attending without anything else confers a blessing from God and is considered holy acts.

If that is ritualistic, then picking up a bible to gain revelation from the word makes a ritual out of the act of picking it up physically, and everyone should hush their voices and gaze in silence at the mere act of picking up the bible.

Paul was afraid for them for their observances of days. Observing a day is considering the day to be holy.

mfblume
12-27-2019, 06:02 PM
In Galatians 4:10 Paul is directing the readers to not being contentious over the calendar. From what we are reading in Galatians and the other epistles is that the different rabbinical schools could of been making issue concerning the calendar. Yet, the issue wasn't about the seventh day. Romans 14:5 Paul asks that their disputes concerning the calendar be settled in their own minds. while in Colossians 2:16 Paul speaks of the calendar not to be a point of judgement, that Christ had brought all under the power of the cross, and therefore the calendar was a shadow and that the shadow stemmed from the Body which is Christ's. Still my question is, concerning the seventh day isn't it part of the moral law?

I think it's more simple than that.

Gal 3 says the law was an elementary schoolmaster to bring Israel to Jesus. Once Jesus arrived, the day of graduation from the school took place and Paul essentially said, "If we Israelites were not supposed to be under a schoolmaster after Christ arrived, why are you saved Gentiles putting yourselves under our schoolmaster? Stop keeping sabbaths and experience the rest that the sabbath day foreshadowed."

Evang.Benincasa
12-27-2019, 06:18 PM
In Antarctica, sabbath would last WEEKS! That WOULD be a problem! seventh sundown to sundown would be WEEKS where the sun rises and sets after weeks at a time in Antarctica. lol

Yes, exactly. Like the temple. It was in Jerusalem and you had to go there for the three feasts. But now it is spiritually everywhere. Sabbath foreshadowed a universal opportunity for people to rest because it is not based on what time period the sun is in relation to the earth to cause physical days.



I think it's more simple than that.

Gal 3 says the law was an elementary schoolmaster to bring Israel to Jesus. Once Jesus arrived, the day of graduation from the school took place and Paul essentially said, "If we Israelites were not supposed to be under a schoolmaster after Christ arrived, why are you saved Gentiles putting yourselves under our schoolmaster? Stop keeping sabbaths and experience the rest that the sabbath day foreshadowed."

Makes me think of Daniel 2:33-35 where all the occupying forces are consumed by the rock, and all or overwhelmed by the new mountain. Now, the commonwealth of Israel goes from one geographical location to a universal location? Spiritual Israel, spiritual temple, spiritual priesthood, spiritual offerings, and spiritual rest?

:couch

Evang.Benincasa
12-27-2019, 06:20 PM
If Jesus is Lord of all my life, then isn't He Lord of my schedule, too?

I need a break. :highfive

mfblume
12-27-2019, 06:29 PM
Makes me think of Daniel 2:33-35 where all the occupying forces are consumed by the rock, and all or overwhelmed by the new mountain. Now, the commonwealth of Israel goes from one geographical location to a universal location? Spiritual Israel, spiritual temple, spiritual priesthood, spiritual offerings, and spiritual rest?

:couch

Yes! :thumbsup

Esaias
12-27-2019, 08:44 PM
Attending a meeting to hear the word of God is not ritualistic unless we feel the actual day and the mere attending without anything else confers a blessing from God and is considered holy acts.



What dictionary are you using?

Esaias
12-27-2019, 09:05 PM
Makes me think of Daniel 2:33-35 where all the occupying forces are consumed by the rock, and all or overwhelmed by the new mountain. Now, the commonwealth of Israel goes from one geographical location to a universal location? Spiritual Israel, spiritual temple, spiritual priesthood, spiritual offerings, and spiritual rest?

:couch

Indeed. We all get a spiritual Father and a spiritual mother, too. So our response to the Fifth Commandment is now...?

Esaias
12-27-2019, 09:08 PM
Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
Attending a meeting to hear the word of God is not ritualistic unless we feel the actual day and the mere attending without anything else confers a blessing from God and is considered holy acts.

Just wanted to point out that neither I nor any Sabbath keeper I know argues in favour of "mere attending without anything else confers a blessing from God" etc.

Esaias
12-27-2019, 09:09 PM
I need a break. :highfive

He giveth thee a break, as He promised. :thumbsup

Esaias
12-27-2019, 09:32 PM
What dictionary are you using?

Here's the dictionary I use, with some definitiins:

RIT'UAL, adjective

1. Pertaining to rites; consisting of rites; as ritual service or sacrifices.

2. Prescribing rites; as the ritual law.

RIT'UAL, noun A book containing the rites to be observed, or the manner of performing divine service in a particular church, diocese or the like. (Webster's 1828)

So what are "rites" (the earlier word for what we today call "rituals")?

RITE, noun [Latin ritus.]

The manner of performing divine or solemn service as established by law, precept or custom; formal act of religion, or other solemn duty. The rites of the Israelites were numerous and expensive; the rites of modern churches are more simple. Funeral rites are very different in different countries. The sacrament is a holy rite. (Webster's 1828)

So a "rite" or "ritual" is "the manner of performing divine or solemn service as established by law, precept, or by custom. It is a formal act of religion or other solemn duty.

Is raising holy hands in prayer a "manner of performing divine service as established by law, precept, or custom"? Is performing baptism by immersing in water in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, upon a confession of faith, a "manner of performing divine or solemn service as established by law, precept, or custom"?

Come Sunday, will you:

Get dressed in nice attire, go to a particular location where prayer is wont to be made, go to a prayer room or kneel at the pew, pray until service begins? Which service begins with a musical call to worship, some songs and some exhortations to praise the Lord, passing a collection plate, followed maybe by a round of testimonies, a reading of a text of Scripture, a sermon, an altar call with an invitational song, an altar service, a final exhortation and a dismissal? Or something similar? REPEATED EVERY SUNDAY?

Is that not a "manner of performing divine or solemn service as established by law, precept, or custom"?

Everyone, Christians included, have rites or rituals. The new testament establishes numerous rites or rituals to be regularly practiced by Christians. They are never questioned (except by Quakers and hyper liberals). So the claim that Sabbath keeping is "ritual" and "therefore dispensed with by Christians" is clearly not correct and not consistent.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 06:37 AM
Ritualistic Cain, and devoted worshipper Abel. I know that there are many that believe a tiller of the earth needed to offer a blood sacrifice, even before an edict to do so was enacted. But, if we let the story play out we see what is happening. Cain offered his first fruits of his labor, and so did Abel. One was a tiller of the ground and the other a shepard. Abel loved God and therefore his gift was accepted. Cain offered his offering out of duty, ritual. I can't speak for everyone who keeps a day of rest, but no matter what we do we all should do it out of love for God. The commandments are written on stone, and not papyrus. On the stone tablet Israel are told that they are to have no other gods before the one true living God. This is focused on relationship. Since the schoolmaster has brought us to Christ are we no longer to hold this devotion? Everything about Jesus' ministry was to bring all of Israel back to the true devotion of God, not just a to do list ritualistic relationship. There is no sabbath without Christ devotion through the Holy Ghost. There is no true godly devotion to mother and father without a true desire to God first. There isn't a true prohibition against murder, blasphemy, theft, covetousness, or betrayal of a spouse without true loving devotion to God first. Same to keeping a day of rest.

The spiritual should manifest itself into a physical? Fig trees should give figs at the proper time?

How'd I do? :)

Amanah
12-28-2019, 08:16 AM
doesn't this deal with the issue of observance of days?

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. Romans 14

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 09:03 AM
doesn't this deal with the issue of observance of days?

I believe that this isn't dealing with the sabbath, but it is dealing with Rabbinical traditions. One would be THEIR calendar. A calendar which they modified, which were days of fasting. To place an elimination of a sabbath, or an allowance of a sabbath we can't really use this chapter. My opinion.

Amanah
12-28-2019, 10:28 AM
I believe that this isn't dealing with the sabbath, but it is dealing with Rabbinical traditions. One would be THEIR calendar. A calendar which they modified, which were days of fasting. To place an elimination of a sabbath, or an allowance of a sabbath we can't really use this chapter. My opinion.

I see your point and have to agree

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 11:27 AM
I believe that this isn't dealing with the sabbath, but it is dealing with Rabbinical traditions. One would be THEIR calendar. A calendar which they modified, which were days of fasting. To place an elimination of a sabbath, or an allowance of a sabbath we can't really use this chapter. My opinion.

How ‘bout this?

Colossians 2

[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 11:51 AM
How ‘bout this?

Colossians 2

[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

It is plural so therefore we aren't dealing with the weekly calendar, but with how they were using the calendar. Or should i say abusing the calendar.

mfblume
12-28-2019, 12:23 PM
How ‘bout this?

Colossians 2

[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I believe it means ALL sabbath days of every kind.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 12:39 PM
I believe it means ALL sabbath days of every kind.

Yes

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 12:44 PM
the point is in Isaiah 1:13-14, religious ritual void of true sincere love towards God was prohibited. A man who justs goes through the motions of marriage and fatherhood, cannot be considered actually a husband. Same goes for a wife. Same goes for children. It is the judging in Colossians and Romans is where we have to focus.

Esaias
12-28-2019, 03:56 PM
Colossians 2

[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Colossians 2

[16] Let no man judge you for eating pork and catfish, or drinking coffee or tea, or not respecting a holy day, or not respecting the new moon, or not respecting the sabbath days.
[17] Which were a shadow of things that have come, but the substance which cast those shadows is Christ's physical body.

The first version is the Bible. The second version is what most people seem to think is the Bible.

Esaias
12-28-2019, 03:59 PM
the point is in Isaiah 1:13-14, religious ritual void of true sincere love towards God was prohibited. A man who justs goes through the motions of marriage and fatherhood, cannot be considered actually a husband. Same goes for a wife. Same goes for children. It is the judging in Colossians and Romans is where we have to focus.

Exactly.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 04:08 PM
Colossians 2

[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Colossians 2

[16] Let no man judge you for eating pork and catfish, or drinking coffee or tea, or not respecting a holy day, or not respecting the new moon, or not respecting the sabbath days.
[17] Which were a shadow of things that have come, but the substance which cast those shadows is Christ's physical body.

The first version is the Bible. The second version is what most people seem to think is the Bible.

Absolutely, and therefore they contradict the other verses in the discussion.
The argument also goes along with meat offered to idols, and the effect that was having on the early church. Paul didn't advocate eating at the shambles, or breaking the law of Moses, or else the accusation against Paul in Acts 21:21, would of been true. Just like today (just without the internet, Facebook, or AFF) there were differing opinions on how to keep "ecclesiastically kosher?" Yet, the sabbath was never in question, yet, sabbaths, feast days, new moon observances were. Just as endless genealogies were also muddying the water, hence the keeping of Rabbinical traditions.

Esaias
12-28-2019, 04:39 PM
Absolutely, and therefore they contradict the other verses in the discussion.
The argument also goes along with meat offered to idols, and the effect that was having on the early church. Paul didn't advocate eating at the shambles, or breaking the law of Moses, or else the accusation against Paul in Acts 21:21, would of been true. Just like today (just without the internet, Facebook, or AFF) there were differing opinions on how to keep "ecclesiastically kosher?" Yet, the sabbath was never in question, yet, sabbaths, feast days, new moon observances were. Just as endless genealogies were also muddying the water, hence the keeping of Rabbinical traditions.

What I think a lot of people miss, and which I myself missed for many years in reading this passage, is that the Colossians were being judged or critiqued for doing certain things, not for not doing certain things.

The words "meat... drink" are actually participles. Eating and drinking. Paul said let no man judge you in your eating and drinking. The eating and drinking were something the Colossians were doing, for which they were being judged. Which the grammar demands the respecting the holy days, new moons, and sabbaths were also something the Colossians were doing, for which they were being judged by outsiders.

Also, because of the common misreading of the passage (people read that the Colossians were being criticised for NOT doing things, including the use of the Biblical calendar), people assume the problem causers in Colosse were Jews or Judaizers. But I believe that isn't the case at all.

When Paul had to deal with Judaizers the issue of circumcision vs uncircumcision is always in the forefront. Which of course we would expect. But in Colossians the issue in the forefront of the apostle's polemic is the gospel vs vain philosophy based on traditions about and derived from the cosmic elements.

Colossians 2:18 and 2:23 are generally recognised as two of the most difficult verses in the NT to translate. A very close and studious unpacking of those verses, within the larger context of the first 2 chapters, I believe shows what's actually going on. Basically, followers of the Cynic school of Greek philosophy had encountered and witnessed the Christian worship of the Colossians, and had begun criticising them for the Lord's Supper and other liturgical aspects of their faith (including their use of the Biblical calendar). Historically, these were main points of contention and criticism by Cynics - eating and drinking (liturgical feasting), and recognition of religious calendars and time keeping in general. Other points Cynics focused on in their harangues of others included ascetism and abuse of the body, ethics and humility, and the superiority of (Cynic) philosophy to all religion. Their philosophy was also based upon a cosmological view of reality and the "elements of the kosmos", from which they derived their entire outlook and manner of living.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 04:56 PM
What I think a lot of people miss, and which I myself missed for many years in reading this passage, is that the Colossians were being judged or critiqued for doing certain things, not for not doing certain things.

The words "meat... drink" are actually participles. Eating and drinking. Paul said let no man judge you in your eating and drinking. The eating and drinking were something the Colossians were doing, for which they were being judged. Which the grammar demands the respecting the holy days, new moons, and sabbaths were also something the Colossians were doing, for which they were being judged by outsiders.

Also, because of the common misreading of the passage (people read that the Colossians were being criticised for NOT doing things, including the use of the Biblical calendar), people assume the problem causers in Colosse were Jews or Judaizers. But I believe that isn't the case at all.

When Paul had to deal with Judaizers the issue of circumcision vs uncircumcision is always in the forefront. Which of course we would expect. But in Colossians the issue in the forefront of the apostle's polemic is the gospel vs vain philosophy based on traditions about and derived from the cosmic elements.

Colossians 2:18 and 2:23 are generally recognised as two of the most difficult verses in the NT to translate. A very close and studious unpacking of those verses, within the larger context of the first 2 chapters, I believe shows what's actually going on. Basically, followers of the Cynic school of Greek philosophy had encountered and witnessed the Christian worship of the Colossians, and had begun criticising them for the Lord's Supper and other liturgical aspects of their faith (including their use of the Biblical calendar). Historically, these were main points of contention and criticism by Cynics - eating and drinking (liturgical feasting), and recognition of religious calendars and time keeping in general. Other points Cynics focused on in their harangues of others included asceticism and abuse of the body, ethics and humility, and the superiority of (Cynic) philosophy to all religion. Their philosophy was also based upon a cosmological view of reality and the "elements of the kosmos", from which they derived their entire outlook and manner of living.

Yes, but the Cynic view (which a lot of Hellenism) was incorporated into the Rabbinical schools. If it were possible that they very elect would be deceived? That very elect were individuals like Paul, who are the cream of the crop of Israeli knowledge, and therefore could be able to see the heresy within Biblical Judaism, yet, have perfect understanding of the Christ revelation in the OT.

We must always, ALWAYS remember that Jesus or Paul didn't come up with a foreign religion. If they did they would of been ignored. Because after all schisms in first century Judaism was rife. What got the different camps of first century Judaism in a panic? It was, that Jesus and the apostles were exposing them for their heresies. The first century had messiahs by the bag full, but they weren't crucifying and stoning any of those imposters. The only ones who get threatened or killed are the ones who expose the false for exactly what it is.

Esaias
12-28-2019, 05:19 PM
We must always, ALWAYS remember that Jesus or Paul didn't come up with a foreign religion.

:yourock

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 06:47 PM
Colossians 2

[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Colossians 2

[16] Let no man judge you for eating pork and catfish, or drinking coffee or tea, or not respecting a holy day, or not respecting the new moon, or not respecting the sabbath days.
[17] Which were a shadow of things that have come, but the substance which cast those shadows is Christ's physical body.

The first version is the Bible. The second version is what most people seem to think is the Bible.

So . . .

Esaias, when do you think the Mosaic law will end?

Do you believe it is never ending?

I’m referring to the statutes other than sacrificing animals etc..

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 07:00 PM
[QUOTE=Esaias;Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa View Post
We must always, ALWAYS remember that Jesus or Paul didn't come up with a foreign religion. [QUOTE]

We MUST always remember that the new covenant is superior to the old covenant. And that the new covenant is NOT just the old covenant with a new set of plugs and a rebuilt carburetor.

Esaias
12-28-2019, 07:07 PM
So . . .

Esaias, when do you think the Mosaic law will end?

Do you believe it is never ending?

I’m referring to the ones other than sacrificing animals etc..

First of all, why do you go on a tangent rather than actually addressing the post you are referring to?

Secondly, your grammar is mixed up which makes your questions unclear: you ask about "the Mosaic law" (singular) then say "the ones other than" (plural).

Third, did you do the whole 40 day fast in Preparation of the Feast of the Nativity? Started Nov 15. Did you celebrate the Forefeast of the Nativity (Dec 20)? Did you do the Synaxis of the Theotokos (Dec 26)? Will you be celebrating all the way to Theophany?

Esaias
12-28-2019, 07:09 PM
[QUOTE=Esaias;Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa View Post
We must always, ALWAYS remember that Jesus or Paul didn't come up with a foreign religion.

We MUST always remember that the new covenant is superior to the old covenant. And that the new covenant is NOT just the old covenant with a new set of plugs and a rebuilt carburetor.

Wow, these quote tags are getting goofy.

But it IS consistent with the old paganism with new paint job and logo?

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 07:37 PM
[QUOTE=Tithesmeister;1576915]

Wow, these quote tags are getting goofy.

But it IS consistent with the old paganism with new paint job and logo?

Am I remembering correctly that you believe that Christmas is a celebration of the winter solstice that has been hijacked by Christianity?

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 07:42 PM
Wow, these quote tags are getting goofy.

But it IS consistent with the old paganism with new paint job and logo?

But that is what people believe.

They see Jesus and Paul as flagrant law breakers. Remember they made false accusations against Paul and Christ. Again, if Jesus and Paul came up with a new religion they would of been placed on the pay no mind list. The Essenes, the Zadokites (Sadducees) and the MANY schools of Phariseeism didn't agree.

Were they arresting each other? Were they killing each other? Turning each other over to the Roman officials? No, because it is part and parcel of Judaism that they NEVER AGREE. Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and the apostles just didn't teach something foreign. Romans didn't think the early Christain Apostolic sect was just another form of Judaism because they were ignorant. No, they saw early Christianity as just another form of Judaism, because they had a common religious day, religious piety, moral laws, food observances, and used the same exact religious writings in the first century A.D.. They even met in the same buildings called synagogues.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 07:44 PM
Am I remembering correctly that you believe that Christmas is a celebration of the winter solstice that has been hijacked by Christianity?

If we remember correctly you believe that Luke taught us to celebrate the birth of Christ.

Let's not go there.

You will lose. :laffatu

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 07:50 PM
If we remember correctly you believe that Luke taught us to celebrate the birth of Christ.

Let's not go there.

You will lose. :laffatu

Let’s go there. Please. I know people who won’t even read the story of the birth of Christ (in the Bible) because they are afraid of the whole Christmas thing. I think it is ridiculous.

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 07:54 PM
But that is what people believe.

They see Jesus and Paul as flagrant law breakers. Remember they made false accusations against Paul and Christ. Again, if Jesus and Paul came up with a new religion they would of been placed on the pay no mind list. The Essenes, the Zadokites (Sadducees) and the MANY schools of Phariseeism didn't agree.

Were they arresting each other? Were they killing each other? Turning each other over to the Roman officials? No, because it is part and parcel of Judaism that they NEVER AGREE. Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and the apostles just didn't teach something foreign. Romans didn't think the early Christain Apostolic sect was just another form of Judaism because they were ignorant. No, they saw early Christianity as just another form of Judaism, because they had a common religious day, religious piety, moral laws, food observances, and used the same exact religious writings in the first century A.D.. They even met in the same buildings called synagogues.

EB, can you think of ANY differences in the new covenant and the old? Because it is beginning to sound like you believe they are the same!

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 08:07 PM
EB, can you think of ANY differences in the new covenant and the old? Because it is beginning to sound like you believe they are the same!

It sounds like?

Was Jesus a law keeper?

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 08:11 PM
Let’s go there. Please. I know people who won’t even read the story of the birth of Christ (in the Bible) because they are afraid of the whole Christmas thing. I think it is ridiculous.

So, you happen to know a few religious idiots and therefore it reflects on my logic? Wait, you sound just as bizarre. Here is why, you are saying that by people reading the portion in Luke they would deduce that they are to celebrate His birth? They are also to do it in December? They are also going to give gifts to each other? Dude, this is why my brother, posted that you have no credibility.

Please quit while you are ahead. :laffatu

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 08:13 PM
It sounds like?

Did was Jesus a law keeper?

Jesus was a law keeper.

Made of a woman.

Gal.4

[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
[5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

He didn’t fulfill the law upon His birth, but upon His crucifixion.

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 08:17 PM
So, you happen to know a few religious idiots and therefore it reflects on my logic? Wait, you sound just as bizarre. Here is why, you are saying that by people reading the portion in Luke they would deduce that they are to celebrate His birth? They are also to do it in December? They are also going to give gifts to each other? Dude, this is why my brother, posted that you have no credibility.

Please quit while you are ahead. :laffatu
Well at least you admit that I’m ahead.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 08:18 PM
Well at least you admit that I’m ahead.

You are only ahead because you don't have two posters melting you down. :laffatu

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 08:22 PM
You are only ahead because you don't have two posters melting you down. :laffatu

I’m sorry for seeming to boast of being ahead of you. It is really not something to be proud of.

Now . . .

Would you like to tell which of the Mosaic law statutes we should still observe?

And when you think they should end?

If ever?

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 08:34 PM
Jesus was a law keeper.

Made of a woman.

Gal.4

[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
[5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

He didn’t fulfill the law upon His birth, but upon His crucifixion.

When Jesus' warns the disciples that they should pray that their flight from Jerusalem's siege wouldn't be on the sabbath day. Did he know this seige would be before or after His death? If His audience weren't going to be observant according to His NEW RELIGION, then warning them about breaking the sabbath, going against the lock down, a moot point. Jesus was observant, taught His followers to be observant. Paul is accused of teaching Judeans who are Apostolics to stop circumcising their children, and to forsake the law of Moses. James discussion with Paul is about Paul refuting the false accusation by performing ritual cleansing at the temple. Paul circumcised Timothy Acts 16:3. Yet, Titus Paul did not. Yet, we are talking about the moral law here concerning the commandments thou shall not murder, commit adultery, honor God and no one else, and honor the sabbath. Which you cannot say that we are still obligated to keep one or three and leave the other undone.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 08:37 PM
I’m sorry for seeming to boast of being ahead of you. It is really not something to be proud of.


You back to playing victimized sore loser? :laffatu

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 08:42 PM
You back to playing victimized sore loser? :laffatu

I haven’t done that. What I HAVE done is try to get you to be truthful about what I have said.

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 08:44 PM
When Jesus' warns the disciples that they should pray that their flight from Jerusalem's siege wouldn't be on the sabbath day. Did he know this seige would be before or after His death? If His audience weren't going to be observant according to His NEW RELIGION, then warning them about breaking the sabbath, going against the lock down, a moot point. Jesus was observant, taught His followers to be observant. Paul is accused of teaching Judeans who are Apostolics to stop circumcising their children, and to forsake the law of Moses. James discussion with Paul is about Paul refuting the false accusation by performing ritual cleansing at the temple. Paul circumcised Timothy Acts 16:3. Yet, Titus Paul did not. Yet, we are talking about the moral law here concerning the commandments thou shall not murder, commit adultery, honor God and no one else, and honor the sabbath. Which you cannot say that we are still obligated to keep one or three and leave the other undone.

Do you observe the Sabbath?

coksiw
12-28-2019, 08:57 PM
When Jesus' warns the disciples that they should pray that their flight from Jerusalem's siege wouldn't be on the sabbath day. Did he know this seige would be before or after His death? If His audience weren't going to be observant according to His NEW RELIGION, then warning them about breaking the sabbath, going against the lock down, a moot point. Jesus was observant, taught His followers to be observant. Paul is accused of teaching Judeans who are Apostolics to stop circumcising their children, and to forsake the law of Moses. James discussion with Paul is about Paul refuting the false accusation by performing ritual cleansing at the temple. Paul circumcised Timothy Acts 16:3. Yet, Titus Paul did not. Yet, we are talking about the moral law here concerning the commandments thou shall not murder, commit adultery, honor God and no one else, and honor the sabbath. Which you cannot say that we are still obligated to keep one or three and leave the other undone.

The prophecy does not prove that Christians need to be Sabbath keepers. It is clear that the command to flee is for the people at Jerusalem, and Jesus tells them to pray that it doesn’t happen in winter or in the Sabbath because the obvious difficulties to flee in winter or Sabbath day. It is obvious that you can come to the conclusion that Jerusalem, at the time of the fulfillment, is going to be dominated by Jewish Sabbath keeping, to the point of affecting the transportation system.

coksiw
12-28-2019, 08:58 PM
Do you observe the Sabbath?

Same question. I didn’t know EB was a Sabbath keeper.

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 09:01 PM
Same question. I didn’t know EB was a Sabbath keeper.

I still don’t know. But it surely sounds like he is. Maybe he converted?

Esaias
12-28-2019, 09:12 PM
Transportation system? Jerusalem had Metrorail in the first century? lol

Sorry, the phrase just struck me as funny. :)

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 09:15 PM
The prophecy does not prove that Christians need to be Sabbath keepers. It is clear that the command to flee is for the people at Jerusalem, and Jesus tells them to pray that it doesn’t happen in winter or in the Sabbath because the obvious difficulties to flee in winter or Sabbath day. It is obvious that you can come to the conclusion that Jerusalem, at the time of the fulfillment, is going to be dominated by Jewish Sabbath keeping, to the point of affecting the transportation system.

If Jesus' religion was void of a "sabbath" then the mentioning of a sabbath difficulty would of not been mentioned. Also Jesus mentions man wasn't made for the sabbath, but the sabbath was made for man. How, can anyone get the idea that Jesus was looking to teach that the sabbath would no longer be observed? You don't have to be a Sabbath Keeper to see the obvious in scripture.

diakonos
12-28-2019, 09:29 PM
Transportation system? Jerusalem had Metrorail in the first century? lol

Sorry, the phrase just struck me as funny. :)

Uber

diakonos
12-28-2019, 09:29 PM
Uber

Lyft

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 09:31 PM
Transportation system? Jerusalem had Metrorail in the first century? lol

Sorry, the phrase just struck me as funny. :)

Huh?

mfblume
12-28-2019, 09:31 PM
If Jesus' religion was void of a "sabbath" then the mentioning of a sabbath difficulty would of not been mentioned. Also Jesus mentions man wasn't made for the sabbath, but the sabbath was made for man. How, can anyone get the idea that Jesus was looking to teach that the sabbath would no longer be observed? You don't have to be a Sabbath Keeper to see the obvious in scripture.

But simply because of the Sabbath was made for man doesn't mean that man is supposed to always keep the Sabbath. It doesn't mean that the Sabbath is always going to be in effect. The temple and the animal sacrifices were also made for a man, but both of them are gone now and we have what those things merely foreshadowed.

When Colossians talked about nobody judging, it's not talking about people who were keeping those things and were criticized for doing them. It was talking about the handwriting of ordinances that was removed out of the way, and Legalists generally are the ones who judge those for not doing this things, while liberals are the ones who despise those who do. Romans 14 was dealing with Legalists esteeming one day above another, and the stronger Brethren of faith despised them in return. It's not days of fasting, since the day is not esteemed in a fast. But the fast itself. However, the day is esteemed in sabbath keeping.

And the reason that Sabbath day's journey was mentioned in Matthew chapter 24, is because you can only go a certain Distance by law on sabbath whether you kept sabbath or not. Jerudalem Law demanded it and enforced it in you. So when Jesus said pray that your journey be not on the Sabbath, he was saying by law they wouldn't be able to flee like they should be able to otherwise on a sabbath day. That proves that it's a first-century fulfilment because it's not a law that requiring anybody to not go a certain distance on a Sabbath today.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 09:31 PM
Uber

Lyft

Huh?

coksiw
12-28-2019, 09:45 PM
Transportation system? Jerusalem had Metrorail in the first century? lol

Sorry, the phrase just struck me as funny. :)

Camel Express!

mfblume
12-28-2019, 09:46 PM
Varying opinion of Sabbatarians claim that Paul spoke about former pagan acquaintances by pointing out that he encouraged Gentile believers in other scriptures to keep the feasts. They argue that it was pagans, and not Jews, who were condemning them for keeping Old Covenant celebrations by referring to these words.

Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,”

However, context says otherwise. The passage be-fore Paul’s reference to judging, in reference to new moons and sabbaths in Colossians 2, makes it clear that Paul did not write about pagans who were judging believ-ers for keeping holy days and sabbaths.

Colossians 2:13-14 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

Paul said that the handwriting of ordinances was against them. That is a reference to Law. Ordinances were throughout the Old Covenant. Hebrews Chapter 9 corresponds to this passage and makes it clearer, as we discussed in earlier chapters.

An ordinance is a rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action. An ordinance may be a Law or statute of sovereign power. In this sense, it is often used in the Scriptures. Exodus 15; Numbers 10; Ezra 3.

Feasts and sabbaths were ordinances. The handwrit-ing of ordinances was against us because they were a re-membrance of sins.

So, Paul said, based on the fact that handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross, that is the reason that they should not let anyone judge them.

Judging people was done in the early church by le-galists. Those who were liberal could be accused of des-pising legalists, whereas legalists judged the liberals. The language is distinguished in Romans 14.

So, context tells us that sabbaths and new moons, drinks and holy days, were part of the handwriting of or-dinances.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 09:48 PM
But simply because of the Sabbath was made for man doesn't mean that man is supposed to always keep the Sabbath.

Realy, that doesn't prove that Jesus was going to introduce a religion void of a sabbath. The commandments themselves have don't commit murder with keep the sabbath.





It doesn't mean that the Sabbath is always going to be in effect.

Why? It certainly we are not given any indication that it was to be nullified in the future.




The temple and the animal sacrifices were also made for a man, but both of them are gone now and we have what those things merely foreshadowed.

Actually they weren't the same as what Jesus was dealing with when eating wheat kernels with His disciples. Matthew 24, clearly shows Jesus' intention for the temple law system. The animal sacrifices, priesthood were all to culminate.



When Colossians talked about nobody judging, it's not talking about people who were keeping those things and were criticized for doing them. It was talking about the handwriting of ordinances that was removed out of the way, and Legalists generally are the ones who judge those for not doing this things, while liberals are the ones who despise those who do. Romans 14 was dealing with Legalists esteeming one day above another, and the stronger Brethren of faith despised them in return. It's not days of fasting, since the day is not esteemed in a fast. But the fast itself. However, the day is esteemed in sabbath keeping.

Jesus was a legalist, Paul was a legalist, everyone from the Essenes, and the different schools of the Pharisees were legalists. Paul is dealing with the Judaic calendar, and the rabbinical traditions concerning that calendar. Not dealing with the sabbath instruction in the commandements. We run into some funny logic when we want to extrapolate one of the ten. :)


And the reason that Sabbath day's journey was mentioned in Matthew chapter 24, is because you can only go a certain Distance by law on sabbath. So when Jesus said pray that your journey be not on the Sabbath, he was saying by law they wouldn't be able to flee like they should be able to otherwise on a sabbath day. That proves that it's a first-century fulfilment because it's not a law that requiring anybody to not go a certain distance on a Sabbath today.

Again, if Jesus was teaching that the sabbath wouldn't be an issue for His followers, then no matter what the length of difficulty. It would of been a moot point. Again, one doesn't need to be a Sabbath Keeper to see the obvious. But teaching that Jesus taught to disregard the sabbath isn't found in the Gospel. Paul certainly didn't teach to disregard the commandment. Definitely not to the first century Judean converts. They were dealing with issues, issues which pertained exclusively to their time. Which we don't have, going on today. New moons? Days of fastings? Meat offered to idols? mandatory circumcision of children? We are told not to commit adultery? Respect and care for parents? But a day? Nope, No day, that seems to missing? That is all I am saying here. No consistency means bad argument.

mfblume
12-28-2019, 09:49 PM
Some of my studies on the topic that I made lately.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Sabbatarians claim that this verse in the Book of Ro-mans is easy to misinterpret as if it was telling us that there are no special days or sabbaths or holy days, and that every day is alike. They insist that is not the case.

The only problem for them is that Galatians Chapters 3 through 4 teaches us to not keep any days. Romans 14 falls on that clearer passage.

Those who claim sabbath-keeping is not an issue in Romans Chapter 14 insist that the actual debate with which Paul dealt was what days were correct in which they were to fast and pray. Should they fast twice a week like the Pharisees, or should they fast only on certain days and only eat at certain times?


Truth be told, this chapter is not about fasting. No-body considered a day of fasting to be esteemed above another day, simply because fasting took place on that day. Any given day itself was not suddenly magnified when a fast began on it. Nobody considered that the day they in which they would fast was a special day to be es-teemed above other days, because the issue was not the day, but rather the experience of the actual fast.

Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.”

He was not associating the keeping of days with eat-ing or not eating, except in the sense that they had one common denominator – Law. Law demanded that certain foods be not eaten, and certain days be kept holy. The chapter is not themed after the issue of days alone. It’s not about sabbath or no sabbath. It’s not about any particular aspect of Law, while I still maintain that sab-bath was part of Law, and is mentioned. Paul generally spoke against the disfellowship of fellow believers, some of whom generally kept Law and others did not.

He did not mention eating in association with esteeming days in order to say that he was discussing days of fasting. He simply listed estimation of days as well as other items on a list that were distinct and separate, but all from the same Law, including what meats we can eat or not eat. It was not even about fasting, anyway, in any verse there. It was about disallowance of meats offered to idols.

The liberals were eating anything, and had the tendency to despise legalists, while the legalists had the tendency to judge liberals. There is a distinction in those terms that Pau used for a reason.

Those who felt that they could only eat certain meats would often avoid eating any meat for fear of making a mistake. So, really, it’s not even about meats not allowed under Law. Paul also discussed this in 1 Corinthians Chapters 8 and 10.

So, it’s not about combining the thought of days and not eating certain meats with fasting, as though it’s a discussion of days of fasting. It’s distinguishing those who have stronger faith and those who lack and depend on doing and not doing, as was the case of Law, according to Leviticus 18:5 where you were told that you must achieve eternal life by doing.

Sabbatarians respond by saying that there were pagan groups of people in those days who emphasized ve-gan diet and the neglect of flesh on certain days with fast-ings of certain foods at designated times.

That is not explained in the context, though. Along with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians Chapters 8 and 10, it is about those who were not strong enough in grace to realize, like Paul later explains in Romans 14, that he can eat those things offered to idols since they’re only food, and no actual idolatrous gods that so much as even exist, anyway! It’s food, offered to idols or not. To know that is to be free from that Law of certain meat diets, like pork and lobsters, and free to simply eat food.

Paul was indeed talking about holy days when she spoke of esteeming one day above another, because fasting is not a day that is emphasized with fasting. However, estimation of days was clearly under Law.

Sabbatarians spend most of their time attacking those who believe that Sunday is a day to be kept holy. However, this does not apply to those who simply hold Church gatherings on Sunday because Jesus resurrected on that day, seeing as those with this understanding do not think it is a holy day like sabbath was. Nothing was changed, so to speak, except for the change that there are no holy days in the New Covenant. That makes the overall summary inapplicable.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 09:50 PM
Varying opinion of Sabbatarians claim that Paul spoke about former pagan acquaintances by pointing out that he encouraged Gentile believers in other scriptures to keep the feasts. They argue that it was pagans, and not Jews, who were condemning them for keeping Old Covenant celebrations by referring to these words.

Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,”

However, context says otherwise. The passage be-fore Paul’s reference to judging, in reference to new moons and sabbaths in Colossians 2, makes it clear that Paul did not write about pagans who were judging believ-ers for keeping holy days and sabbaths.

Colossians 2:13-14 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

Paul said that the handwriting of ordinances was against them. That is a reference to Law. Ordinances were throughout the Old Covenant. Hebrews Chapter 9 corresponds to this passage and makes it clearer, as we discussed in earlier chapters.

An ordinance is a rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action. An ordinance may be a Law or statute of sovereign power. In this sense, it is often used in the Scriptures. Exodus 15; Numbers 10; Ezra 3.

Feasts and sabbaths were ordinances. The handwrit-ing of ordinances was against us because they were a re-membrance of sins.

So, Paul said, based on the fact that handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross, that is the reason that they should not let anyone judge them.

Judging people was done in the early church by le-galists. Those who were liberal could be accused of des-pising legalists, whereas legalists judged the liberals. The language is distinguished in Romans 14.

So, context tells us that sabbaths and new moons, drinks and holy days, were part of the handwriting of or-dinances.

Pagan practices weren't an issue. This whole argument is between two camps. Rabbinicals and Christians. Hands down. Once we start rummaging around the second and third century we are losing the picture. The biggest threat to the fledgling Christian church was no one else but the Rabinicals.

coksiw
12-28-2019, 09:51 PM
Transportation system? Jerusalem had Metrorail in the first century? lol

Sorry, the phrase just struck me as funny. :)

OK seriously, he said Sabbath or Winter, and the context is fleeing, so it gotta be something related with ability to flee being hindered by an external system. Which makes me think it is transportation related. Sabbath: laws, winter: weather.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 09:56 PM
Some of my studies on the topic that I made lately.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Sabbatarians claim that this verse in the Book of Ro-mans is easy to misinterpret as if it was telling us that there are no special days or sabbaths or holy days, and that every day is alike. They insist that is not the case.

The only problem for them is that Galatians Chapters 3 through 4 teaches us to not keep any days. Romans 14 falls on that clearer passage.

Those who claim sabbath-keeping is not an issue in Romans Chapter 14 insist that the actual debate with which Paul dealt was what days were correct in which they were to fast and pray. Should they fast twice a week like the Pharisees, or should they fast only on certain days and only eat at certain times?


Truth be told, this chapter is not about fasting. No-body considered a day of fasting to be esteemed above another day, simply because fasting took place on that day. Any given day itself was not suddenly magnified when a fast began on it. Nobody considered that the day they in which they would fast was a special day to be es-teemed above other days, because the issue was not the day, but rather the experience of the actual fast.

Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.”

He was not associating the keeping of days with eat-ing or not eating, except in the sense that they had one common denominator – Law. Law demanded that certain foods be not eaten, and certain days be kept holy. The chapter is not themed after the issue of days alone. It’s not about sabbath or no sabbath. It’s not about any particular aspect of Law, while I still maintain that sab-bath was part of Law, and is mentioned. Paul generally spoke against the disfellowship of fellow believers, some of whom generally kept Law and others did not.

He did not mention eating in association with esteeming days in order to say that he was discussing days of fasting. He simply listed estimation of days as well as other items on a list that were distinct and separate, but all from the same Law, including what meats we can eat or not eat. It was not even about fasting, anyway, in any verse there. It was about disallowance of meats offered to idols.

The liberals were eating anything, and had the tendency to despise legalists, while the legalists had the tendency to judge liberals. There is a distinction in those terms that Pau used for a reason.

Those who felt that they could only eat certain meats would often avoid eating any meat for fear of making a mistake. So, really, it’s not even about meats not allowed under Law. Paul also discussed this in 1 Corinthians Chapters 8 and 10.

So, it’s not about combining the thought of days and not eating certain meats with fasting, as though it’s a discussion of days of fasting. It’s distinguishing those who have stronger faith and those who lack and depend on doing and not doing, as was the case of Law, according to Leviticus 18:5 where you were told that you must achieve eternal life by doing.

Sabbatarians respond by saying that there were pagan groups of people in those days who emphasized ve-gan diet and the neglect of flesh on certain days with fast-ings of certain foods at designated times.

That is not explained in the context, though. Along with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians Chapters 8 and 10, it is about those who were not strong enough in grace to realize, like Paul later explains in Romans 14, that he can eat those things offered to idols since they’re only food, and no actual idolatrous gods that so much as even exist, anyway! It’s food, offered to idols or not. To know that is to be free from that Law of certain meat diets, like pork and lobsters, and free to simply eat food.

Paul was indeed talking about holy days when she spoke of esteeming one day above another, because fasting is not a day that is emphasized with fasting. However, estimation of days was clearly under Law.

Sabbatarians spend most of their time attacking those who believe that Sunday is a day to be kept holy. However, this does not apply to those who simply hold Church gatherings on Sunday because Jesus resurrected on that day, seeing as those with this understanding do not think it is a holy day like sabbath was. Nothing was changed, so to speak, except for the change that there are no holy days in the New Covenant. That makes the overall summary inapplicable.

Fasting days are spoken about in the scriptures Joel 1:14-15, Esther 4:16, Jeremiah 36:9, Jonah 3:5, and Jonah 3:8. The Judean rabbis during the time of the first century proclaimed fasting days within the different sects. Paul, was not coming against the weekend sabbath. :)

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 10:00 PM
OK seriously, he said Sabbath or Winter, and the context is fleeing, so it gotta be something related with ability to flee being hindered by an external system. Which makes me think it is transportation related. Sabbath: laws, winter: weather.

Oh I see. Ok.

On Saturday certain modern Rabbinical Jews walk to the synagogue.
Now, do you not travel on Saturday? You do, because it doesn't mean anything to you. Matter of fact you would look at those Jews as in bondage because of their belief, and therefore gas your car as you sped by them. I said all that to say this, if it wasn't an issue for the people Jesus was speaking to He would of never brought it up. Because sabbath travel would be meaningless to them, as it is to you.

mfblume
12-28-2019, 10:03 PM
Realy, that doesn't prove that Jesus was going to introduce a religion void of a sabbath.

No, but it also does not prove Jesus meant for his church to keep the sabbath day either. It merely meant it was law in that day to not travel far on sabbath, and it applied to those who did not keep sabbath as well.

The commandments themselves have don't commit murder with keep the sabbath.



Sabbath was the only commandment that was explicitly stated to have been a shadow of the body of Christ, not forbiddance to murder, or forbiddance against committing adultery.



Why? It certainly we are not given any indication that it was to be nullified in the future.

Jesus knew when destruction was coming to the city. He knew it would give rise for them to flee while sabbath day journey law in Jerusalem was imposed on everyone in the city, not just sabbath keepers.

Actually they weren't the same as what Jesus was dealing with when eating wheat kernels with His disciples. Matthew 24, clearly shows Jesus' intention for the temple law system. The animal sacrifices, priesthood were all to culminate.

And sabbath was to culminate as well as COl clearly says.

Jesus was a legalist, Paul was a legalist, everyone from the Essenes, and the different schools of the Pharisees were legalists. Paul is dealing with the Judaic calendar, and the rabbinical traditions concerning that calendar. Not dealing with the sabbath instruction in the commandements. We run into some funny logic when we want to extrapolate one of the ten. :)

That's not the meaning of legalist in the sense we are accustomed to. Legalism means without those things being done one is lost, when Lev 18:5 said keeping the law justifies one to not be lost. Paul contrasted Lev 18:5 with the grace of Christ. Ask sabbath keepers if we're lost if we do notkeep sabbath.


Again, if Jesus was teaching that the sabbath wouldn't be an issue for His followers, then no matter what the length of difficulty. It would of been a moot point. Again, one doesn't need to be a Sabbath Keeper to see the obvious. But teaching that Jesus taught to disregard the sabbath isn't found in the Gospel. Paul certainly didn't teach to disregard the commandment.

Actually Paul did indeed teach them to not keep holy days, months and years, and that was not a change of calendars but context shows law was over as far as being a schoolmaster with its feasts and holy days was concerned.

Jesus taught all of the commandments except sabbath. And when he mentioned sabbath he referred to coming to him, not a day of the week for sabbath. Becuase it was a shadow when the others weren't. So those who rest in Christ are the real sabbath keepers not the ones today who keep the seventh day.


It's s
Definitely not to the first century Judean converts. They were dealing with issues, issues which pertained exclusively to their time. Which we don't have, going on today. New moons? Days of fastings? Meat offered to idols? mandatory circumcision of children? We are told not to commit adultery? Respect and care for parents? But a day? Nope, No day, that seems to missing? That is all I am saying here. No consistency means bad argument.

Like I've said to Esaias many many times, the day is now a spiritual fulfillment that we do keep. It's truly keeping sabbath when we experience its antitype and go beyond the mere physical day.

It's so plainly stated in Gal 4 and Rom 14 that one has to go through hoops to say otherwise.

Esaias believes that he doesn't have to go to Jerusalem in the middle east in order to keep the feasts that he believes he must keep. He says this because he feels New Jerusalem is everywhere and the old is culminated, as you put it. But that is inconsistent, because the sabbath day is also culminated.

And sabbath is part of Mosaic law for Israel.

Never before Moses was any man commanded to keep sabbath.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 10:04 PM
Whether you keep Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or non day, you have to admit that there is no teaching against the sabbath found in the ten commandments. Jesus didn't make it an issue. If I wasn't so ignored on this website you would all know what I believe. But all my posts are cherry picked and therefore I repeat myself. :lol

mfblume
12-28-2019, 10:05 PM
Fasting days are spoken about in the scriptures Joel 1:14-15, Esther 4:16, Jeremiah 36:9, Jonah 3:5, and Jonah 3:8. The Judean rabbis during the time of the first century proclaimed fasting days within the different sects. Paul, was not coming against the weekend sabbath. :)

Fasting days were not focusing on the days but the fasting. Paul was coming against sabbath days and any days w=that one were considered holy under Law. It's not sinning, but it is being weak in faith. A day of fasting is not a day esteemed any better than another day. The fast itself was the focus.

mfblume
12-28-2019, 10:06 PM
Whether you keep Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or non day, you have to admit that there is no teaching against the sabbath found in the ten commandments. Jesus didn't make it an issue. If I wasn't so ignored on this website you would all know what I believe. But all my posts are cherry picked and therefore I repeat myself. :lol

But again it's not an issue of speaking against sabbath. It is against keeping the shadow and not moving into the body of Christ instead.

And, I'd like to ask sabbath keepers if I am lost for not keeping the sabbath day. :)

mfblume
12-28-2019, 10:11 PM
Anyone hear of the pineapple express?

While you're thinking on that, just wanted to say that my book on sabbath-keeping is almost done. 300 plus pages so far.

Tithesmeister
12-28-2019, 10:14 PM
Why? It certainly we are not given any indication that it was to be nullified in the future.

Oh but we are! Paul said so. This is why I asked if you believe it is ever supposed to end. You didn’t answer until now.


2 Corinthians 3

[13] And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
[14] But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

When Moses wore the veil, this is Paul’s interpretation of him doing so. It was so that the children of Israel could not see the end of that which is (present tense) abolished. Moses had just received the law. (He had the tablets in his hand still, apparently). The law was (according to Paul) going to be abolished. Hence Moses wore the veil.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 10:25 PM
No, but it also does not prove Jesus meant for his church to keep the sabbath day either.

But it sure doesn't prove that Jesus was at some time remove one command out of the commandments. Again, no matter what day you want or don't want you can't use that verse to prove no sabbath. :)



It merely meant it was law in that day to travel far on sabbath, and it applied to those who did not keep sabbath as well.

If a sabbath was some trivial thing of a bygone time, why would you care? A Sabbath journey? Why would anyone care if it no longer pertained to them?


Sabbath was the only commandment that was explicitly stated to have been a shadow of the body of Christ, not forbiddance to murder, or forbiddance against committing adultery.

I understand what you are saying, but it still doesn't extrapolate one command out of the rest forbiddiances. To say it does, doesn't settle the argument. It just leaves a gaping hole.




Jesus knew when destruction was coming to the city. He knew it would give rise for them to flee while sabbath day journey law in Jerusalem was imposed on everyone in the city, not just sabbath keepers.

That is only for the locking of the gates. A journey was all on you. You didn't have any police to pull you over once you got outside the walls.




And sabbath was to culminate as well as COl clearly says.



That's not the meaning of legalist in the sense we are accustomed to. Legalism means without those things being done one is lost, when Lev 18:5 said keeping the law justifies one to not be lost. Paul contrasted Lev 18:5 with the grace of Christ. Ask sabbath keepers if we're lost if we do notkeep sabbath.

We are lost through our thoughts leaving Christ, nothing else. Legalism rises and falls on the legalist and the antinomian alike. Both are focused on the same thing, RELIGION. They are both led by the letter, not by the Spirit.




Actually Paul did indeed teach them to not keep holy days, months and years, and that was not a change of calendars but context shows law was over as far as being a schoolmaster with its feasts and holy days was concerned.

Pluralities aren't what we are talking about. We are talking about one day at the end of the week. Paul didn't speak a prohibition or an ignorance against it. Sorry. I am not seeing anywhere he did. Again, whether you believe in sabbath keeping or not, the argument has to be a strong one, and just saying something was taught against when it clearly wasn't isn't a strong argument.



Jesus taught all of the commandments except sabbath. And when he mentioned sabbath he referred to coming to him, not a day of the week for sabbath. Becuase it was a shadow when the others weren't. So those who rest in Christ are the real sabbath keepers not the ones today who keep the seventh day.

You read where I discuss the rest and Jesus, and compare to Moses' yoke. But Jesus didn't teach not to keep the sabbath. He kept it, and He explained why it came to be.




Like I've said to Esaias many many times, the day is now a spiritual fulfillment that we do keep. It's truly keeping sabbath when we experience its antitype and go beyond the mere physical day.

Agreed, still we have no where the sabbath found in Exodus is done away with.


It's so plainly stated in Gal 4 and Rom 14 that one has to go through hoops to say otherwise.

Honestly the hoops are being jumped by those who claim the commandment sabbath is done away with. Again, whether you keep a sabbath or not, Col and Romans isn't helping the argument. Because Paul isn't referring to that sabbath.



Esaias believes that he doesn't have to go to Jerusalem in the middle east in order to keep the feasts that he believes he must keep. He says this because he feels New Jerusalem is everywhere and the old is culminated, as you put it. But that is inconsistent, because the sabbath day is also culminated.

And sabbath is part of Mosaic law for Israel.

Never before Moses was any man commanded to keep sabbath.

Never before Moses was anything written down in hammurabi law form. The first commands were given in Sinai. All other commands come later because these people were the worst of all people. Hard heartedness made the rule book get bigger. Yet, through Christ the rule book goes, but the moral law stays. Also we are discussing Esaias, so please lets refrain from doing so, ok? :)

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 10:29 PM
But again it's not an issue of speaking against sabbath. It is against keeping the shadow and not moving into the body of Christ instead.

And, I'd like to ask sabbath keepers if I am lost for not keeping the sabbath day. :)

You were reading all my posts in the beginning? You amened, you thumbed up, and now we are talking about sabbath keepers? Again, whether or not you keep a day, or not keep a day, there is no doing away with the commandments. They were all moral. From honor God and no other God, to honor sabbath and honor God with it. It is that simple. Do you understand why I reposted your post from the eschatology section? Can you tell me why I did that?

mfblume
12-28-2019, 10:35 PM
The bottom line as I see it, and my signature displays, is that I am complete in Christ alone. I need not add sabbath days to Christ, especially when Christ is the body that cast the shadow of sabbath days back in time. And to tell someone they are lost if they do not keep sabbath is removing them from a complete position in Christ. Fullness of the Godhead in Christ is not so much talking about Father, Son and Holy Ghost as it is talking about everything we need from God being in Christ. Saying that being in Christ means we lack something and have to ALSO keep sabbath to be saved is spoiling us from Christ.

Context of Colossians 1 through 2 is focusing on how God chose that in Christ should all the fullness dwell.

Colossians 1:19.. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

That's what fullness of the Godhead is talking about.

Colossians 1:20-23.. And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. ..(21).. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled ..(22).. In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: ..(23).. If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

If we continue IN HIM and not be removed by thinking it's not enough for our righteousness to be in HIm, apart from keeping days or any other deeds, then we remain holy.

Paul sought to see everyone he ministered to remain solid and perfect and complete in Him.

Colossians 1:28.. Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

Those who feel we're lost without keeping sabbath are weak in the faith that in Christ we are complete, and Christ was foreshadowed by the sabbath and all other rites from Law.

The obvious reference to law as elements or rudiments of the world is patently denied by sabbath keepers as if it was something else, when elements and rudiments clearly mean basal and necessary principles from God for greater more spiritual things.

Colossians 2:8-9.. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. ..(9).. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.


And after we read this, we see a distinct reference to every sabbath that exists in a natural physical day.

Colossians 2:14-17.. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; ..(15).. And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. ..(16).. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: ..(17).. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

There can be no way in which those verses are speaking about people keeping sabbath days and meant to keep them, and being told to not let anyone discourage them, after being told what all of the verses beforehand said. It's saying they were wrong to keep them because they had not yet come to the full understanding of deliverance from Law, and therefore are weak in faith.

Paul said Law, not a pharisaical distortion, as confirmed in Gal 3:12's reference to Lev 18:5, puts one under a curse. The reasoning is that if one thinks ONE MUST keep tenets of law then one must keep ALL of them without fail or die.

Hebrews 9 was likewise not referring to a pharisaical tradition of Law when it said that all the rites and ceremonies were done away with in the reformation of the new covenant.

Hebrews 9:10.. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Sabbath day was a carnal ordinance, an element of the world with the sense of world being temporal and passing away, since it was a shadow.

Exo_18:20.. And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

Lev_18:3.. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

Lev_18:4.. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 18:5.. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

Paul spoke of genuine Mosaic law:

Romans 7:6.. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Law incites sin because it's pushing us to act in the flesh by forcing mere will power on our own flesh to do good, without any work fo the Spirit.

Romans 6:14.. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Since law commanded Paul to not covet, and Paul suddenly found himself coveting, he noted God delivered us from law so that reaction does not cause him to sin and instead he walks after the Spirit in faith to see that righteousness that law tried to instill within man, fulfilled.

Brethren, to me it's weakening people's faith. It's not sinning, but it does weaken faith.

:)

mfblume
12-28-2019, 10:38 PM
You were reading all my posts in the beginning? You amened, you thumbed up, and now we are talking about sabbath keepers? Again, whether or not you keep a day, or not keep a day, there is no doing away with the commandments. They were all moral. From honor God and no other God, to honor sabbath and honor God with it. It is that simple. Do you understand why I reposted your post from the eschatology section? Can you tell me why I did that?

I amened what I agreed with, though you may have had an implication under it that you did not clarify.

But my post stated that Israel alone had to keep sabbaths because it cannot work in the entire world. Then you said something about agreeing that it's a spiritual rest that can be fulfilled all over the world instead of just regions where the days can be kept. At least that's the thought I got from your post.

Amanah
12-28-2019, 10:46 PM
Has our actual calendar changed since the Sabbath was instituted? Is there a spiritual Sabbath rest? Can the Sabbath be kept in principal rather than literally?

mfblume
12-28-2019, 10:53 PM
But it sure doesn't prove that Jesus was at some time remove one command out of the commandments. Again, no matter what day you want or don't want you can't use that verse to prove no sabbath. :)

I never claimed Matt 24 proves sabbath is over, though.



If a sabbath was some trivial thing of a bygone time, why would you care? A Sabbath journey? Why would anyone care if it no longer pertained to them?

I understand what you are saying, but it still doesn't extrapolate one command out of the rest forbiddiances. To say it does, doesn't settle the argument. It just leaves a gaping hole.

That is only for the locking of the gates. A journey was all on you. You didn't have any police to pull you over once you got outside the walls.


If the gates are closed you cannot flee.



We are lost through our thoughts leaving Christ, nothing else. Legalism rises and falls on the legalist and the antinomian alike. Both are focused on the same thing, RELIGION. They are both led by the letter, not by the Spirit.

When our thoughts require us to keep a day or be lost,then we've been removed from Christ.

Pluralities aren't what we are talking about. We are talking about one day at the end of the week. Paul didn't speak a prohibition or an ignorance against it. Sorry. I am not seeing anywhere he did. Again, whether you believe in sabbath keeping or not, the argument has to be a strong one, and just saying something was taught against when it clearly wasn't isn't a strong argument.

Pluralities covers all sabbaths. Weekly ones, annual ones, jubilees, etc. SO seventh day was included.

You read where I discuss the rest and Jesus, and compare to Moses' yoke. But Jesus didn't teach not to keep the sabbath. He kept it, and He explained why it came to be.



More vitally Jesus did not demand they keep it. He was also under law during his ministry. Law was not gone til the cross, even for Him.


Agreed, still we have no where the sabbath found in Exodus is done away with.

I would only repeat myself, but when he said Sabbaths in COl 2 that's enough for me. The simplest read means any form of sabbath.


Honestly the hoops are being jumped by those who claim the commandment sabbath is done away with. Again, whether you keep a sabbath or not, Col and Romans isn't helping the argument. Because Paul isn't referring to that sabbath.


I honestly cannot see how he is not referring to the sabbath.


Never before Moses was anything written down in hammurabi law form. The first commands were given in Sinai. All other commands come later because these people were the worst of all people. Hard heartedness made the rule book get bigger. Yet, through Christ the rule book goes, but the moral law stays. Also we are discussing Esaias, so please lets refrain from doing so, ok? :)

We read about God resting the seventh day, and the word could easily have been added that man must therefore rest, too. But man Israel never hear do fit until Moses spoke of manna collection.

My reference to Esaias was not making him any focus, but just a reference since he made a point that I saw as inconsistent, since you mentioned inconsistency, focusing on parts of law being fulfilled and not others of the same nature.

So I was not discussing him. I could have avoided his name but it would have sounded more like a slur if I said someone told me about new Jerusalem being spiritual but not sabbath day.

mfblume
12-28-2019, 10:55 PM
Has our actual calendar changed since the Sabbath was instituted? Is there a spiritual Sabbath rest? Can the Sabbath be kept in principal rather than literally?

There most certainly is a spiritual rest, which is what Hebrews 4 is all about.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 11:08 PM
Has our actual calendar changed since the Sabbath was instituted? Is there a spiritual Sabbath rest? Can the Sabbath be kept in principal rather than literally?

Of course, changed a few times.

votivesoul
12-28-2019, 11:10 PM
What are your thoughts on Galatians 4:1-11?

1. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
8. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
9. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

The heir of verse 1 is the Israelite who, although technically a child of God, functionally differs not a whit from a servant, even though, as heir, he is, in time, going to be heralded as the lord of the house. But while he waits to come to maturity, he, as heir, needs to be under instructors who have charge over him because he is not yet ready to assume the mantle of lordship his position as heir allows him to hold.

In the same way, Israelites under the law (note the "we" in verse 3), and not Gentiles who converted to Christian faith, even though they were the heirs who were sons, had to be under tutelage, governed by others because they were not ready for leadership. Rather, they were subjected to the rules and regulations they received from their Jewish world, that is, the Torah.

Then Jesus came, at the appointed time, a true human descended from Mary, descended from Adam, Messiah of Israel while the Torah was in full effect, to redeem the heir who was still a mere subjugated servant. He came to elevate him and move him past servant-hood and make him a true son, an heir, and lord of all. The gift of the Holy Spirit of God's Son is the evidence of that elevation. And all those who receive that Spirit are not to be considered mere servants but fully-fledged children and heirs.

However, before this occurred, these former pagan Gentiles of Galatia formerly gave themselves over to the service of idols. But now, they both know and are known of God. It is therefore not acceptable to Paul that they should return once again to their former idols and be in bondage to them.

For the Israelite, the former subjugation was to Torah. For the Gentile, the former subjugation was to idolatry. The weak and beggarly elements for these former Gentiles of Galatia is their idolatry. Paul doesn't make a claim against the Israelite and his subjugation to the Torah. There is a clear constant shifting between the subjects, as noted earlier with his use of "we" in verse 3 to "you" from that point forward. Therefore I conclude that the "days, and months, and times, and years" is a reference to pagan customs formerly practiced by these Galatians when they were idolaters. Paul then shares his concern that he has wasted his time on these former Gentiles.

Ultimately, Paul is trying to show these converted Gentiles that if they embrace the doctrine of the Judaizers and become circumcised, for them, it will be as if they were returning to their past idols and the sins thereof because to become circumcised is to deny Christ and fall from grace, that is to say, lose salvation and eternal life, because, as former heathen idolaters, if they give up on Jesus, there is nothing for them to revert back to, but heathen idolatry. They cannot embrace Torah the way the Israelite heir could because as Gentiles, they were not included in the covenant at Sinai.

So, the Israelite could deny Jesus, fall from grace, and fall back on the Torah. The Gentile, if he denies Jesus, and falls from grace, cannot fall back on the Torah because the Torah was not given to him. His only option is the idolatry of the past, even if it masquerades as being some warped and confusing form of (allegedly) Torah-observant Christianity.

Evang.Benincasa
12-28-2019, 11:36 PM
I never claimed Matt 24 proves sabbath is over, though.

Did I say you did? Sorry. But that is my point concerning that chapter. Jesus acknowledges a sabbath, then instructs His disciples to pray that it isn't an obstacle for them. If it wouldn't be a future obstacle for a group of non day observers then why mention it. But He does, because He believed that it would be important to them. Important enough to pray about it.



If the gates are closed you cannot flee.

Yes.



When our thoughts require us to keep a day or be lost,then we've been removed from Christ.

the Gospel isn't about a to do list. Shepards lead, sheep follow, because of the shepherd. If we are led by the Spirit, THEN there is no more condemnation. If me wanting to murder someone and just abstaining from it through my self control, then I'm already lost.




Pluralities covers all sabbaths. Weekly ones, annual ones, jubilees, etc. SO seventh day was included.

That is just wanting something to be included which makes the argument contradict the plain wording elsewhere. The commands aren't annulled, but they are moral from God is the only god to be honored to Honor your spouse and don't betray them. Whether you are pro or con on a sabbath, it is still part of that moral law. Romans and Colossians doesn't negate anything found in that list of moral laws. Anti Sabbath keepers just need to stick to the simple rules of the discussion found in the Bible. Then they can get a harmonious outline which teaches what Jesus and Paul were trying to tell their first century Judean audience. An audience which lived in the geographical area, with the proper calendar, with a full working law system.
They didn't live in Alaska, Mexico, Toronto, Alberta, or Japan.



More vitally Jesus did not demand they keep it.

Better yet, He never told them it would be annulled.



He was also under law during his ministry. Law was not gone til the cross, even for Him.

The cross removes the curse, that's grace, vail rent, but the show still went on. Paul became a Judean to the Judean with the law, and became a Roman to the Roman, but didn't eat pork like Peter. Still the commandments of thou shall not remained as the moral standard, and the honoring of God though love and devotion still contained a sabbath.




I would only repeat myself, but when he said Sabbaths in COl 2 that's enough for me. The simplest read means any form of sabbath.

It just doesn't work that way, because there is obviously more to it. Or else you have a huge contradiction concerning the commandments which say honor God before all other Gods, not to blaspheme His name, and the day which honors Him. Again, whether you keep Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or None Day, it is still saying that there is a day set aside.




I honestly cannot see how he is not referring to the sabbath.

Because it begs the question concerning all the other commands concerning Him. He is to be placed before all other gods, His authority not to be blasphemed, His time is to be honored. Yet, it is much more than anything physical in its scope. I think maybe both sides are missing something far more. Like I took the post from the eschatology section, it is a greater scope.




We read about God resting the seventh day, and the word could easily have been added that man must therefore rest, too. But man Israel never hear do fit until Moses spoke of manna collection.

In Genesis we aren't shown instruction for Cain and Abel to give a first fruit offering? God rested from His labor, we have no pain in childbirth, and no sweat of the brow until they are banished from the Edenic rest.



My reference to Esaias was not making him any focus, but just a reference since he made a point that I saw as inconsistent, since you mentioned inconsistency, focusing on parts of law being fulfilled and not others of the same nature.

So I was not discussing him. I could have avoided his name but it would have sounded more like a slur if I said someone told me about new Jerusalem being spiritual but not sabbath day.

Please don't take me wrong, I love you. i love Esaias. I just want our discussion to be as pleasant as it started out in the beginning. :)

coksiw
12-29-2019, 07:15 AM
Why is the Sabbath that Jesus mentioned relevant for the end times (at least for the futurist like me :heeheehee )?

1. There will be a nation of Israel. Oh wait, that already happened.
2. There will be daily sacrifices (The abomination of desolation will stop the daily sacrifice)
3. There will be a temple (otherwise not possible sacrifices)
4. There will be Sabbath keeping
5. There will be false Christs (the Jewish still await a Messiah that will build the temple or will show up when the temple is built)

All of it tells me clearly that there will be a Jewish tradition revival at Jerusalem before the end comes.

Evang.Benincasa
12-29-2019, 07:52 AM
Why is the Sabbath that Jesus mentioned relevant for the end times (at least for the futurist like me :heeheehee )?

1. There will be a nation of Israel. Oh wait, that already happened.
2. There will be daily sacrifices (The abomination of desolation will stop the daily sacrifice)
3. There will be a temple (otherwise not possible sacrifices)
4. There will be Sabbath keeping
5. There will be false Christs (the Jewish still await a Messiah that will build the temple or will show up when the temple is built)

All of it tells me clearly that there will be a Jewish tradition revival at Jerusalem before the end comes.

You believe in a rebuilt third temple?
Can you show where Jesus, Paul, Peter, or even John explained how the temple would be rebuilt? Where did Jesus say there would be a return to the temple law system? Where can we find legitimate Biblilcal Judeans and Israelites who have pedigrees? Actual Levites who are not only legitimate sons of Aaron, but physically related to the family of Zadok the high priest? I truly hope you can explain all this, because I for one would like to know the answers.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 01:51 PM
Has our actual calendar changed since the Sabbath was instituted? Is there a spiritual Sabbath rest? Can the Sabbath be kept in principal rather than literally?

The calendar has been changed, but not the order of the days of the week, just the numerical dating.

The Gregorian calendar, which is the calendar used today, was first introduced by Pope Gregory XIII via a papal bull in February 1582 to correct an error in the old Julian calendar.

This error had been accumulating over hundreds of years so that every 128 years the calendar was out of sync with the equinoxes and solstices by one additional day.

As the centuries passed, the Julian Calendar became more inaccurate. Because the calendar was incorrectly determining the date of Easter, Pope Gregory XIII reformed the calendar to match the solar year so that Easter would once again "fall upon the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the Vernal Equinox.".

Ten days were omitted from the calendar to bring the calendar back in line with the solstices, and Pope Gregory XIII decreed that the day following Thursday, October 4, 1582 would be Friday, October 15, 1582 and from then on the reformed Gregorian calendar would be used. http://www.searchforancestors.com/utility/gregorian.html

Esaias
12-29-2019, 01:55 PM
Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
Esaias believes that he doesn't have to go to Jerusalem in the middle east in order to keep the feasts that he believes he must keep. He says this because he feels New Jerusalem is everywhere and the old is culminated, as you put it. But that is inconsistent, because the sabbath day is also culminated.

And sabbath is part of Mosaic law for Israel.

Never before Moses was any man commanded to keep sabbath.

Perhaps you should either quote where I said that or else ask for clarification on that issue. Feast keeping is a related, but distinct issue from the weekly Sabbath, by the way.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 02:11 PM
I amened what I agreed with, though you may have had an implication under it that you did not clarify.

But my post stated that Israel alone had to keep sabbaths because it cannot work in the entire world. Then you said something about agreeing that it's a spiritual rest that can be fulfilled all over the world instead of just regions where the days can be kept. At least that's the thought I got from your post.

Is there a different calendar in operation in the arctic regions? No.

Anybody in Nome, Alaska or Novaya Zemlya can know when the seventh day of the week is. This argument is one of the weakest arguments I've come across. And, logically, it fails even if the premises were true. All it would prove is either that only those in the arctic are relieved of the obligation (is the reader in the arctic? No? Then...) or it proves that if ONE person anywhere anytime cannot keep a commandment then nobody everywhere everytime is required to keep the commandment. So, orphans can't keep the 5th commandment therefore none of us have to?

But for those who might still be thinking the arctic argument has any merit, here:

The Bible defines the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week. The Bible defines a day as beginning at evening, running from one evening to the next. So the Sabbath occurs every seventh evening.

What is evening? In most areas, the evening occurs as the sun approaches the horizon, then "sets", then night occurs. The key though is that evening is the period just before and just after sunset.

Does the sun set in the arctic? Is there an evening in the arctic?

YES.

Even though in the extreme north and south lattitudes the sun does not go BELOW the horizon in summer, it nevertheless descends toward the horizon, then rises again. It is in fact sunset and sunrise, it just does not go below the horizon. The Bible never said the sun must go below the horizon (or rise above the horizon in winter). So there IS a daily sunset, a daily evening, in the arctic. The evenings occur about every 24 hours apart, just as they do everywhere else on the planet. Therefore, Sabbath keeping is no different in the arctic than anywhere else, except it doesn't get AS DARK at night in the summer or AS BRIGHT during the day in winter.

:thumbsup

votivesoul
12-29-2019, 02:12 PM
Going back for a moment regarding Sundays and the original references to the "first day of the week":

I see nine uses of that phrase in the KJV, as follows:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=first+day+of+the+week&qs_version=KJV

- Matthew 28:1
- Mark 16:2
- Mark 16:9
- Luke 24:1
- John 20:1
- John 20:19
- Acts 20:7
- 1 Corinthians 16:2

I've already addressed Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 and have shown how a change in translation seems warranted (See: here (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1576609&postcount=10) and here (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1576610&postcount=11).)

The question then is, the other seven references from the Gospels. In each case, note that they refer to the empty tomb scene after Jesus was crucified and buried. Does this mean that this scene took place on a Sunday, Jesus having been crucified and buried on a Friday?

Traditionally, that is the consensus. But what if something else occurred? Note the following text from Matthew 28:1:

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων

(opse de sabbatōn tē epiphōskousē eis mian sabbatōn)

A literal reading is found here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-1.htm

After then [the] Sabbaths it being dawn toward [the] first [day] of [the] week...

But note, the Greek word sabbatōn is the same in both instances, and in both cases, is Genitive Neuter Plural. It would seem to make the most sense to translate each instance identically.

But instead we get: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...

Why the change? I think it's unnecessary to say the least. First, note as I said previously in post #10, that the Greek word for "day" isn't even in the text, it's supplied by the translators. That leaves us with mia the feminine form for the number 1 in Greek. Second, we must remember that for ancient Israel, they were commanded to keep certain festivals every year, one of them being Passover and another being Unleavened Bread.

These festivals were considered sabbaths of a sort, even if or though they did not fall upon the actual seventh day of the week. From Passover to the end of Unleavened Bread, every day was a high day, or special sabbath to the LORD (See Leviticus 23:1-8). It makes for a total of eight high days or special sabbaths. The first high day or special sabbath was on Passover. Then, seven more high days or special sabbaths lasting for the duration of Unleavened Bread were held.

This explains the reference in Matthew 28:1 regarding the first use of sabbatōn and why it's plural. It's a reference to the special week of special sabbaths that occurred during the first part of the festival.

From John 19:31, we know Jesus was crucified on the Preparation, that is, the day prior to the beginning of Passover, that is, the 13th day of the first month, otherwise in Hebrew called the Chagigah. Further, it need not be assumed that Jesus literally spent 72 hours in the grave. The custom of the times indicated that only a part of a day needs to pass for it to be considered one day. This is reasonable and makes sense to us, because if I say upon this very day, December 29th, 2019, that New Year's Eve is in three days, meaning I am counting today as one of the three, even though much of today has already passed as of this writing, I do not mean 72 exact hours. Because in actuality as of this writing, it's more like 33 hours, even though 33 hours doesn't exactly equal three days in the most literal sense.

The same is true for the Lord's time in the grave. So, if Jesus was crucified on a high day or special sabbath, that is, on the Preparation, the day before Passover, and was buried the same day, and he was, then spent all of the next high day or special sabbath of Passover in the tomb, and He did, and earlier the next morning rose from the dead, and He did, that makes for three days. It also makes it the morning of Unleavened Bread, the beginning of a new set of special sabbaths, which I submit to you, is the meaning of the second use of sabbatōn.

So, first plural use is for Preparation and Passover. Second plural use is for Unleavened Bread. Which means no Sunday in sight.

mfblume
12-29-2019, 02:25 PM
Is there a different calendar in operation in the arctic regions? No.

Anybody in Nome, Alaska or Novaya Zemlya can know when the seventh day of the week is. This argument is one of the weakest arguments I've come across. And, logically, it fails even if the premises were true. All it would prove is either that only those in the arctic are relieved of the obligation (is the reader in the arctic? No? Then...) or it proves that if ONE person anywhere anytime cannot keep a commandment then nobody everywhere everytime is required to keep the commandment. So, orphans can't keep the 5th commandment therefore none of us have to?

But for those who might still be thinking the arctic argument has any merit, here:

The Bible defines the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week. The Bible defines a day as beginning at evening, running from one evening to the next. So the Sabbath occurs every seventh evening.

What is evening? In most areas, the evening occurs as the sun approaches the horizon, then "sets", then night occurs. The key though is that evening is the period just before and just after sunset.

Does the sun set in the arctic? Is there an evening in the arctic?

YES.

Even though in the extreme north and south lattitudes the sun does not go BELOW the horizon in summer, it nevertheless descends toward the horizon, then rises again. It is in fact sunset and sunrise, it just does not go below the horizon. The Bible never said the sun must go below the horizon (or rise above the horizon in winter). So there IS a daily sunset, a daily evening, in the arctic. The evenings occur about every 24 hours apart, just as they do everywhere else on the planet. Therefore, Sabbath keeping is no different in the arctic than anywhere else, except it doesn't get AS DARK at night in the summer or AS BRIGHT during the day in winter.

:thumbsup

We already went through all of this, but I will say it again. God did not say to go by calendars, but sundown to sundown. The evening and morning are a day, in that order.

mfblume
12-29-2019, 02:26 PM
Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
Esaias believes that he doesn't have to go to Jerusalem in the middle east in order to keep the feasts that he believes he must keep. He says this because he feels New Jerusalem is everywhere and the old is culminated, as you put it. But that is inconsistent, because the sabbath day is also culminated.

And sabbath is part of Mosaic law for Israel.

Never before Moses was any man commanded to keep sabbath.

Perhaps you should either quote where I said that or else ask for clarification on that issue. Feast keeping is a related, but distinct issue from the weekly Sabbath, by the way.

Of course, I was stressing the relation and the inconsistency between one aspect of religious time periods and another.

mfblume
12-29-2019, 02:27 PM
The heir of verse 1 is the Israelite who, although technically a child of God, functionally differs not a whit from a servant, even though, as heir, he is, in time, going to be heralded as the lord of the house. But while he waits to come to maturity, he, as heir, needs to be under instructors who have charge over him because he is not yet ready to assume the mantle of lordship his position as heir allows him to hold.

In the same way, Israelites under the law (note the "we" in verse 3), and not Gentiles who converted to Christian faith, even though they were the heirs who were sons, had to be under tutelage, governed by others because they were not ready for leadership. Rather, they were subjected to the rules and regulations they received from their Jewish world, that is, the Torah.

Then Jesus came, at the appointed time, a true human descended from Mary, descended from Adam, Messiah of Israel while the Torah was in full effect, to redeem the heir who was still a mere subjugated servant. He came to elevate him and move him past servant-hood and make him a true son, an heir, and lord of all. The gift of the Holy Spirit of God's Son is the evidence of that elevation. And all those who receive that Spirit are not to be considered mere servants but fully-fledged children and heirs.

However, before this occurred, these former pagan Gentiles of Galatia formerly gave themselves over to the service of idols. But now, they both know and are known of God. It is therefore not acceptable to Paul that they should return once again to their former idols and be in bondage to them.

For the Israelite, the former subjugation was to Torah. For the Gentile, the former subjugation was to idolatry
. The weak and beggarly elements for these former Gentiles of Galatia is their idolatry. Paul doesn't make a claim against the Israelite and his subjugation to the Torah. There is a clear constant shifting between the subjects, as noted earlier with his use of "we" in verse 3 to "you" from that point forward. Therefore I conclude that the "days, and months, and times, and years" is a reference to pagan customs formerly practiced by these Galatians when they were idolaters. Paul then shares his concern that he has wasted his time on these former Gentiles.

Ultimately, Paul is trying to show these converted Gentiles that if they embrace the doctrine of the Judaizers and become circumcised, for them, it will be as if they were returning to their past idols and the sins thereof because to become circumcised is to deny Christ and fall from grace, that is to say, lose salvation and eternal life, because, as former heathen idolaters, if they give up on Jesus, there is nothing for them to revert back to, but heathen idolatry. They cannot embrace Torah the way the Israelite heir could because as Gentiles, they were not included in the covenant at Sinai.

So, the Israelite could deny Jesus, fall from grace, and fall back on the Torah. The Gentile, if he denies Jesus, and falls from grace, cannot fall back on the Torah because the Torah was not given to him. His only option is the idolatry of the past, even if it masquerades as being some warped and confusing form of (allegedly) Torah-observant Christianity.

I am so much enjoying this thread.

Votivesoul, I’m thrilled you see the I/You distinctions mentioned in Gal 4. I’ve never heard anyone else say that after I shared my thoughts with them. That is a definite key to understanding the chapter. In fact, it’s for that very reason that the issue cannot be pagan days, though.

After chapter 3 clearly stated that the law was like a schoolmaster for those like Paul who were Israelites (THE WE), Paul said that the tutors and governors, as you wonderfully pointed out, are representative that same old covenant Law. The illustration continues from chapter 3 talking about law. And it is for this reason that we know LAW is the elements of the world in 4:3. In interpreting the mini parable of the heir’s childhood being practically the same as a servants, -- seeing as he does no more practical activity in the inheritance before he actually inherits it – Paul said that the heir is no different than the servant. We later learn that Gentiles to whom he wrote – THE YOU and YE – were the servants to idols. But Paul did not say that while they were servants to idols that they were under the tutors of governors that Israel was under before Christ. That is common sense, because, of course, being under law before Christ was only referring to Israel.

But Israel was under the tutors and governors of the elements of the world according to 4:3. Paul then rephrased that same point of being under law by coming right out and saying Israel was redeemed from Law in verse 4-5. This makes Law the elements of the world in verse 3. Verses 4 and 5 interpret what the tutors and governors are in verse 2 just as chapter 3:24 identifies law using the picture of a schoolmaster.

Gentiles were not under the elements of the world that Paul identified in 4:3 in their times before Christ, since that verses uses the pronoun “WE” to indicate Israel’s schoolmaster. And I say “before Christ” because these Gentiles were under idols then. But that does not mean they were under idols immediately before they became Christians.

So, those under Law, or under the schoolmaster and elements of the world, were the Israelites. And the Israelites were redeemed from beneath the law and elements of the world when Christ came when we compare verse 5 with 3. They received adoption of sons.

Then Paul directs his words to the Gentiles, and changes pronouns to say “YE” in verse 6, who were the servants in 4:1, and says there was also a change in them. They were no more servants but sons.

The key, here, is that nothing was said about idols at all so far in the context. Elements referred to Law. We’re not told that Gentiles were servants to idols when we’re told they were servants in verse , until verses 8 introduces that thought. They did service to non-existent gods – verse 8. But because Paul already identified elements of the world in verse 3 to be law in verse 5, for Paul to ask the gentiles why they would RETURN to weak and beggarly elements means that, somehow, they were returning to LAW. “Elements of the world” are the same elements that were weak and beggarly in verse 9.

For this reason, others on the forum cannot agree with you and I that versed 3’s elements of the world was law. You see they were law, though, because you see the same distinction that I saw in the pronouns WE and YOU referring to Jews and Gentiles.

We cannot change the reference of “elements of the world” from law in verse 3 to idolatry in verse 9. It’s the same “elements” that are necessary, basal and fundamental to the New covenant, because in this way the aspects of Law were the schoolmaster that led them to Christ in precisely the way that you described chapter 3.

Idolatry is not the antecedent for the “elements of the world” in neither verse 3, especially, or verse 9. Elements are God-ordained elementary school of Law for both verses.

“Elements” were first referred to as Law in verses 3 through 5. Paul would not use that term to describe something other than law later, or he’d be inconsistent and confusing.

There are two ways to reconcile the points that the service to idols in verse 8, and the common denominator of verse 3’s and verse 9’s reference to ELEMENTS, makes comprehensive reading out of Paul’s words. Both of the only two possibilities, though, conclude that the days, months and years in verse 10 cannot be pagan days, but Israel’s religious time periods of Law.

1. The Gentiles were in a form of bondage to idols and were going back into bondage again, BUT IN A DIFFERENT FORM, by going under the schoolmaster of elements of the world that God freed Israel from. Paganism and Law were both forms of bondage.

2. The Gentiles had come out of paganism and went into Law-keeping before they eventually found Christ in the church at Galatia, which means they indeed did return to the Israelite Law they put themselves under before they found Christ but after they left paganism.

Either way, it does not add up that the religious time periods were elements of verse 9 due to the use of the term in verse 3.

Scholars have noticed this and claim it must be one of the two instances I laid out above.

ADAM CLARKE: on verse 9:

To the weak and beggarly elements - After receiving all this, will ye turn again to the ineffectual rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law - rites too weak to counteract your sinful habits, and too poor to purchase pardon and eternal life for you? If the Galatians were turning again to them, it is evident that they had been once addicted to them. And this they might have been, allowing that they had become converts from heathenism to Judaism, and from Judaism to Christianity. This makes the sense consistent between the 8th and 9th verses.

ALBERT BARNES on verse 9:

To the weak and beggarly elements - To the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law, imposing a servitude really not less severe than the customs of paganism. On the word elements, see the note at Gal_4:3. They are called “weak” because they had no power to save the soul; no power to justify the sinner before God. They are called “beggarly” (Greek πτωχὰ ptōcha, poor), because they could not impart spiritual riches. They really could confer few benefits on man. Or it may be, as Locke supposes, because the Law kept people in the poor estate of pupils from the full enjoyment of the inheritance; Gal_4:1-3.

They had been freed by the gospel from the galling servitude of paganism, and they now again had sunk into the Jewish observances, as if they preferred slavery to freedom, and were willing to go from one form of it to another.


These scholars realize that the elements of verse 9 are the same as verse 3, and, therefore, have to be law because of what 5 interprets them to be.

The only way that the time periods could be pagan in verse 10 is for verse 9's reference to use a different antecedent for Law than what currently exists in the verse. We cannot have two different antecedents for elements referred to in both verses 3 and 9. And LAW is the only consistent antecedent because there truly were religious time periods under Law. If verse 9’s elements are referring to idolatry, and Paul already established that ELEMENTS in verse 3 was LAW in verse 5, then it’s pretty confusing when we realize Law did indeed have time periods that were KEPT as ORDINANCES. Consistency can only be found in law and paganism both serving as BONDAGE, making gentiles going back under bondage that is under law instead of bondage under idols. And that still puts the religious time periods to be those of law.

Furthermore, Bondage is stated to be law in the additional mini parable of Hagar and Sarah.

Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.



One COVENANT gendered to bondage, and the new covenant gendering to freedom. Had it been correct to say that the religious time periods of verse 10 were pagan, then Paul would not say that their bondage under the elements of verse 9 was expounded upon to be seen as the old covenants in verse 24!

And then Chapter 5:1-2 continues to say that the BONDAGE was Law, with not a hint of expounding information about verse 9’s bondage of the gentiles being times of paganism.

Basically, Paul said, “You gentiles are going n the kindergarten bondage that Israel was supposed to leave and be freed from when Christ came, when us Jews are not even under that bondage any more!”

Esaias
12-29-2019, 02:32 PM
We already went through all of this, but I will say it again. God did not say to go by calendars, but sundown to sundown. The evening and morning are a day, in that order.

Which I just pointed out occurs even in the extreme lattitudes. I didn't say anything about going by a calendar.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 02:32 PM
Of course, I was stressing the relation and the inconsistency between one aspect of religious time periods and another.

Not following you here, perhaps you could explain.

mfblume
12-29-2019, 02:35 PM
Which I just pointed out occurs even in the extreme lattitudes. I didn't say anything about going by a calendar.

You started your post out by asking if we have the same calendars.

mfblume
12-29-2019, 02:36 PM
Not following you here, perhaps you could explain.

Sorry, I thought you caught my reference to your use of the term.

Feast keeping is a related, but distinct issue from the weekly Sabbath, by the way.
Of course, I was stressing the relation and the inconsistency between one aspect of religious time periods and another.

votivesoul
12-29-2019, 02:37 PM
Going back for a moment regarding Sundays and the original references to the "first day of the week":

I see nine uses of that phrase in the KJV, as follows:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=first+day+of+the+week&qs_version=KJV

- Matthew 28:1
- Mark 16:2
- Mark 16:9
- Luke 24:1
- John 20:1
- John 20:19
- Acts 20:7
- 1 Corinthians 16:2

I've already addressed Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 and have shown how a change in translation seems warranted (See: here (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1576609&postcount=10) and here (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1576610&postcount=11).)

The question then is, the other seven references from the Gospels. In each case, note that they refer to the empty tomb scene after Jesus was crucified and buried. Does this mean that this scene took place on a Sunday, Jesus having been crucified and buried on a Friday?

Traditionally, that is the consensus. But what if something else occurred? Note the following text from Matthew 28:1:

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων

(opse de sabbatōn tē epiphōskousē eis mian sabbatōn)

A literal reading is found here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-1.htm



But note, the Greek word sabbatōn is the same in both instances, and in both cases, is Genitive Neuter Plural. It would seem to make the most sense to translate each instance identically.

But instead we get: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...

Why the change? I think it's unnecessary to say the least. First, note as I said previously in post #10, that the Greek word for "day" isn't even in the text, it's supplied by the translators. That leaves us with mia the feminine form for the number 1 in Greek. Second, we must remember that for ancient Israel, they were commanded to keep certain festivals every year, one of them being Passover and another being Unleavened Bread.

These festivals were considered sabbaths of a sort, even if or though they did not fall upon the actual seventh day of the week. From Passover to the end of Unleavened Bread, every day was a high day, or special sabbath to the LORD (See Leviticus 23:1-8). It makes for a total of eight high days or special sabbaths. The first high day or special sabbath was on Passover. Then, seven more high days or special sabbaths lasting for the duration of Unleavened Bread were held.

This explains the reference in Matthew 28:1 regarding the first use of sabbatōn and why it's plural. It's a reference to the special week of special sabbaths that occurred during the first part of the festival.

From John 19:31, we know Jesus was crucified on the Preparation, that is, the day prior to the beginning of Passover, that is, the 13th day of the first month, otherwise in Hebrew called the Chagigah. Further, it need not be assumed that Jesus literally spent 72 hours in the grave. The custom of the times indicated that only a part of a day needs to pass for it to be considered one day. This is reasonable and makes sense to us, because if I say upon this very day, December 29th, 2019, that New Year's Eve is in three days, meaning I am counting today as one of the three, even though much of today has already passed as of this writing, I do not mean 72 exact hours. Because in actuality as of this writing, it's more like 33 hours, even though 33 hours doesn't exactly equal three days in the most literal sense.

The same is true for the Lord's time in the grave. So, if Jesus was crucified on a high day or special sabbath, that is, on the Preparation, the day before Passover, and was buried the same day, and he was, then spent all of the next high day or special sabbath of Passover in the tomb, and He did, and earlier the next morning rose from the dead, and He did, that makes for three days. It also makes it the morning of Unleavened Bread, the beginning of a new set of special sabbaths, which I submit to you, is the meaning of the second use of sabbatōn.

So, first plural use is for Preparation and Passover. Second plural use is for Unleavened Bread. Which means no Sunday in sight.

For Mark 16:2, the text then should read "And early on the beginning of the sabbaths..." that is, referring to the seven "sabbaths' of Unleavened Bread, because again, sabbatōn is plural.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16-2.htm

But note Mark 16:9. The Greek here is different. Here we have sabbatou, which is Genitive Neuter Singular. This refers to the one day, the very first special sabbath of Unleavened Bread, the day Jesus rose from the dead.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16-9.htm

Luke 24:1 follows suit with Matthew 28:1. Sabbath is plural and refers to the beginning of Unleavened Bread as a set of seven high days or special sabbaths.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-1.htm

John 20:1 follows Matthew 28:1 and Luke 24:1 regarding when Mary came to the tomb with various spices to anoint the Lord's body. It's again sabbatōn, which is plural, thus referring to the set of seven sabbaths of Unleavened Bread.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-1.htm

Finally, John 20:19 reads as follows:

Then the same day at evening...

The evening of the same day as what? The evening of the same day as the day Mary went to the tomb, that is, the first of seven special sabbaths for Unleavened Bread. Here, sabbath is again plural.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-19.htm

So, to conclude, Jesus was crucified on the Preparation, the day before Passover. It was a high day, or a special sabbath. He was buried the same day. The next day was Passover, another special sabbath, according to Leviticus 23. Matthew 28:1's initial use of sabbatōn refers to these two days. Then, early on the first sabbath (note the singular) of a set of seven sabbaths (note the plural) God raised His Son from the dead. Subsequent to that raising, but on the exact same day, Mary came with spices to anoint Christ's body, not realizing it was already raised to life. Jesus appears to her in the morning of that day, then later on, shows Himself alive to the disciples per John 20:19.

So, again, no mention anywhere of Sunday or of some supposed first day of the week. It's all referring to the special sabbath days of Preparation, Passover, and Unleavened Bread. Now, it may be that the Preparation was a Friday, Passover was a Saturday, and Unleavened Bread began on Sunday, and that's the day Jesus rose from the dead, but that's not something that will really be known to us, and as far as the Holy Scriptures are concerned, it doesn't concern us at all. For all we know, Preparation was on a Tuesday, Passover was Wednesday, and Jesus rose on a Thursday, being the first day of Unleavened Bread.

It doesn't really matter, I think, what actual day of the week it was, because the Scriptures don't make it matter. Rather, we have bias in our translations, as far as I can tell, to, as I said initially, to deflect away from, or even conceal, an anti-Sabbath agenda. It's hard to see it any other way, when the Greek (coupled with a basic understanding of the festivals of Jehovah) is so clear.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 03:02 PM
You started your post out by asking if we have the same calendars.

Yes, meaning if there were only 1 day in the extreme arctic, then they would have to use a completely different calendar than the rest of us. But as I showed there are 365 days in the arctic like everywhere else. 365 evenings, therefore 52 Sabbaths, everywhere on the planet.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 03:07 PM
For Mark 16:2, the text then should read "And early on the beginning of the sabbaths..." that is, referring to the seven "sabbaths' of Unleavened Bread, because again, sabbatōn is plural.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16-2.htm

But note Mark 16:9. The Greek here is different. Here we have sabbatou, which is Genitive Neuter Singular. This refers to the one day, the very first special sabbath of Unleavened Bread, the day Jesus rose from the dead.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16-9.htm

Luke 24:1 follows suit with Matthew 28:1. Sabbath is plural and refers to the beginning of Unleavened Bread as a set of seven high days or special sabbaths.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-1.htm

John 20:1 follows Matthew 28:1 and Luke 24:1 regarding when Mary came to the tomb with various spices to anoint the Lord's body. It's again sabbatōn, which is plural, thus referring to the set of seven sabbaths of Unleavened Bread.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-1.htm

Finally, John 20:19 reads as follows:



The evening of the same day as what? The evening of the same day as the day Mary went to the tomb, that is, the first of seven special sabbaths for Unleavened Bread. Here, sabbath is again plural.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-19.htm

So, to conclude, Jesus was crucified on the Preparation, the day before Passover. It was a high day, or a special sabbath. He was buried the same day. The next day was Passover, another special sabbath, according to Leviticus 23. Matthew 28:1's initial use of sabbatōn refers to these two days. Then, early on the first sabbath (note the singular) of a set of seven sabbaths (note the plural) God raised His Son from the dead. Subsequent to that raising, but on the exact same day, Mary came with spices to anoint Christ's body, not realizing it was already raised to life. Jesus appears to her in the morning of that day, then later on, shows Himself alive to the disciples per John 20:19.

So, again, no mention anywhere of Sunday or of some supposed first day of the week. It's all referring to the special sabbath days of Preparation, Passover, and Unleavened Bread. Now, it may be that the Preparation was a Friday, Passover was a Saturday, and Unleavened Bread began on Sunday, and that's the day Jesus rose from the dead, but that's not something that will really be known to us, and as far as the Holy Scriptures are concerned, it doesn't concern us at all. For all we know, Preparation was on a Tuesday, Passover was Wednesday, and Jesus rose on a Thursday, being the first day of Unleavened Bread.

It doesn't really matter, I think, what actual day of the week it was, because the Scriptures don't make it matter. Rather, we have bias in our translations, as far as I can tell, to, as I said initially, to deflect away from, or even conceal, an anti-Sabbath agenda. It's hard to see it any other way, when the Greek (coupled with a basic understanding of the festivals of Jehovah) is so clear.

Interesting. Would this mean the first day of the week is never mentioned in Scripture at all? How would you say "first of the week" in Greek?

Also, tradition and history are unanimous that Jesus rose the day after the seventh day Sabbath. If that is not what happened, what evidence is there available that points in that direction?

mfblume
12-29-2019, 03:07 PM
Is there a different calendar in operation in the arctic regions? No.

Anybody in Nome, Alaska or Novaya Zemlya can know when the seventh day of the week is. This argument is one of the weakest arguments I've come across. And, logically, it fails even if the premises were true. All it would prove is either that only those in the arctic are relieved of the obligation (is the reader in the arctic? No? Then...) or it proves that if ONE person anywhere anytime cannot keep a commandment then nobody everywhere everytime is required to keep the commandment. So, orphans can't keep the 5th commandment therefore none of us have to?

But for those who might still be thinking the arctic argument has any merit, here:

The Bible defines the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week. The Bible defines a day as beginning at evening, running from one evening to the next. So the Sabbath occurs every seventh evening.

What is evening? In most areas, the evening occurs as the sun approaches the horizon, then "sets", then night occurs. The key though is that evening is the period just before and just after sunset.

Does the sun set in the arctic? Is there an evening in the arctic?

YES.

Even though in the extreme north and south lattitudes the sun does not go BELOW the horizon in summer, it nevertheless descends toward the horizon, then rises again. It is in fact sunset and sunrise, it just does not go below the horizon. The Bible never said the sun must go below the horizon (or rise above the horizon in winter). So there IS a daily sunset, a daily evening, in the arctic. The evenings occur about every 24 hours apart, just as they do everywhere else on the planet. Therefore, Sabbath keeping is no different in the arctic than anywhere else, except it doesn't get AS DARK at night in the summer or AS BRIGHT during the day in winter.

:thumbsup

Just to give your post a more fair response.

To say the night does not get as dark at night in the summer is an understatement. It DOES NOT GET DARK AT ALL.

Only as the year gets closer to autumn does it even lessen any brightness at all.

God's word was clear in Genesis. He called light day and the darkness night. It is not night if it is not dark. Period.

All in all, these verses says IT IS FOR ISRAEL:

Exodus 31:12-18 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 03:10 PM
Just to give your post a more fair response.

To say the night does not get as dark at night in the summer is an understatement. It DOES NOT GET DARK AT ALL.

Only as the year gets closer to autumn does it even lessen any brightness at all.

God's word was clear in Genesis. He called light day and the darkness night. It is not night if it is not dark. Period.

All in all, these verses says IT IS FOR ISRAEL:

Exodus 31:12-18 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

If it is not dark it is not night. Period.

But God never said a night and a day is a day. Rather, an evening and a morning constitute a day. An evening is not night. Sorry, but your arctic argument simply doesn't work.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 03:21 PM
About a sign between God and Israel. Brother Blume, are you part of the commonwealth of Israel? Or not?

Anyways, the fact that the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel does not mean "therefore nobody else ought to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." The Sabbath was a token or sign or indicator of the fact that Israel belonged to God. So the nations who did NOT keep Sabbath were thereby identified as not belonging to God. All this is just proving that non Sabbath keepers aren't in possession of one of the signs of being the Israel of God. Which I don't think was your intention in this line of reasoning, but, there it is.

The Sabbath, as well as the Feasts, were a sign, something that signified who was the God of Israel and who Jehovah's people were. It was a token of covenant relationship. Arguing from that to "therefore non Israelites have no obligation to obey the 4th commandment" is beyond reaching, it's just making a claim without any actual argumentation.

mfblume
12-29-2019, 03:59 PM
Yes, meaning if there were only 1 day in the extreme arctic, then they would have to use a completely different calendar than the rest of us. But as I showed there are 365 days in the arctic like everywhere else. 365 evenings, therefore 52 Sabbaths, everywhere on the planet.

As I stated it's not about calendars, but night and day periods.

mfblume
12-29-2019, 04:00 PM
About a sign between God and Israel. Brother Blume, are you part of the commonwealth of Israel? Or not?

Yes Good point.



Anyways, the fact that the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel does not mean "therefore nobody else ought to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." The Sabbath was a token or sign or indicator of the fact that Israel belonged to God. So the nations who did NOT keep Sabbath were thereby identified as not belonging to God. All this is just proving that non Sabbath keepers aren't in possession of one of the signs of being the Israel of God. Which I don't think was your intention in this line of reasoning, but, there it is.

The Sabbath, as well as the Feasts, were a sign, something that signified who was the God of Israel and who Jehovah's people were. It was a token of covenant relationship. Arguing from that to "therefore non Israelites have no obligation to obey the 4th commandment" is beyond reaching, it's just making a claim without any actual argumentation.

It's just as law was for Israel to all their generations, and law ended with Christ. At Christ, sabbaths became the greater form and the day which was a shadow ended.

mfblume
12-29-2019, 04:14 PM
If it is not dark it is not night. Period.

But God never said a night and a day is a day. Rather, an evening and a morning constitute a day. An evening is not night. Sorry, but your arctic argument simply doesn't work.

Yes, it does work.

Evening is start of the night and morning is start of the day. There is no evening if the night does not follow. It's one long day for weeks in the north.

Since you are really getting technical here, let me do so as well. Does your estimation of when sabbath ends and starts depend on the actual time the sun is seen to start coming around the other way?

Evening is at sunset when the day (which is defined as light) ends. There is no day when light ends to call it evening up north.

Evening means close of day/light. There is no evening up north during the summer. Ther eis no morning up north in winter.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 04:39 PM
As I stated it's not about calendars, but night and day periods.

I guess we're just having a communication breakdown here.

The Sabbath is not determined by night and day periods, but from one evening to the next.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 04:46 PM
There is no evening up north during the summer. Ther eis no morning up north in winter.

Are you up north in the winter where there are no days at all? Which means time stops up north, but ...

Esaias
12-29-2019, 04:55 PM
I never understood why some people spend as much time, effort, and study to determine what they DON'T have to obey out of Father's Word, rather than finding out more about what God wants, how He wants us to live. It's a different perspective to me, a foreign mindset, I honestly don't understand it.

Amanah
12-29-2019, 05:17 PM
I never understood why some people spend as much time, effort, and study to determine what they DON'T have to obey out of Father's Word, rather than finding out more about what God wants, how He wants us to live. It's a different perspective to me, a foreign mindset, I honestly don't understand it.

Is it possible for someone to keep the Sabbath by themself? What exactly would you do?

mfblume
12-29-2019, 06:03 PM
Are you up north in the winter where there are no days at all? Which means time stops up north, but ...

reaching...

mfblume
12-29-2019, 06:06 PM
I guess we're just having a communication breakdown here.

The Sabbath is not determined by night and day periods, but from one evening to the next.

No breakdown. Evening to evening means end of daylight to end of daylight. That does not occur for weeks in the north and the south.

You mentioned that you cannot understand how people strive so much to avoid something in the Word. That's what I am seeing in this sabbath issue! Gal 4 distinctly says Law is gone with its days, months and years. Sabbaths being a shadow means all of them, not barred. ANd the hoops one requires to insert pagan calendars and bypassing the conclusions from a simple read are puzzling to me.

votivesoul
12-29-2019, 08:53 PM
Interesting. Would this mean the first day of the week is never mentioned in Scripture at all? How would you say "first of the week" in Greek?

Also, tradition and history are unanimous that Jesus rose the day after the seventh day Sabbath. If that is not what happened, what evidence is there available that points in that direction?

If what I have postulated is correct, then there is no phrase for "first of the week" in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.

The best I have found so far is first, from Luke 18:12. There, the Pharisee of the parable tells God in soliloquy that he fasts twice in the week. Here, "week" is the singular sabbatou. Otherwise, I have not found the word "week" in the New Testament Scriptures outside of the other references already given (But this might just mean, especially as hyperbole, that the Pharisee claimed to fast two separate meals on the Sabbath to prove how devout he was).

So, I checked the LXX, and I see, for example that in Genesis 29:27-28, the word translated as "week" is έβδομα, which is an ordinal derived from the Greek word for seven, that is, ἑπτά. As such, it means "seventh".

In Exodus 34:22, the Greek word for "weeks" is εβδομάδων, that is, a period of sevens, which makes sense, since Pentecost is a celebration that takes place seven weeks, or a group of seven days by seven days, or 49 days, the day after Unleavened Bread ends.

Leviticus 12:5 reads δις επτά ημέρας, or seven days twiced, that is, two weeks.

Numbers 28:26 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

Deuteronomy 16:9 has επτά, or the number 7.

Deuteronomy 16:10 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

Deuteronomy 16:16 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

2 Chronicles 8:13 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens. This reference is interesting, because the word σαββάτοις, or sabbaths is also present, thus showing a different rendering between sabbaths and weeks.

Jeremiah 5:24 has προστάγματος, which has nothing to do with weeks or days, but rather, the order of appointments.

Daniel 9:24-27 and 10:2-3 have εβδομάδες, or period of sevens.

In all cases, then, the LXX knows nothing using any reference to the sabbath as a metonym. So, did using sabbath as a metonym for the word week come into existence after the LXX but before the NT? I haven't yet found anything to suggest it. Again, it seems like a translators choice.

I see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 41, he claims Jesus rose from the dead on what might appear to be Sunday.

See: https://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/trypho/041.html

The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.

Apparently, in the Talmud it is suggested that there are no names to the days of the week for Jews in Hebrew, so each day of the week is understood in relation to the Sabbath, so, the first day from the Sabbath would be Sunday, the second day from the Sabbath would be Monday, the third day from the Sabbath would be Tuesday, and etc. But I haven't yet been able to verify that as of yet. If this is the case, it might confirm that "first day of the week/sabbath" was a colloquial idiom referring to Sunday.

Now, how to otherwise say "first of the week"? It looks to me like you could say something close to πρώτο της εβδομάδας or próto tis evdomádas or first of the sevens/week, but I need some help with that, as I am not sure. Maybe another member can chime in???

Finally, as far as tradition goes, I would ask, where does the tradition come from and why or how did it develop? If the tradition developed over time from a misunderstanding of what sabbath/s was/were in view, that is, the sabbath/s mentioned in the Gospels were the high days, then the tradition developed in error and can be discarded. But that is only a guess, as I don't actually know how and when and where and why the tradition developed.

votivesoul
12-29-2019, 09:10 PM
I am so much enjoying this thread.

Votivesoul, I’m thrilled you see the I/You distinctions mentioned in Gal 4. I’ve never heard anyone else say that after I shared my thoughts with them. That is a definite key to understanding the chapter. In fact, it’s for that very reason that the issue cannot be pagan days, though.

After chapter 3 clearly stated that the law was like a schoolmaster for those like Paul who were Israelites (THE WE), Paul said that the tutors and governors, as you wonderfully pointed out, are representative that same old covenant Law. The illustration continues from chapter 3 talking about law. And it is for this reason that we know LAW is the elements of the world in 4:3. In interpreting the mini parable of the heir’s childhood being practically the same as a servants, -- seeing as he does no more practical activity in the inheritance before he actually inherits it – Paul said that the heir is no different than the servant. We later learn that Gentiles to whom he wrote – THE YOU and YE – were the servants to idols. But Paul did not say that while they were servants to idols that they were under the tutors of governors that Israel was under before Christ. That is common sense, because, of course, being under law before Christ was only referring to Israel.

But Israel was under the tutors and governors of the elements of the world according to 4:3. Paul then rephrased that same point of being under law by coming right out and saying Israel was redeemed from Law in verse 4-5. This makes Law the elements of the world in verse 3. Verses 4 and 5 interpret what the tutors and governors are in verse 2 just as chapter 3:24 identifies law using the picture of a schoolmaster.

Gentiles were not under the elements of the world that Paul identified in 4:3 in their times before Christ, since that verses uses the pronoun “WE” to indicate Israel’s schoolmaster. And I say “before Christ” because these Gentiles were under idols then. But that does not mean they were under idols immediately before they became Christians.

So, those under Law, or under the schoolmaster and elements of the world, were the Israelites. And the Israelites were redeemed from beneath the law and elements of the world when Christ came when we compare verse 5 with 3. They received adoption of sons.

Then Paul directs his words to the Gentiles, and changes pronouns to say “YE” in verse 6, who were the servants in 4:1, and says there was also a change in them. They were no more servants but sons.

The key, here, is that nothing was said about idols at all so far in the context. Elements referred to Law. We’re not told that Gentiles were servants to idols when we’re told they were servants in verse , until verses 8 introduces that thought. They did service to non-existent gods – verse 8. But because Paul already identified elements of the world in verse 3 to be law in verse 5, for Paul to ask the gentiles why they would RETURN to weak and beggarly elements means that, somehow, they were returning to LAW. “Elements of the world” are the same elements that were weak and beggarly in verse 9.

For this reason, others on the forum cannot agree with you and I that versed 3’s elements of the world was law. You see they were law, though, because you see the same distinction that I saw in the pronouns WE and YOU referring to Jews and Gentiles.

We cannot change the reference of “elements of the world” from law in verse 3 to idolatry in verse 9. It’s the same “elements” that are necessary, basal and fundamental to the New covenant, because in this way the aspects of Law were the schoolmaster that led them to Christ in precisely the way that you described chapter 3.

Idolatry is not the antecedent for the “elements of the world” in neither verse 3, especially, or verse 9. Elements are God-ordained elementary school of Law for both verses.

“Elements” were first referred to as Law in verses 3 through 5. Paul would not use that term to describe something other than law later, or he’d be inconsistent and confusing.

There are two ways to reconcile the points that the service to idols in verse 8, and the common denominator of verse 3’s and verse 9’s reference to ELEMENTS, makes comprehensive reading out of Paul’s words. Both of the only two possibilities, though, conclude that the days, months and years in verse 10 cannot be pagan days, but Israel’s religious time periods of Law.

1. The Gentiles were in a form of bondage to idols and were going back into bondage again, BUT IN A DIFFERENT FORM, by going under the schoolmaster of elements of the world that God freed Israel from. Paganism and Law were both forms of bondage.

2. The Gentiles had come out of paganism and went into Law-keeping before they eventually found Christ in the church at Galatia, which means they indeed did return to the Israelite Law they put themselves under before they found Christ but after they left paganism.

Either way, it does not add up that the religious time periods were elements of verse 9 due to the use of the term in verse 3.

Scholars have noticed this and claim it must be one of the two instances I laid out above.

ADAM CLARKE: on verse 9:

To the weak and beggarly elements - After receiving all this, will ye turn again to the ineffectual rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law - rites too weak to counteract your sinful habits, and too poor to purchase pardon and eternal life for you? If the Galatians were turning again to them, it is evident that they had been once addicted to them. And this they might have been, allowing that they had become converts from heathenism to Judaism, and from Judaism to Christianity. This makes the sense consistent between the 8th and 9th verses.

ALBERT BARNES on verse 9:

To the weak and beggarly elements - To the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law, imposing a servitude really not less severe than the customs of paganism. On the word elements, see the note at Gal_4:3. They are called “weak” because they had no power to save the soul; no power to justify the sinner before God. They are called “beggarly” (Greek πτωχὰ ptōcha, poor), because they could not impart spiritual riches. They really could confer few benefits on man. Or it may be, as Locke supposes, because the Law kept people in the poor estate of pupils from the full enjoyment of the inheritance; Gal_4:1-3.

They had been freed by the gospel from the galling servitude of paganism, and they now again had sunk into the Jewish observances, as if they preferred slavery to freedom, and were willing to go from one form of it to another.


These scholars realize that the elements of verse 9 are the same as verse 3, and, therefore, have to be law because of what 5 interprets them to be.

The only way that the time periods could be pagan in verse 10 is for verse 9's reference to use a different antecedent for Law than what currently exists in the verse. We cannot have two different antecedents for elements referred to in both verses 3 and 9. And LAW is the only consistent antecedent because there truly were religious time periods under Law. If verse 9’s elements are referring to idolatry, and Paul already established that ELEMENTS in verse 3 was LAW in verse 5, then it’s pretty confusing when we realize Law did indeed have time periods that were KEPT as ORDINANCES. Consistency can only be found in law and paganism both serving as BONDAGE, making gentiles going back under bondage that is under law instead of bondage under idols. And that still puts the religious time periods to be those of law.

Furthermore, Bondage is stated to be law in the additional mini parable of Hagar and Sarah.

Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.



One COVENANT gendered to bondage, and the new covenant gendering to freedom. Had it been correct to say that the religious time periods of verse 10 were pagan, then Paul would not say that their bondage under the elements of verse 9 was expounded upon to be seen as the old covenants in verse 24!

And then Chapter 5:1-2 continues to say that the BONDAGE was Law, with not a hint of expounding information about verse 9’s bondage of the gentiles being times of paganism.

Basically, Paul said, “You gentiles are going n the kindergarten bondage that Israel was supposed to leave and be freed from when Christ came, when us Jews are not even under that bondage any more!”

Just briefly, I think it is an unnecessary inference to think the elements for the Heir are the same elements for the Gentile. The elements of the world for the Heir are the Torah commandments. The elements for the Gentile are idolatrous practices. They need not be the same elements, even if the word is the same. The Israelite and the Gentile came from two totally different worlds, governed by different moralities, laws, customs, practices, and even God/gods. The Israelite, if he leaves faith in Christ for the Torah goes back to the world he once knew. The Gentile, if he leaves faith in Christ for idolatry goes back to the world he once knew. Additionally, the Gentile, if he leaves faith in Christ for the Torah, is attempting to go to a world in which he doesn't, and never did, belong. That means it's impossible, no matter how much he might be deceived into thinking otherwise.

If, as you and I both have stated, the distinction between the "we" and the "ye" is really there, and of true importance, then I think it sound to realize there are two different sets of elements, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile.

votivesoul
12-29-2019, 09:13 PM
I found another perspective on the plural use of sabbath in the Gospels.

See: https://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/2018/04/02/the-first-day-of-the-week/

It suggests the plural usage is the counting down of the sabbaths leading up to Pentecost. This might be as valid, or even more so, than what I have so far argued. Will have to ponder it.

mfblume
12-29-2019, 10:08 PM
Just briefly, I think it is an unnecessary inference to think the elements for the Heir are the same elements for the Gentile. The elements of the world for the Heir are the Torah commandments. The elements for the Gentile are idolatrous practices. They need not be the same elements, even if the word is the same. The Israelite and the Gentile came from two totally different worlds, governed by different moralities, laws, customs, practices, and even God/gods. The Israelite, if he leaves faith in Christ for the Torah goes back to the world he once knew. The Gentile, if he leaves faith in Christ for idolatry goes back to the world he once knew. Additionally, the Gentile, if he leaves faith in Christ for the Torah, is attempting to go to a world in which he doesn't, and never did, belong. That means it's impossible, no matter how much he might be deceived into thinking otherwise.

If, as you and I both have stated, the distinction between the "we" and the "ye" is really there, and of true importance, then I think it sound to realize there are two different sets of elements, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile.

Again, though, why continue ONLY with reference to law in describing bondage to these gentiles as Paul did when he said Law gendered to bondage like Hagar did, if not to indicate he was concerned with gentiles going under law? Idols are only mentioned as a sideline issue. However, before chapter 4:9 and after, law is focused upon as binding.

Elements, too, are basal and necessary things. They are ordained of God. To compare law with the New Covenant, we see how the concept of fundamental basal issues fit perfectly well, as chapter 3 literally states. But where is a sense of that sort of preparatory purpose in elements found in the context of Galatians in reference to paganism? Were the saved gentiles that were in the church dabbling with "elements of paganism" in the same sense that Israel was under elements of the law that prepped them for Jesus? In other words, were the pagan elements part of some "preparatory" purpose that would allegedly lead them into deeper and more substantial paganism, as New COvenant is deeper and more substantial than Law?

It's simply far too obvious as I see it for the elements of verse 9 to be elements as the earlier reference makes it.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 11:39 PM
Is it possible for someone to keep the Sabbath by themself? What exactly would you do?

Set the day apart from the other days. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy". Holy means essentially separated. Doing your ordinary work (your job, cooking, cleaning, business transactions, etc) during the other six days, and not doing those things on the Sabbath, as well as not requiring such work from others (your children, other people, any work animals you might have, etc* see note below) helps to mark the seventh day as different or separate from the other days. Doing this in honour of Jesus as Creator of heaven and earth and as Lord of the Sabbath establishes your activity as "sanctified" or devoted to a divine purpose.

It is often helpful to mark the beginning and end of the Sabbath. By acknowledging the Sabbath has now started (on what we call Friday evening), and then acknowledging the Sabbath has ended and the week has restarted (on what is commonly called Saturday evening), you are establishing a separation or boundary between the Sabbath and the other days and officially recognizing the Sabbath as hallowed by God.

In Lev 23 God says the Sabbath is an appointment and a "holy convocation", or sacred assembly. But that of course implies two or more people assembling together to worship God. However, God calls these things His appointments (moedim, often thought of as "Feasts"). So you can think of it as an appointed time that one meets with God. Yes, He is with us at all times, but there are times when we "meet God" or encounter God in a non ordinary way, a way other than just existing in His presence 24/7. Prayer, for example, is "time with God", as is the Sabbath. Obviously, the two would go together!

So if one were the only Sabbath keeping believer they were in contact with, and so could not meet with other believers on the Sabbath, they could still meet with God, and use the day for prayer, worship, study of His Word, etc. Church is two or more gathered in His name, but even if it's just you and the Lord, that's two, you can still have church, in a sense.

We "welcome the Sabbath" at it's start with prayer and usually a meal. (The Sabbath is technically a feast, or festive occasion, so a nice meal is usually appropriate.) We also "say goodbye to the Sabbath" at its end, that is we recognise the passing from the Sabbath to the first day of the week, with prayer. We welcome the Sabbath with Psalm 95 and prayer, and acknowledge its ending with a psalm and prayer, and singing psalm 24 (which is "A Psalm For the First of the Week") to sort of officially recognise the start of the first day of the week.

There are other things we do, but basically we 1) stop our ordinary work, 2) formally recognise the start and stop of the Sabbath with prayer, and 3) use the day with a special emphasis on prayer and worship as well as just enjoying God's blessings.

*Note: Not requiring labour of others is why most Sabbath keepers do not shop or go to restaurants or stores or conduct financial transactions on the Sabbath.

Esaias
12-29-2019, 11:46 PM
If what I have postulated is correct, then there is no phrase for "first of the week" in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.

The best I have found so far is first, from Luke 18:12. There, the Pharisee of the parable tells God in soliloquy that he fasts twice in the week. Here, "week" is the singular sabbatou. Otherwise, I have not found the word "week" in the New Testament Scriptures outside of the other references already given (But this might just mean, especially as hyperbole, that the Pharisee claimed to fast two separate meals on the Sabbath to prove how devout he was).

So, I checked the LXX, and I see, for example that in Genesis 29:27-28, the word translated as "week" is έβδομα, which is an ordinal derived from the Greek word for seven, that is, ἑπτά. As such, it means "seventh".

In Exodus 34:22, the Greek word for "weeks" is εβδομάδων, that is, a period of sevens, which makes sense, since Pentecost is a celebration that takes place seven weeks, or a group of seven days by seven days, or 49 days, the day after Unleavened Bread ends.

Leviticus 12:5 reads δις επτά ημέρας, or seven days twiced, that is, two weeks.

Numbers 28:26 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

Deuteronomy 16:9 has επτά, or the number 7.

Deuteronomy 16:10 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

Deuteronomy 16:16 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

2 Chronicles 8:13 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens. This reference is interesting, because the word σαββάτοις, or sabbaths is also present, thus showing a different rendering between sabbaths and weeks.

Jeremiah 5:24 has προστάγματος, which has nothing to do with weeks or days, but rather, the order of appointments.

Daniel 9:24-27 and 10:2-3 have εβδομάδες, or period of sevens.

In all cases, then, the LXX knows nothing using any reference to the sabbath as a metonym. So, did using sabbath as a metonym for the word week come into existence after the LXX but before the NT? I haven't yet found anything to suggest it. Again, it seems like a translators choice.

I see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 41, he claims Jesus rose from the dead on what might appear to be Sunday.

See: https://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/trypho/041.html



Apparently, in the Talmud it is suggested that there are no names to the days of the week for Jews in Hebrew, so each day of the week is understood in relation to the Sabbath, so, the first day from the Sabbath would be Sunday, the second day from the Sabbath would be Monday, the third day from the Sabbath would be Tuesday, and etc. But I haven't yet been able to verify that as of yet. If this is the case, it might confirm that "first day of the week/sabbath" was a colloquial idiom referring to Monday.

Now, how to otherwise say "first of the week"? It looks to me like you could say something close to πρώτο της εβδομάδας or próto tis evdomádas or first of the seven/week, but I need some help with that, as I am not sure. Maybe another member can chime in???

Finally, as far as tradition goes, I would ask, where does the tradition come from and why or how did it develop? If the tradition developed over time from a misunderstanding of what sabbath/s was/were in view, that is, the sabbath/s mentioned in the Gospels were the high days, then the tradition developed in error and can be discarded. But that is only a guess, as I don't actually know how and when and where and why the tradition developed.

On the tradition topic, I was thinking if Jesus had risen on, say Tuesday, then there should be some hint of that in church history, I woukd think there would be some evidence of an entering in or beginning of a first day of the week tradition in opposition to the original facts and understanding of the apostles.

Your post gives much food for thought. :thumbsup

Esaias
12-30-2019, 12:03 AM
No breakdown. Evening to evening means end of daylight to end of daylight. That does not occur for weeks in the north and the south.

Evening means when the sun approaches the horizon. So there are in fact 365 evenings in the arctic. Honestly, even if you were correct, it would only mean folks living in the extreme arctic or antarctic are exempt. Neither you nor I nor anyone reading this thread is living in such locations. It's like saying "baptism can't be required because somebody somewhere in a desert with no water can't be baptised".

You mentioned that you cannot understand how people strive so much to avoid something in the Word.

Some people read and study and pray to find out what God wants them to do. Other people read and study and pray to find out what they don't have to do.

That's what I am seeing in this sabbath issue! Gal 4 distinctly says Law is gone with its days, months and years.

If law is gone and this means we don't have to do what the 4th commandment says, then it means we don't have to do what the other commandments say, either. Also, you provide your summary statements of what Galatians says, but I find Galatians doesn't actually say what you say. We are to hold fast the form of sound words, and speak as the oracles of God. Therefore when we say "the Bible says X" but the Bible doesn't actually say "X", we are on dangerous ground.

Sabbaths being a shadow means all of them, not barred. ANd the hoops one requires to insert pagan calendars and bypassing the conclusions from a simple read are puzzling to me.

There are no hoops, it's simple grammar. As for shadows, that comes from Colossians and is referring to the judging, not the items for which the Colossian brethren were being judged.

The point of Galatians is NOT "make sure you don't do the things contained in the law" as if obedience to God is ever a bad unchristian thing. The point is SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. And by the way "deeds of the law" isn't referring to obeying God's commandments, but was and is a well documented rabbinical idiom for adherance to sectarian halacha or "traditions of the elders", as it is well documented not only in talmudic lusage but in Qumran documents.

Evang.Benincasa
12-30-2019, 05:36 AM
There are no hoops, it's simple grammar. As for shadows, that comes from Colossians and is referring to the judging, not the items for which the Colossian brethren were being judged.

The point of Galatians is NOT "make sure you don't do the things contained in the law" as if obedience to God is ever a bad unchristian thing. The point is SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. And by the way "deeds of the law" isn't referring to obeying God's commandments, but was and is a well documented rabbinical idiom for adherence to sectarian halacha or "traditions of the elders", as it is well documented not only in talmudic lusage but in Qumran documents.

:highfive

Evang.Benincasa
12-30-2019, 05:48 AM
The issue is what circumcision, and holiness was causing within the different sects of Judaism. SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. Cain's issue was that by doing something he wanted his work to be accepted. When it was rejected he had an issue, that issue was with his brother 1 John 3:12. Cain is corrected by God, and told how he could get it right with God so his sacrifice would be accepted. In Rabbinical Judaism it is all of the mitzvah, that is the focus, not God. going about to establish their own righteousness Romans 10:3. We aren't saved by works, we are judged by our works. Therefore if we love God, it isn't grievous to keep His commandments 1 John 5:3. Therefore remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. So, therefore this is a moral precept? Am I right?

mfblume
12-30-2019, 09:45 AM
Leviticus 18:5 was what Paul was saying brought on a curse in gal 3, not rabbinical Judaism.

mfblume
12-30-2019, 10:23 AM
Evening means when the sun approaches the horizon. So there are in fact 365 evenings in the arctic. Honestly, even if you were correct, it would only mean folks living in the extreme arctic or antarctic are exempt. Neither you nor I nor anyone reading this thread is living in such locations. It's like saying "baptism can't be required because somebody somewhere in a desert with no water can't be baptised".



Some people read and study and pray to find out what God wants them to do. Other people read and study and pray to find out what they don't have to do.



If law is gone and this means we don't have to do what the 4th commandment says, then it means we don't have to do what the other commandments say, either. Also, you provide your summary statements of what Galatians says, but I find Galatians doesn't actually say what you say. We are to hold fast the form of sound words, and speak as the oracles of God. Therefore when we say "the Bible says X" but the Bible doesn't actually say "X", we are on dangerous ground.



There are no hoops, it's simple grammar. As for shadows, that comes from Colossians and is referring to the judging, not the items for which the Colossian brethren were being judged.

The point of Galatians is NOT "make sure you don't do the things contained in the law" as if obedience to God is ever a bad unchristian thing. The point is SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. And by the way "deeds of the law" isn't referring to obeying God's commandments, but was and is a well documented rabbinical idiom for adherance to sectarian halacha or "traditions of the elders", as it is well documented not only in talmudic lusage but in Qumran documents.
It still seems you are not getting my point and misunderstanding what I mean by no longer being under law.

Steven Avery
12-30-2019, 06:12 PM
It's far too vague to use anything in the New Testament to promote sabbath keeping. Like so many other beliefs, if that were the case there would have been much more elaboration made about it in the epistles and Acts than there is, if it were true. This argument sounds familiar.

I’ve heard it as a counterpoint against baptism in Jesus name.

Also against Bible perfection, the name of Jehovah as the tetragran, marriage permanence and other Biblical teachings.

With the creation 7th-day sabbath rooted in the Decalogue, which Christians have historically honored as God’s immutable, eternal law, I would see the “vague” position as easily dismissed.

Esaias hit upon the vague-precision issue:

Will any ole day do? Think about baptism, it's basically a quick bath. Will any ole dunking do? Or should we do the dunking that God instructs us to do? Immersion in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, vs any ole dunking? Seems we cannot really honour God by doing things other than as He specified? So it makes sense to me do it like the Bible says: "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy... the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Also post #80 was very sweet.

Esaias
12-30-2019, 06:19 PM
The issue is what circumcision, and holiness was causing within the different sects of Judaism. SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. Cain's issue was that by doing something he wanted his work to be accepted. When it was rejected he had an issue, that issue was with his brother 1 John 3:12. Cain is corrected by God, and told how he could get it right with God so his sacrifice would be accepted. In Rabbinical Judaism it is all of the mitzvah, that is the focus, not God. going about to establish their own righteousness Romans 10:3. We aren't saved by works, we are judged by our works. Therefore if we love God, it isn't grievous to keep His commandments 1 John 5:3. Therefore remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. So, therefore this is a moral precept? Am I right?

Yes, you are right. :highfive

Esaias
12-30-2019, 06:20 PM
It still seems you are not getting my point and misunderstanding what I mean by no longer being under law.

You say no longer under law therefore don't have to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.

That logic applies to anything God ever said prior to Matthew 1:1.

Steven Avery
12-30-2019, 06:31 PM
Actually there is a ton of "note" but antisabbatarians ignore it. The mere fact the New Testament thoroughly and consistently refers to the seventh day of the week as "the Sabbath" says a lot. Especially considering non Sabbath keepers don't speak that way unless they are arguing against the Sabbath. I’ve long felt the following verse is especially salient.

Luke 23:56 (AV)
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments;
and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

Luke wrote this years after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and gave us the present tense expression.

========

There was a time years back when I was discussing this with Homestead Heritage, and this verse was a central focus. This was years before I understood that they shipwrecked on the devil yahweh (Jupiter), the gibberish yahshua, and an absurd Bible view where they felt the leader was a new Tyndale called to give us a pure English Version, sans corruptions. As they shipwrecked away from the AV.

This is painful, because the Lord Jesus had placed such a wonderful calling on them years back, which,surprisingly, has in fact been fulfilled in part.. The cankerworm came in.

=========

If the Sabbath had been abrogated or replaced, it would create just as much if not more controversy than the issue of circumcision and the Levitical offerings. Those latter two disputes are detailed thoroughly throughout the NT. The supposed abrogation or modification of the Sabbath? Crickets. Ergo, you have it backwards. The lack of Sabbath polemics in the NT is prima facie evidence it wasn't a debated issue. This is true, excellent and fundamental.

Steven Avery
12-30-2019, 06:54 PM
Common sense is the need for a day of rest. Even science realizes that without it, labourers simply cannot do what they otherwise could. That's an assessment that's totally apart from scripture. The French rationalists in 1793 set it up as one day in ten.

Esaias
12-30-2019, 07:17 PM
Leviticus 18:5 was what Paul was saying brought on a curse in gal 3, not rabbinical Judaism.

I don't think you understand what halacha is. There are several things Jews work with. This is true today, and it was true since around the time of the Maccabees.

1. The written law. This is the Pentateuch, Genesis-Deuteronomy.
2. The oral law, or mishna. This is part of the tradition of the elders, law that was passed down allegedly from Moses to the rabbis through oral tradition. "Ye have heard that it was said..."
3. The mitzvot. These are all the commandments God expects Jews to perform. The mitzvot are sourced from both the written law, and the oral law. And, from the next item as well:
4. Halacha. This is the official interpretation by the rabbis (lawyers) of the previous 3 items. The halacha is the official Jewish interpretation and application of the written law, oral law, the mitzvot, etc. The halacha is known from Qumran literature and rabbinic literature as "works/deeds of the law". The halacha is "how to fulfill the law" which is the basis of an individual Jew's righteousness. It is routinely called "the law" by Jews, both today and back then. Obedience to the law of God is impossible apart from the correct halacha, in the Jewish understanding.

The problem is the halacha of each Jewish sect included numerous loopholes. The 'corban' iscussion by Jesus in the gospels is exactly about this issue: the tradition of rabbinic Judaism results in DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ACTUAL GENUINE LAW OF GOD.

Paul brings this up in Galatians:

Galatians 6:13 KJV
For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

Without understanding the basic Jewish understanding of "law" and "deeds of the law" one will simply not understand what Paul is arguing about.

votivesoul
12-30-2019, 09:15 PM
Again, though, why continue ONLY with reference to law in describing bondage to these gentiles as Paul did when he said Law gendered to bondage like Hagar did, if not to indicate he was concerned with gentiles going under law? Idols are only mentioned as a sideline issue. However, before chapter 4:9 and after, law is focused upon as binding.

Elements, too, are basal and necessary things. They are ordained of God. To compare law with the New Covenant, we see how the concept of fundamental basal issues fit perfectly well, as chapter 3 literally states. But where is a sense of that sort of preparatory purpose in elements found in the context of Galatians in reference to paganism? Were the saved gentiles that were in the church dabbling with "elements of paganism" in the same sense that Israel was under elements of the law that prepped them for Jesus? In other words, were the pagan elements part of some "preparatory" purpose that would allegedly lead them into deeper and more substantial paganism, as New COvenant is deeper and more substantial than Law?

It's simply far too obvious as I see it for the elements of verse 9 to be elements as the earlier reference makes it.

If a converted Gentile, formerly a pagan idolater, gets himself circumcised and attempts to live a saved, justified life according to the law alone, but not according to faith alone in Jesus Christ, he will most certainly end up in bondage, as much as the Jew who disinherits Christ and goes back to the law as his source of righteousness.

The issue in Galatians was not that the Galatians saw a moral responsibility to obey the laws of God as commandments. They were attempting to be justified morally in God's sight through accepting circumcision. They were willing to substitute the token of the New Covenant (baptism; see Galatians 3:27) for the token of the Old Covenant (circumcision; see Genesis 17:10-11).

That was what was going to place them in bondage. The bondage wasn't that they felt a moral responsibility to obey the commandments of God as contained in the laws from the OT. Jesus made it clear that all the law and the prophets hangs on Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:34.

So, how could a saint from Galatia love the LORD their God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love their neighbor as himself, without obeying the Law?

Is that what threatened to put them into bondage? Does it put you into bondage to fulfill Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:34?

If the answer is "No, it does not put me into bondage", then neither does it put you (or the Galatians or anyone else for that matter) into bondage to obey Exodus 20:8-11.

So, the bondage Paul warned of, was something else entirely. The Galatians were banking on circumcision and old covenantal law keeping as the means to inherit eternal life. That's the bondage. New Covenant saints who remember the sabbath, to keep it holy, are only in danger if or when they allow their obedience to that command usurp and trump their saving faith in the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. If they keep Jesus as the author and finisher of their faith, and uphold that they are saved by grace through faith, and out of love and a desire to please God, obey the commandments of God, they aren't in any danger at all of finding themselves in bondage of any sort.

As a bishop and elder, have you ever had to remove a member from an assembly due to some unrepentant sin, like fornication, or covetousness, or idolatry, or blasphemy, or drunkenness, or extortion (See 1 Corinthians 5:11)?

If so, upon what basis did you do so, if not for 1 Corinthians 5:13, which is a quotation from Deuteronomy 13:5. So, did obeying Paul's instructions as justified and made necessary by Deuteronomy 13:5 put you into bondage? If not, why not?

I think you see where I am going. We cannot separate our faith in the Son of God from the commandments of the God and Father of that Son.

You may not realize it, but I would venture to say there are all kinds of laws from the OT you easily and readily obey, because you know they are right and that doing so is right and pleases God. And yet, you are not in bondage? Do you attempt to be holy, since God is holy? That's Leviticus 11:44-45, 19:2, and 20:26. Have you diligently taught your children that the LORD our God is one? That is Deuteronomy 6:7. Do you make sure you do not partake of the bread and cup of the Lord and the bread and cup of devils, because what the Gentiles sacrifice to are devils? That's Deuteronomy 32:17.

How many more can we come up with if we tried?

But somehow Exodus 20:8-11 is off-limits as engendering bondage? That doesn't make sense to me.

votivesoul
12-30-2019, 09:29 PM
And, I'd like to ask sabbath keepers if I am lost for not keeping the sabbath day. :)

I want to come back to this, because it was missed, as far as I can tell.

I won't speak for anyone else, but as far as I know, as much as I can discern from this forum over the last several years, and a few videos of yours that I have watched, and your website that I've visited, I have no reason to think you are anything but a blameless elder and bishop who has a good report, a saint and son of God in right standing with Christ the Lord.

votivesoul
12-30-2019, 09:43 PM
On the tradition topic, I was thinking if Jesus had risen on, say Tuesday, then there should be some hint of that in church history, I woukd think there would be some evidence of an entering in or beginning of a first day of the week tradition in opposition to the original facts and understanding of the apostles.

Your post gives much food for thought. :thumbsup

Thanks again, Esaias. We are all striving for perfection, after all. I just want the Scriptures to make as much sense as they possibly can this side of the resurrection so I can gain as much truth from them as I possibly can while I dwell in this tabernacle. And this is what makes sense, at least so far. :)

Otherwise, the earliest tradition I can find is Justin's line from his Dialogues seemingly referring to Sunday being the resurrection day. But I don't have access to his works in Greek to know if he used the word sabbaton or not. And even if he did, did he inherit a misunderstanding like it seems we have?

So, I think in the same way we have no tradition from the Scriptures regarding the day and date of Christ's birth we would not have a tradition from the Scriptures regarding the day and date of His death and resurrection from the dead.

We don't even know the correct year. If we could say authoritatively it was in our year 33 AD we could trace the calendar back to when Passover would have been, and then we'd know the day of the week. But we cannot do even this, so, this is why there is no accurate church tradition, as far as I can tell, apart from the one we have currently received by translation.

Esaias
12-30-2019, 11:00 PM
Thanks again, Esaias. We are all striving for perfection, after all. I just want the Scriptures to make as much sense as they possibly can this side of the resurrection so I can gain as much truth from them as I possibly can while I dwell in this tabernacle. And this is what makes sense, at least so far. :)

Otherwise, the earliest tradition I can find is Justin's line from his Dialogues seemingly referring to Sunday being the resurrection day. But I don't have access to his works in Greek to know if he used the word sabbaton or not. And even if he did, did he inherit a misunderstanding like it seems we have?

So, I think in the same way we have no tradition from the Scriptures regarding the day and date of Christ's birth we would not have a tradition from the Scriptures regarding the day and date of His death and resurrection from the dead.

We don't even know the correct year. If we could say authoritatively it was in our year 33 AD we could trace the calendar back to when Passover would have been, and then we'd know the day of the week. But we cannot do even this, so, this is why there is no accurate church tradition, as far as I can tell, apart from the one we have currently received by translation.

Interestingly, the NT remarks Christ rose "on the third day" from His death, with zero mention of any rising on "the first day" (except for the instances you mentioned, which are of course the disputed passages and translation issues to begin with).

I do truly appreciate your obvious interest and desire to study to show thyself approved. It's a rare quality these days, unfortunately. :thumbsup

Esaias
12-30-2019, 11:12 PM
If a converted Gentile, formerly a pagan idolater, gets himself circumcised and attempts to live a saved, justified life according to the law alone, but not according to faith alone in Jesus Christ, he will most certainly end up in bondage, as much as the Jew who disinherits Christ and goes back to the law as his source of righteousness.

The issue in Galatians was not that the Galatians saw a moral responsibility to obey the laws of God as commandments. They were attempting to be justified morally in God's sight through accepting circumcision. They were willing to substitute the token of the New Covenant (baptism; see Galatians 3:27) for the token of the Old Covenant (circumcision; see Genesis 17:10-11).

That was what was going to place them in bondage. The bondage wasn't that they felt a moral responsibility to obey the commandments of God as contained in the laws from the OT. Jesus made it clear that all the law and the prophets hangs on Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:34.

So, how could a saint from Galatia love the LORD their God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love their neighbor as himself, without obeying the Law?

Is that what threatened to put them into bondage? Does it put you into bondage to fulfill Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:34?

If the answer is "No, it does not put me into bondage", then neither does it put you (or the Galatians or anyone else for that matter) into bondage to obey Exodus 20:8-11.

So, the bondage Paul warned of, was something else entirely. The Galatians were banking on circumcision and old covenantal law keeping as the means to inherit eternal life. That's the bondage. New Covenant saints who remember the sabbath, to keep it holy, are only in danger if or when they allow their obedience to that command usurp and trump their saving faith in the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. If they keep Jesus as the author and finisher of their faith, and uphold that they are saved by grace through faith, and out of love and a desire to please God, obey the commandments of God, they aren't in any danger at all of finding themselves in bondage of any sort.

As a bishop and elder, have you ever had to remove a member from an assembly due to some unrepentant sin, like fornication, or covetousness, or idolatry, or blasphemy, or drunkenness, or extortion (See 1 Corinthians 5:11)?

If so, upon what basis did you do so, if not for 1 Corinthians 5:13, which is a quotation from Deuteronomy 13:5. So, did obeying Paul's instructions as justified and made necessary by Deuteronomy 13:5 put you into bondage? If not, why not?

I think you see where I am going. We cannot separate our faith in the Son of God from the commandments of the God and Father of that Son.

You may not realize it, but I would venture to say there are all kinds of laws from the OT you easily and readily obey, because you know they are right and that doing so is right and pleases God. And yet, you are not in bondage? Do you attempt to be holy, since God is holy? That's Leviticus 11:44-45, 19:2, and 20:26. Have you diligently taught your children that the LORD our God is one? That is Deuteronomy 6:7. Do you make sure you do not partake of the bread and cup of the Lord and the bread and cup of devils, because what the Gentiles sacrifice to are devils? That's Deuteronomy 32:17.

How many more can we come up with if we tried?

But somehow Exodus 20:8-11 is off-limits as engendering bondage? That doesn't make sense to me.

:yourock

Steven Avery
12-31-2019, 07:06 AM
So . . .
Esaias, when do you think the Mosaic law will end?
Do you believe it is never ending?
I’m referring to the statutes other than sacrificing animals etc.. We MUST always remember that the new covenant is superior to the old covenant. And that the new covenant is NOT just the old covenant with a new set of plugs and a rebuilt carburetor.
EB, can you think of ANY differences in the new covenant and the old? Because it is beginning to sound like you believe they are the same! Jesus was a law keeper.
Made of a woman.

Gal.4
[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
[5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

He didn’t fulfill the law upon His birth, but upon His crucifixion.

You might ask about Hebrews 8:13:

Hebrews 8:13 (AV)
In that he saith,
A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away

Some say this points to 70 AD.

The Levitical priesthood did function in that interim period, with supernatural events occurring.

Tithemeister also pointed to this verse:

2 Cor 3:13 (AV)
And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face,
that the children of Israel could not stedfastly
look to the end of that which is abolished:

Steven Avery
12-31-2019, 07:21 AM
On Saturday certain modern Rabbinical Jews walk to the synagogue. Now, do you not travel on Saturday? You do, because it doesn't mean anything to you. Matter of fact you would look at those Jews as in bondage because of their belief, and therefore gas your car as you sped by them.Personally I have great respect for communities who walk, not drive, on the sabbath.

This includes places like Uchee Pines (Adventist). In fact, it was the visceral-spiritual rhythm that piqued my interest, and began studies. My upbringing in social-conservative Judaism was not particularly sabbath-focused. One of the first books I read at Uchee was by Allen Walker, The Law and the Sabbath.

Steven Avery
12-31-2019, 07:31 AM
Whether you keep Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or non day, you have to admit that there is no teaching against the sabbath found in the ten commandments. Jesus didn't make it an issue. in the many disputes with the Pharisees involving Sabbath, Jesus always accepted that they had the right day. Jesus shared with them more excellently as to the nature of the day, not the time of the day.

Steven Avery
12-31-2019, 07:38 AM
Has our actual calendar changed since the Sabbath was instituted?The creation sabbath is trans-calendrical.

1-2-3-4-5-6-shabbat

Solid through any calendar changes.

Steven Avery
12-31-2019, 08:30 AM
Never before Moses was any man commanded to keep sabbath. Many believe that Abraham was aware of the creation sabbath, and kept the day.

Genesis 26:5 (AV)
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice,
and kept my charge, my commandments,
my statutes, and my laws.

Thus the command to the Israelites was to "remember", not to "institute", and the connection was made to the creation.

Exodos 20:8-11 (AV)
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God:
in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle,
nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Ehud
12-31-2019, 08:43 AM
Many believe that Abraham was aware of the creation sabbath, and kept the day.

Genesis 26:5 (AV)
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice,
and kept my charge, my commandments,
my statutes, and my laws.

Thus the command to the Israelites was to "remember", not to "institute", and the connection was made to the creation.

Exodos 20:8-11 (AV)
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God:
in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle,
nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Good morning, Bro. Avery!

The word 'remember' -- in our glorious English language -- doesn't necessarily mean to not forget a past happening. It can also mean to not forget to do something in the future. "Remember to lock your doors," wouldn't mean to think about all of those times you locked your doors in the past, rather it would mean pay attention and don't forget to lock your doors in the future. (Poorly worded, but you get the idea.) Do you happen to know if the Hebrew word for 'remember' carries the same such meanings, or if the word has a single past-oriented meaning?

Steven Avery
12-31-2019, 10:50 AM
Do you happen to know if the Hebrew word for 'remember' carries the same such meanings, or if the word has a single past-oriented meaning? Nope. Actually the past would not be a "single past-oriented meaning." It can be past and future. The denial of the verse significance would need a "single future-oriented meaning".

However, that is a difficult position, as the scripture itself points back:

... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

And since the decalogue creation sabbath has multiple attestations, OT and NT, it is a minor issue. And simply fits perfectly with the note about Abraham. Rather than being a singular "proof text".

Ehud
12-31-2019, 10:56 AM
...

Thank you as always for your time. Have a great day, brother!

Esaias
12-31-2019, 01:17 PM
You might ask about Hebrews 8:13:

Hebrews 8:13 (AV)
In that he saith,
A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away

Some say this points to 70 AD.

The Levitical priesthood did function in that interim period, with supernatural events occurring.

Tithemeister also pointed to this verse:

2 Cor 3:13 (AV)
And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face,
that the children of Israel could not stedfastly
look to the end of that which is abolished:

Tithesmeister is either confused about the difference between the old covenant and the laws of God, or is equivocating the two as is common in these types of discussions.

mfblume
12-31-2019, 01:19 PM
Many believe that Abraham was aware of the creation sabbath, and kept the day.

Genesis 26:5 (AV)
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice,
and kept my charge, my commandments,
my statutes, and my laws.

Thus the command to the Israelites was to "remember", not to "institute", and the connection was made to the creation.

Exodos 20:8-11 (AV)
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God:
in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle,
nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Once again I can say I enjoy the thread, and appreciate everybody's attitude and sincerity in this.

To say that Abraham knew about the Sabbath and kept it, is not substantial enough according to the scriptures and what it reveals to us. Many may believe that, but that in itself, obviously, doesn't make it true.

Also, to remember the Sabbath, doesn't necessarily mean man had been keeping it, or told to keep it, before Moses came along. We know that God rested, but that's all there was said about it. Man was never distinctly told to keep it until the time of Moses. They remember that God rested, and for the first time they were invited to join that Sabbath rest on the seventh day, with no record of man ever being told before that. Or, it could be a command for them to begin remembering to keep it after it was placed in the ten commandment.

When Moses talked about Sabbath when it came to the manna and how much to pick up on the sixth day and not pick up any on the Sabbath, we are shown that when they rebelled, it was only after Moses introduced it to them before the 7th day arrived to see them disobey. Their Disobedience wasn't from Generations before that they had disobeyed, but only since Moses directed them with instructions about the Manna.

Evang.Benincasa
12-31-2019, 01:20 PM
Once again I can say I enjoy the thread, and appreciate everybody's attitude and sincerity in this.

:thumbsup :highfive

Tithesmeister
12-31-2019, 02:10 PM
Tithesmeister is either confused about the difference between the old covenant and the laws of God, or is equivocating the two as is common in these types of discussions.

Somebody is confused. His name is Esaias. The old covenant was the law. The ark of the covenant contained what?

The covenant. That is according to the Bible.

Exodus 34 AV

28] And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

So Esaias, either you are confused, or the Bible is wrong. I think I’ll stick with the Bible. Many times the Bible refers to the Ten Commandments as the covenant. Check it out.

So do you believe that the old covenant (the Ten Commandments and other statutes of the Mosaic law):

Have ended?

Will end in the future?

Will never end?

Tithesmeister
12-31-2019, 03:35 PM
You might ask about Hebrews 8:13:

Hebrews 8:13 (AV)
In that he saith,
A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away

Some say this points to 70 AD.

The Levitical priesthood did function in that interim period, with supernatural events occurring.

Tithemeister also pointed to this verse:

2 Cor 3:13 (AV)
And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face,
that the children of Israel could not stedfastly
look to the end of that which is abolished:

Thank you!

The covenant, (which the Ten Commandments are part of, whether or not Esaias will admit it) is now the OLD covenant. The existence of a new covenant, made the one that contains the Ten Commandments old. That same old covenant is the one that was waxing old and decaying, almost two thousand years ago. Part of that old covenant (ten commandments) is the one that Esaias holds near and dear; to remember the sabbath. He refuses to believe that it has gone away. It’s sad. 😢

So Esaias would lead people (misleads people) to believe that I am confused. Because if I am not confused, then he is wrong. And he has too much invested in this doctrine to admit his mistakes.

That’s my opinion anyway.

By the way, I am one of those who believe that it is logical that the vanish away phrase is referring to 70AD.

Evang.Benincasa
12-31-2019, 04:28 PM
Once again I can say I enjoy the thread, and appreciate everybody's attitude and sincerity in this.

Well, it looks like Tithemother put an end to that.

Nicodemus1968
12-31-2019, 04:47 PM
Well, it looks like Tithemother put an end to that.

Sad but true.

Evang.Benincasa
12-31-2019, 04:51 PM
Sad but true.

:heeheehee :highfive

Steven Avery
12-31-2019, 06:16 PM
Thank you! The covenant, (which the Ten Commandments are part of, whether or not Esaias will admit it) is now the OLD covenant. ... Part of that old covenant (ten commandments) . Just to be clear, I see the 10 commandments as God’s royal law, not as the “old covenant.”

Trying to discard the decalogue is a very questionable antinomian perspective, and is not historical Christianity.

mfblume
12-31-2019, 07:15 PM
Tithemeister, I agree with your position, but we don't have to get personal about Esaias and say what the obvious implication is that someone is wrong. Obviously if we disagree we think they're wrong. No need to focus on the person being wrong though.

So, let's continue this with objectivity and keep it on the belief. Thanks, bro. I value your thoughts.

mfblume
12-31-2019, 07:19 PM
I will add that the ten commandments are not the basis of the new covenant. In those ten happens to be an amoral one about sabbath. Just because sabbath is listed with moral commandments does not make it moral. Why reason that if we must obey some of them that we must obey all just because they're all in this list. Why cannot the list contain moral commandments and ceremonial ones? The law itself contained many moral things as well as ceremonial. And we do not keep the ceremonial ones, like circumcision that distinctly prefigured baptism. Why cannot that be the case with the ten. Only the sabbath was said to be a shadow in the New, not any others. Why cannot the Ten simply include something that would pass away for the body it foreshadowed, while the others would not??

Esaias
12-31-2019, 08:48 PM
Thank you!

The covenant, (which the Ten Commandments are part of, whether or not Esaias will admit it) is now the OLD covenant. The existence of a new covenant, made the one that contains the Ten Commandments old. That same old covenant is the one that was waxing old and decaying, almost two thousand years ago. Part of that old covenant (ten commandments) is the one that Esaias holds near and dear; to remember the sabbath. He refuses to believe that it has gone away. It’s sad. 😢

So Esaias would lead people (misleads people) to believe that I am confused. Because if I am not confused, then he is wrong. And he has too much invested in this doctrine to admit his mistakes.

That’s my opinion anyway.

By the way, I am one of those who believe that it is logical that the vanish away phrase is referring to 70AD.

If you think "Thou shalt have no other gods beside me" and "Thou shalt not steal" and so forth are ended, then you go get 'em tiger.

Esaias
12-31-2019, 09:07 PM
I will add that the ten commandments are not the basis of the new covenant. In those ten happens to be an amoral one about sabbath. Just because sabbath is listed with moral commandments does not make it moral. Why reason that if we must obey some of them that we must obey all just because they're all in this list. Why cannot the list contain moral commandments and ceremonial ones? The law itself contained many moral things as well as ceremonial. And we do not keep the ceremonial ones, like circumcision that distinctly prefigured baptism. Why cannot that be the case with the ten. Only the sabbath was said to be a shadow in the New, not any others. Why cannot the Ten simply include something that would pass away for the body it foreshadowed, while the others would not??

It seems to me that you are assuming the 4th commandment is amoral, which is also the conclusion of your argument. That's basically a begging of the question (it looks like you begin with the 4th commandment is amoral, then reason to a conclusion that it is amoral and therefore non obligatory).

On the ceremonial side, anointing with oil and laying on of hands were "ceremonial" acts under the old covenant (and prior, as well), yet under the new covenant there is anointing with oil and laying on of hands. There were washings under the old covenant, and a washing in the new (a real actual ceremonial washing, called baptism, and another for those who believe in and practice footwashing). Many actions that were spelled out under the old covenant continue under the new, with a fuller Christological meaning and purpose. Where that new meaning also creates a new methodology is clearly spelled out in the NT writings and also blatantly addressed in the OT writings (such as the transition of the liturgy from Levitical methodology to Melchezedek/Davidic/Christian methodology, especially as regards sacrifice nd offerings, the priesthood, etc). The prohibition against graven images is all about ceremonial ritual actions (venerating religious imagery, etc). The prohibition against taking the Lord's name in vain has its primary and immediate purpose to regulate the swearing of religious oaths - a formal ceremonial action.

So we see that several of the ten commandments contain liturgical, ceremonial elements which are inseperably bound to their moral content. It is IMMORAL to genuflect before images, even though such is a purely ceremonial act. Why is it immoral? Because it is immoral to disobey God.

Dividing commands into moral versus ceremonial or non moral is an unbiblical division of divine law developed out of a humanist perspective that arose during the rise of catholicism. All of God's instructions are moral. Jesus said man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Therefore, every word of God is moral law, has moral content, and is given to regulate the actions of moral agents.

Esaias
12-31-2019, 09:52 PM
The objection that the 4th commandment is ceremonial seems to be based on two things.

1. It regulates certain certain physical activities, like work and resting. However, the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th commandments directly regulate physical activities as well. Bowing down to graven images, taking the Lord's name in vain, honouring your parents, adultery, murder, theft, and perjury are physical activities just as much as working, employment of servants, and assemblying for worship are. So any worries based on the 4th commandment being directed at physical activities can be disregarded.

2. It regulates time. However, the nature of the command requires a regulation of time as part of the command (since it is a command to honour Jehovah as creator by imitation of His original schedule of activity). The presence of a regulation of how we spend our time does not make it a "ceremonial, ritual ordinance that can be dispensed with in our new era of enlightened worship". It is a strange thing to suggest that Jesus doesn't have authority as Mediator and as Creator to regulate our time, or our work.

If God told you "Child, I want you to pray every morning before your feet even hit the floor", would it be a MORAL issue or a "ceremonial" issue for you?

Esaias
12-31-2019, 10:11 PM
Circumcision?

Gentiles were not commanded to be circumcised under the law unless they wanted to eat the passover lamb. So there is no "we don't have to be circumcised now" as if you had to be circumcised previously. If you were an Israelite under the old covenant? Yes you had to be circumcised. If you were not under the old covenant? No you did not have to be circumcised (unless you wanted to participate fully in the passover meal).

Although you DO have to be circumcised to eat the new covenant Passiver lamb, which is Jesus Himself. You must be circumcised inwardly, in the heart. Otherwise you can't eat Christ's flesh. That is, His death won't do you much good unless your heart is circumcised.

What happens when the heart is circumcised?

Deuteronomy 30:6-8 KJV
And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. [7] And the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee. [8] And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the Lord , and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.

Jeremiah 4:1-4,7 KJV
If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord , return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. [2] And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. [3] For thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. [4] Circumcise yourselves to the Lord , and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it , because of the evil of your doings. [7] The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the Gentiles is on his way; he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant.

Colossians 2:10-11 KJV
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: [11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Romans 2:21-29 KJV
Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? [22] Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? [23] Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? [24] For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. [25] For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. [26] Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? [27] And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? [28] For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

These passages make it abundantly clear that heart circumcision simply means God causing a person to faithfully obey His commandments out of love. Nothing in these passages, least of all the one from Romans, indicates the 4th commandment is excepted or abrogated or otherwise not a part of that obedience.

Evang.Benincasa
12-31-2019, 10:12 PM
The objection that the 4th commandment is ceremonial seems to be based on two things.

1. It regulates certain certain physical activities, like work and resting. However, the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th commandments directly regulate physical activities as well. Bowing down to graven images, taking the Lord's name in vain, honouring your parents, adultery, murder, theft, and perjury are physical activities just as much as working, employment of servants, and assemblying for worship are. So any worries based on the 4th commandment being directed at physical activities can be disregarded.

2. It regulates time. However, the nature of the command requires a regulation of time as part of the command (since it is a command to honour Jehovah as creator by imitation of His original schedule of activity). The presence of a regulation of how we spend our time does not make it a "ceremonial, ritual ordinance that can be dispensed with in our new era of enlightened worship". It is a strange thing to suggest that Jesus doesn't have authority as Mediator and as Creator to regulate our time, or our work.

If God told you "Child, I want you to pray every morning before your feet even hit the floor", would it be a MORAL issue or a "ceremonial" issue for you?

Good post :highfive

Amanah
01-01-2020, 03:31 AM
I had been reading this thread sporadically, so went back and read through the whole thread.
Many of the posts written in favor of Sabbath keeping are beautifully inspiring and devotional.

The best argument in favor of Sabbath keeping is that you can't dismiss the 10 commandments as being "the old covenant" and therefore done away with.
They are as Bro Avery says "The Royal Law"

If love is the fulfillment of the Law, then Sabbath keeping with it's concern for sacred time set apart for loving God and resting with family, friends, animals, and community seems like an act of love.
It is sad that our society doesn't take time to slow down for Sabbath rest.

Nicodemus1968
01-01-2020, 08:08 AM
The objection that the 4th commandment is ceremonial seems to be based on two things.

1. It regulates certain certain physical activities, like work and resting. However, the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th commandments directly regulate physical activities as well. Bowing down to graven images, taking the Lord's name in vain, honouring your parents, adultery, murder, theft, and perjury are physical activities just as much as working, employment of servants, and assemblying for worship are. So any worries based on the 4th commandment being directed at physical activities can be disregarded.

2. It regulates time. However, the nature of the command requires a regulation of time as part of the command (since it is a command to honour Jehovah as creator by imitation of His original schedule of activity). The presence of a regulation of how we spend our time does not make it a "ceremonial, ritual ordinance that can be dispensed with in our new era of enlightened worship". It is a strange thing to suggest that Jesus doesn't have authority as Mediator and as Creator to regulate our time, or our work.

If God told you "Child, I want you to pray every morning before your feet even hit the floor", would it be a MORAL issue or a "ceremonial" issue for you?

I understand I’m getting into this discussion late, so forgive me.

I’m not against anyone wanting to take certain days off for rest. And I agree with you Esaias as far as Jesus wanting to regulate our physical work, yet probably not in the sense you or I am meaning.

I’m putting this out there cause there maybe something I’m missing. Why did God give them the sabbath? I’m paraphrasing for space, God told them not to work, don’t gather food, don’t get your farm animals etc why? What’s the big deal with gathering food, or working, they do that the other days of the week. I believe, they just came from Egypt the place of bondage, the place where there was no rest, for over 400 years they were slaves. It’s a type and shadow for us, as we were slaves to sin we now have rest in the Holy Ghost our rest. He gave the sabbath as a reward, what’s our reward? I see the Old Covenant as our Old man, the New Covenant is our spiritual man.

Also...

Exodus 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


Is now

Matthew 5:38-42
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: [39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. [41] And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [42] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.


Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.


Matthew 5:21-23
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: [22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. [23] Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;


Exodus 20:14
Thou shalt not commit adultery.



Matthew 5:27-28
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: [28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


These are just a few examples we can go on and see where Jesus fulfilled what the law lacked. The law does not save us, the law allowed us to see who we are, sinners! Jesus told the religious order because the hardness of your heart Moses said to...

If your remembering the sabbath as a physical day that’s fine, yet don’t forget its the Holy Ghost.

Isaiah 28:11-12
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. [12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.


Matthew 11:28-30
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.


Our rest comes from the Holy Ghost. Many people especially in the church will sleep 8 -10 hours and wake up and felt like they slept 10 minutes, they have no rest. You can be at home and do no work and just rest all day, yet your weary? You can go fishing, hiking, hunting and you’ll find no rest. The only way your physical man will have rest is when your spiritual man is at rest. When your spirit is entangled there is no rest for the physical man, it doesn’t matter friend how many days you take off. Our rest is the Holy Ghost.

Evang.Benincasa
01-01-2020, 08:25 AM
I had been reading this thread sporadically, so went back and read through the whole thread.
Many of the posts written in favor of Sabbath keeping are beautifully inspiring and devotional.

The best argument in favor of Sabbath keeping is that you can't dismiss the 10 commandments as being "the old covenant" and therefore done away with.
They are as Bro Avery says "The Royal Law"

If love is the fulfillment of the Law, then Sabbath keeping with it's concern for sacred time set apart for loving God and resting with family, friends, animals, and community seems like an act of love.
It is sad that our society doesn't take time to slow down for Sabbath rest.

The moral law is all about love :) :heart

Evang.Benincasa
01-01-2020, 08:28 AM
I understand I’m getting into this discussion late, so forgive me.

I’m not against anyone wanting to take certain days off for rest. And I agree with you Esaias as far as Jesus wanting to regulate our physical work, yet probably not in the sense you or I am meaning.

I’m putting this out there cause there maybe something I’m missing. Why did God give them the sabbath? I’m paraphrasing for space, God told them not to work, don’t gather food, don’t get your farm animals etc why? What’s the big deal with gathering food, or working, they do that the other days of the week. I believe, they just came from Egypt the place of bondage, the place where there was no rest, for over 400 years they were slaves. It’s a type and shadow for us, as we were slaves to sin we now have rest in the Holy Ghost our rest. He gave the sabbath as a reward, what’s our reward? I see the Old Covenant as our Old man, the New Covenant is our spiritual man.

Also...

Exodus 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


Is now

Matthew 5:38-42
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: [39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. [41] And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [42] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.


Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.


Matthew 5:21-23
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: [22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. [23] Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;


Exodus 20:14
Thou shalt not commit adultery.



Matthew 5:27-28
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: [28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


These are just a few examples we can go on and see where Jesus fulfilled what the law lacked. The law does not save us, the law allowed us to see who we are, sinners! Jesus told the religious order because the hardness of your heart Moses said to...

If your remembering the sabbath as a physical day that’s fine, yet don’t forget its the Holy Ghost.

Isaiah 28:11-12
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. [12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.


Matthew 11:28-30
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.


Our rest comes from the Holy Ghost. Many people especially in the church will sleep 8 -10 hours and wake up and felt like they slept 10 minutes, they have no rest. You can be at home and do no work and just rest all day, yet your weary? You can go fishing, hiking, hunting and you’ll find no rest. The only way your physical man will have rest is when your spiritual man is at rest. When your spirit is entangled there is no rest for the physical man, it doesn’t matter friend how many days you take off. Our rest is the Holy Ghost.

People are sleeping while you preach? 8-10 hours? That is some sermon bro.

mfblume
01-01-2020, 08:40 AM
Circumcision?

Gentiles were not commanded to be circumcised under the law unless they wanted to eat the passover lamb. So there is no "we don't have to be circumcised now" as if you had to be circumcised previously.

That is incorrect. Circumcision allowed them into the worship rites of the Old Covenant. They were not allowed IN THE CAMP so to speak, without it.

A gentile could only be like one born of the land if they were circumcised. It was part of becoming an Israelite and joining the commonwealth of Israel, as was it not?..

Exodus 12:48.. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.


It put people under all the rites and ceremonies of Law. Those who refused to be circumcised denied all idolatry and lived more or less under NOAHIDE LAW.

God gave circumcision to Abraham as a token of the covenant. The New Testament shows us how highly vital circumcision was under law by saying that its counterpart, Baptism, cuts away the body of sins of the flesh and rings us into resurrection with Christ. It was a hidden physical cutting in flesh to show the circumcision God wants inwardly. What state we would stand in if we're not baptized is the counterpart state someone would stand in as far as Old Covenant goes through the physical ceremony. How important is that?

Before Law, God said...

Genesis 17:14.. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

It is for that reason that Gal 5 speaks of circumcision, since it was the entrance rite to the Old Covenant.

Galatians 5:2-3.. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. ..(3).. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

It's why Romans 4 talks about when circumcision occurred with Arbaahm to determine the value of faith in contrast to that rite, as it asked us when Abraham was made righteous. It was the single-most symbol of LAW-keeping. We even see that Israel was called the circumcision, embodying the whole concept of Old Covenant living.

Romans 4:9-12.. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. ..(10).. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. ..(11).. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: ..(12).. And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

This is far more than just a ticket to partake of Passover.

If you were an Israelite under the old covenant? Yes you had to be circumcised. If you were not under the old covenant? No you did not have to be circumcised (unless you wanted to participate fully in the passover meal).

Fully in all the ordinances and rites, you mean.



Although you DO have to be circumcised to eat the new covenant Passiver lamb, which is Jesus Himself. You must be circumcised inwardly, in the heart. Otherwise you can't eat Christ's flesh. That is, His death won't do you much good unless your heart is circumcised.

By extrapolating back into the purpose or circumcision under Law, showing the foreshadowing element, one had to be circumcised under Moses in order to partake of the full old covenant.



What happens when the heart is circumcised?

Deuteronomy 30:6-8 KJV
And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. [7] And the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee. [8] And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the Lord , and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.

Jeremiah 4:1-4,7 KJV
If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord , return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. [2] And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. [3] For thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. [4] Circumcise yourselves to the Lord , and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it , because of the evil of your doings. [7] The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the Gentiles is on his way; he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant.

Colossians 2:10-11 KJV
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: [11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Romans 2:21-29 KJV
Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? [22] Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? [23] Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? [24] For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. [25] For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. [26] Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? [27] And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? [28] For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

These passages make it abundantly clear that heart circumcision simply means God causing a person to faithfully obey His commandments out of love. Nothing in these passages, least of all the one from Romans, indicates the 4th commandment is excepted or abrogated or otherwise not a part of that obedience.

Circumcision was not introduced to show that we can abrogate moral laws. IT was to show that there is a natural shadow that is fulfilled spiritually, as sabbath is distinctly called a shadow. It could not be more plain if one went by the bible alone.

votivesoul
01-01-2020, 09:37 AM
I understand I’m getting into this discussion late, so forgive me.

I’m not against anyone wanting to take certain days off for rest. And I agree with you Esaias as far as Jesus wanting to regulate our physical work, yet probably not in the sense you or I am meaning.

I’m putting this out there cause there maybe something I’m missing. Why did God give them the sabbath? I’m paraphrasing for space, God told them not to work, don’t gather food, don’t get your farm animals etc why? What’s the big deal with gathering food, or working, they do that the other days of the week. I believe, they just came from Egypt the place of bondage, the place where there was no rest, for over 400 years they were slaves. It’s a type and shadow for us, as we were slaves to sin we now have rest in the Holy Ghost our rest. He gave the sabbath as a reward, what’s our reward? I see the Old Covenant as our Old man, the New Covenant is our spiritual man.

Also...

Exodus 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


Is now

Matthew 5:38-42
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: [39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. [41] And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [42] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.


Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.


Matthew 5:21-23
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: [22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. [23] Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;


Exodus 20:14
Thou shalt not commit adultery.



Matthew 5:27-28
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: [28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


These are just a few examples we can go on and see where Jesus fulfilled what the law lacked. The law does not save us, the law allowed us to see who we are, sinners! Jesus told the religious order because the hardness of your heart Moses said to...

If your remembering the sabbath as a physical day that’s fine, yet don’t forget its the Holy Ghost.

Isaiah 28:11-12
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. [12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.


Matthew 11:28-30
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.


Our rest comes from the Holy Ghost. Many people especially in the church will sleep 8 -10 hours and wake up and felt like they slept 10 minutes, they have no rest. You can be at home and do no work and just rest all day, yet your weary? You can go fishing, hiking, hunting and you’ll find no rest. The only way your physical man will have rest is when your spiritual man is at rest. When your spirit is entangled there is no rest for the physical man, it doesn’t matter friend how many days you take off. Our rest is the Holy Ghost.

While I agree that receiving and living in the Spirit is the cause of our spiritual rest from dead works, I would like to point out that, in regards to Isaiah 28:11-12, the Hebrew words translated "rest" are not shabbat in verse 12, but rather, it is first, הַמְּנוּחָה֙, or hammenūḥāh, from the word menuchah, the feminine form of the name Manoah (as in the father of Samson), then secondly הָנִ֣יחוּ, or hā·nî·ḥū, from the word nuach.

See here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/28-12.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4496.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5117.htm

mfblume
01-01-2020, 09:56 AM
It seems to me that you are assuming the 4th commandment is amoral, which is also the conclusion of your argument. That's basically a begging of the question (it looks like you begin with the 4th commandment is amoral, then reason to a conclusion that it is amoral and therefore non obligatory).

I already said it over and over again that keeping a specific seventh day is a far cry from the mere thought of resting one or two days (who said it has to be one)? Ther eis nothing moral about ensuring the seventh day is the one to rest. Rest itself is not even really that oral. It's just common sense. You seem to keep saying that it is moral to rest. how? You explain that the morality is seen when an employer refuses to let us employees rest for a single day, and how he needs to allow that morally. That is aside from the overall point of rest, though. Resting is physically necessary, and any moral concept is subservient to that.

The seventh day resting is only involved under Law because it's a memorial of old creation when God rested after He created for 6 days. And I do stress old creation. Natural creation. Genesis 1-2 is written the way that it is, with the sequence of events happening as they did, and the timeframe God chose to do the specific acts in those periods in the sequence and manner that he did them, in order to pattern out NEW CREATION. He could have created all without a word and in a single second, let alone seven days in a certain sequence!

I have seen more parallels and shadows in Genesis 1-2 more than any other account in the entire Bible! The very start with darkness covering a planet with nothing but water over it, without form and void, and God speaking light is exactly what Paul showed to be the shadow of speaking into our hearts the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus. The third day with its rising up from beneath the water, not a "creation" of land, with the first from of non-animate life, shows resurrection. the dividing of waters on day two shows baptism, which is so significant when comparing the Exodus out of Egypt when the Old Covenant owuld occur.

The pillar of God separated the Egyptians from the Israelites causing light to be se[arated from darkness, as day one of Genesis saw. Our sins are separate from us by repentance when light of truth comes. And the second day divided the waters, and the same term is used in Exodus where the waters were divided so that the "darkness" of the Egyptians, representing our tormenting sins, would not only be separated, but washed away! This shows the difference between repentance and baptism.

Then the dry land rising shows resurrection and the new life after leaving bondage and darkness. And it goes on toward the making of a man in God's image.

This is an example of the awesome shadowing that the Lord did in everything from creation to the natural emphasis in the Old Covenant. It's all about natural versus spiritual.

Morality never changes. But resting specificially on a seventh day, not the 3rd or 5th, is ceremonial. It is ordinancial. For goodness' sake, Paul said it's shadow.

The New Covenant is in no way a including shadows. It's the whole body of everything Christ is and does. And it is eternal, not 24-hours.

Circumcision was like that. Each of the feasts were like that. ANd we do NOT keep passover feast in the way you might think, with actual, on-the-same-day rituas of certain foods, for Christ is our passover. And the leaven we remove from the bread is the malice and wickedness in our hearts, not natural and physica leaven. The wsay Paul meant for us to keep passover is not by naturally keeping the natural elements involved the ritual, but taking each element and seeing the spiritual counterpart and doing IT INSTEAD OF, not WITH, the natural manner.


On the ceremonial side, anointing with oil and laying on of hands were "ceremonial" acts under the old covenant (and prior, as well), yet under the new covenant there is anointing with oil and laying on of hands. There were washings under the old covenant, and a washing in the new (a real actual ceremonial washing, called baptism, and another for those who believe in and practice footwashing). Many actions that were spelled out under the old covenant continue under the new, with a fuller Christological meaning and purpose. Where that new meaning also creates a new methodology is clearly spelled out in the NT writings and also blatantly addressed in the OT writings (such as the transition of the liturgy from Levitical methodology to Melchezedek/Davidic/Christian methodology, especially as regards sacrifice nd offerings, the priesthood, etc). The prohibition against graven images is all about ceremonial ritual actions (venerating religious imagery, etc). The prohibition against taking the Lord's name in vain has its primary and immediate purpose to regulate the swearing of religious oaths - a formal ceremonial action.

So we see that several of the ten commandments contain liturgical, ceremonial elements which are inseperably bound to their moral content.

No, they are not inseparably bound per se, except in the list of commandemnts,

And like I already asked, who is to say the Ten Commandments are a body that do not include rituals that are inseparably bound to us today if we know we need to keep the moral aspects of that list? Who said that if you believe murder is wrong and must never think to do it, let alone act upon it, that all of the ceremonial aspects involved in the entire list must be also kept, as though it's a package deal and you cannot be moral without being ceremonial? Who said that each commandment was like circumcision, that if you take one you are bound to keep the whole ten? When did the list of the Ten become a do them all or violate them all thing?

Who said that the list cannot contain things meant to be fulfilled and done away with for the antitype and body of the shadow to bring us into the more full version, while abandoning the shadow?

What is this clinging to the natural, where the shadow, even known to be a shadow(!!), is not meant to give way to the spiritual? You agreed that New Jerusalem is not a natural city, so you do not go to natural Jerusalem to keep those feasts. By the same token, 7th DAY sabbath is a natural shadow of ceasing from natural activities, using a very necessary rest from physical work but adding a ceremonial aspect to a specific and certain day that disallows the thought of any other day, that leads us to understand like an ELEMENT OF THE NATURAL WORLD and natural doing or not doing to show us and mean for us to engage in a spiritual rest in his priesthood by coming to his throne of mercy for grace to help in the time of need.

It's like saying I have to physically be circumcised in order to let God spiritually circumcise my heart!

Paul said it's being weak in faith, because the flesh wants to walk by sight. We have to physically do something or else we cannot be confident. Romans 14 was not about days of fasting, nut holy time periods like a holy DAY that is in itself contrasted from other days just by being the day of the week God rested. The placement of the sabbath on the distinct seventh day is CEREMONIAL and a shadow. Paul said the stronger ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and tolerate their natural insistence on elements of the natural world's realm of physically doing and not physically doing, while insisting those brethren cannot stand on faith alone. They are weak. Being weak like that is somehow linked with being easily offended. We ought to mature beyond ceremony of natural things.

It is IMMORAL to genuflect before images, even though such is a purely ceremonial act. Why is it immoral? Because it is immoral to disobey God.


It's also amoral because it accomplishes nothing spiritually.


Dividing commands into moral versus ceremonial or non moral is an unbiblical division of divine law developed out of a humanist perspective that arose during the rise of catholicism. All of God's instructions are moral. Jesus said man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Therefore, every word of God is moral law, has moral content, and is given to regulate the actions of moral agents.

I totally disagree. You are equating morality with simple demand to do something God said to do. This is not seeing what Paul taught about the natural shadow giving way to the spiritual. God did NOT demand rites and ceremonies like Feast of Trumpets to be kept identically as Israel kept them, but showed a spiritual reality through those feasts that we must grow to experience in our hearts without the outward trappings of the natural that he demanded in the Old Covenant. This is where legalism has a toe in the door.

This view I propose is from the New Testament teachings, not Roman Catholicism. People will find an excuse to physically require circumcision soon, if not already, because they reason that while sabbath day is indeed a shadow, we do not dispose of it to enjoy the body. And if one says that circumcision is not done physically any more, since the spiritual counterpart is what we replace it with, as Old Jerusalem is no longer the physical destination necessity to keep three of the feasts because the New one is not a natural place, then why not see that in sabbath, with a spiritual counterpart? You inadvertently replace SOME rites under Law with spiritual New Covenant counterparts, but not all. It's inconsistency. Why is the natural temple no longer standing? Because God wanted it out of the way for focus on the spiritual? Can't be, if we are meant to keep the shadow while enjoying the spiritual.

continued...

mfblume
01-01-2020, 09:57 AM
...continued


It is being weak in the faith. It is being lost and ill at ease (speaking about rest!) to require a natural doing or natural not doing in order to carry on through rituals and ceremonies of specific calendar days and years, and refraining from doing or not doing, that slips in rabbinical Judaism rather than the real entity that Paul spoke about, being Lev 18:5's genuine and bona fide Law of Moses.

Every time that Paul dealt with the contrast of Law and Grace, he never introduced rabbinical judaism, but flatly quoted actual Law of God and spoke in CONTRAST TO THAT LAW. He stated that what Lev 18:5 actually was intended to tell man from the mouth of God was what cannot be done because of the sin in our flesh that hinders it, and GOD KNEW IT when He instituted it.

David correctly said that GOD HAD NO PLEASURE in animal sacrifices. This gives rise to the fact that God ordained ceremonies that He had no intention of keeping in place forever, and actually longed for them to be put away by the actual sacrifice of Jesus and all of the blessings that all the old covenant's shadowy forms only prepared for. How could God ordain animal sacrifices while having no pleasure in them?

I know the flesh can bend and genuflect and reach for conclusions and interpretations that pone wants to see, because of a mistaken interpretation of some single point in the Bible. But that's the hold that flesh tries to keep on us all. It will go to great extents to jump through hoops of taking any verse and doing some theological gymnastics to make them come out to say the opposite of what they really are saying. And all the while we are sincere, but sincerely mistaken. Anyone can convince anybody else of a certain persuasion of interpretation of a passage if the effort never stops.

If someone cannot see the principle of law being a schoolmaster in the sense that God ordained natural exercises and abstinences, never having intended them to continue into the new covenant, in order to teach man a lesson by way of Israel, that flesh contains sin and that sin will rise up and strike us down in our efforts to bring ourselves to the life that Lev 18:5 promised through works, they're missing the point. It' snot dosbeying God when a p[recept was intended for a time as a shadow and left for the greater reality instead.

When God demanded man refrain from the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and saw man disobey, he set forth generations later with the epitome of the knowledge of good and evil in the form of the Law and its 613 precepts. God could have brought Christ for Adam in his lifetime to die for our sins, but didn't. He wanted to teach man a lesson before grace would come, because satan already slipped the venom into our blood to think we can raise ourselves up to righteousness and not require God when we have ourselves. Just give us the knowledge of good and evil and we ill do that good and avoid that evil. THAT is what Law was all about in order to bring grace after 1500 years of that harsh lesson was finally presented, so that we would not say, "Thanks, but I could have done it myself." And then find us problematic later on! He had to rout that out of us. And He did it by Law.


So, you have a sabbath day requirement on the seventh day, not the fifth, sixth or third. And you have not one statement of God telling anyone to keep that day since Genesis 2, even when it was said that God rested in the context of Gen 2(!), between the time of creation and Moses. People ASSUME Abraham kept it, but such an important statement is not found anywhere before Moses' day?

We have a plain statement by Paul that includes every form of sabbath from the seventh day to special sabbaths, saying they are SHADOWS. Some know Old Jerusalem was natural and no longer an issue for the feasts, to give way for New Jerusalem which is not a physical place, but still keep the natural manner of keeping the feasts alongside the spiritual location, showing inconsistent and non-systematic theology. Paul actually stated that Christ is currently high priest and seated after having finished a work of NEW creation in THREE Days as opposed to six. And it is KNOWN to be the body of the sabbath day showing that we can come to Jesus for rest, while the Lord rests on the throne where we are invited to come and sit with Him under an easy yoke. But the seventh day and its ceremonial and symbolic purpose in very number cannot be bypassed even for a 4th day.

This is not a mingling of man's tradition and the New covenant. It's a mingling of Old Covenant with New Covenant. It's feeding on the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and then attempting to ALSO feed on the fruit of Life, which Genesis said was the enemy's next step in taking man further down. THAT is what the Galatians experienced, and not a rabbinical Judaism. Paul spoke not of rabbinical judaism when he said that Hagar was the Old Covenant that was given at the bona fide site where ONLY GOD spoke, not some false deity at Sinai, and noted it gendered to bondage. He did not say rabbinical Judaism's fusion of tradition and actual Old Covenant law gendered to bondage. He said the actual OLD COVENANT gendered to bondage.

One has to insert all of the rabbinical Judaism thoughts into these scriptures that speak solely of Old Covenant Law to arrive at these conclusions that demand things like "seventh day" resting. But in every case, nothing is mentioned in actual context except actual OLD COVENANT LAW. Abraham it's like saying that cannot be found to have been told to keep the seventh day, yet we claim he did. While people claim that Catholicism and Antinomianism are inserted between the lines of the epistles Paul wrote about the issue, it is not recognized that Paul ONLY and ALWAYS dealt with genuine unadulterated Law from God when he repeatedly introduced statements like Hagar's old covenant bondage or LEv 18:5's unadulterated demand to live by keeping law. One has to take LIVE away from the context Paul used it in when reading Lev 18:5.

A perceptual grid is a means of reinterpreting what we read due to having this gridwork inserted into our minds from a source other than the Bible itself. When trinitarians have been conditioned to think of God as a plural of persons, they can think of no other explanation for the word God than a trio of divine persons. This naturally-inclined concept of what Lev 18:5 meant by LIVE, and what Paul's conflict with Law actually was, as if it was rabbinical Judaism, is all part of a perceptual grid, for the bible itself did not say that in his epistles.

There were traditions Jesus addressed. I'm not saying there wasn't rabbinical Judaism. But Paul solely dealt with unadulterated Mosaic Law in his epistles in speaking of Lev 18:5 or Hagar's old covenant bondage-engendering.

We do not find a command for man to keep the seventh day before Moses or after his covenant in the New Covenant writings. And it is not my burned of responsibility to find averse stating what we must NOT DO, but the sabbath keeper's burden to show we must do it, because Paul repeatedly stated that sabbath was a shadow, like the temple and animal sacrifices were, etc., ad nauseum.

Acts shows us believers from the gentile world being directed to keep FOUR precepts from Law (Acts 15:20), and even ONE WAS innocent in and of itself, for one of them being meats offered to idols was later said to be merely innocent food that one could take so long as one did not offend a weaker brother by doing so, and instead doing it as unto ourselves. And sabbath should have been mentioned there. And we cannot stand on statements like Paul having a manner of preaching to synagogues on the sabbath to show seventh day resting. And we cannot say that it was pharisees being addressed when the apostles said NOTHING about tradition, but only referred solely to Moses' law. More assumption and circumstantial evidence. There are always these disclaimers, "But..." No. The statement was never made. Period.

I could go on and on. :thumbsup



Law appealed to flesh to make itself righteous, all the while to only teach a lesson that sin is in our flesh to awaken us to see how desperately sinful that sin really is.

I got my views SOLELY from the bible. Carefully analyzing the text. Same as my view on prophecy. Solely studying scripture has changed my view on many things. I propose that you cannot eep sabbath day sabbath if you went solely by the bible's teachings as an entire body. You have to insert rabbinical Judaism and assumptions of why God never told man to rest on specifically the seventh day before the old covenant and after it.

It reminds me of people demanding that Revelation is Literal and natural in describing the New Jerusalem, but insist there is symbolism in the seven-eyed and seven-horned in 5:6, after Rev 1:1 said the entire gamut was signifying by signs..

Nicodemus1968
01-01-2020, 10:20 AM
People are sleeping while you preach? 8-10 hours? That is some sermon bro.

Please forgive me for not correctly clarifying my remarks. :happydance

mfblume
01-01-2020, 10:32 AM
I had been reading this thread sporadically, so went back and read through the whole thread.
Many of the posts written in favor of Sabbath keeping are beautifully inspiring and devotional.

The best argument in favor of Sabbath keeping is that you can't dismiss the 10 commandments as being "the old covenant" and therefore done away with.
They are as Bro Avery says "The Royal Law"

If love is the fulfillment of the Law, then Sabbath keeping with it's concern for sacred time set apart for loving God and resting with family, friends, animals, and community seems like an act of love.
It is sad that our society doesn't take time to slow down for Sabbath rest.

Again, and I've just come to see this lately, where did we get the idea that if any of the ten commandments are always to be kept then they all have to always be kept, and if any are moral then they're all moral?

And this leads to saying it is moral to obey God, period. So, I give a perfectly equal example and use my response to it that we all agree on and say that animal sacrifices were required by God and are not moral obligations for us to keep simply because they were commanded at one time. They were fulfilled and now no longer in effect, same as SEVENTH DAY sabbath. It was a shadow and is fulfilled.

. And that is not saying to violate them, as such, for in the instance when the shadow of the 4th is fulfilled in the new's body, it is not violation. Who said the ten commandments cannot contain something ceremonial, just like the entire law itself was moral and ceremonial. Do we not find it odd that there is denial by some of any moral and ceremonial division?

The royal law is not the ten commandments and it is not the old covenant. Jesus' commandments are not the ten commandents, and that is not because He is not God. The same God that manifest ni flesh and became our sacrifice commanded animal sacrifices before the incarnation. So, we cannot go there. Jesus contrasted his commandments form both pharisaical inventions and ten commandments here:

Matthew 5:17-48.. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ..(18).. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ..(19).. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ..(20).. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. ..(21).. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: ..(22).. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. ..(23).. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; ..(24).. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. ..(25).. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. ..(26).. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. ..(27).. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: ..(28).. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. ..(29).. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. ..(30).. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. ..(31).. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: ..(32).. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. ..(33).. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: ..(34).. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: ..(35).. Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. ..(36).. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. ..(37).. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. ..(38).. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: ..(39).. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. ..(40).. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. ..(41).. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. ..(42).. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. ..(43).. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. ..(44).. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; ..(45).. That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. ..(46).. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? ..(47).. And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? ..(48).. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The God of the New Covenant became incarnate and issued commandments never listed in the Ten.

I am saddened that people miss the distinction and greater spiritual law, even stated by Paul and contrasted from the greater when he said that tree is a law of the Spirit of life, and James spoke of the law of liberty, with Paul also having stated that he lived by the Law to win those under Law, and not to serve God by law-keeping in and of itself, although noting he's not without ANY law for the Law of the Spirit of Law is another law that is greater and FULFILLS the natural commandments.

Getting what the natural tried to achieve, is what the Law of the Spirit of Life achieves in us! Why can't people see this?

mfblume
01-01-2020, 10:40 AM
People are sleeping while you preach? 8-10 hours? That is some sermon bro.

LOL

Steven Avery
01-01-2020, 11:57 AM
I had been reading this thread sporadically, so went back and read through the whole thread.
Many of the posts written in favor of Sabbath keeping are beautifully inspiring and devotional.

The best argument in favor of Sabbath keeping is that you can't dismiss the 10 commandments as being "the old covenant" and therefore done away with.
They are as Bro Avery says "The Royal Law"

If love is the fulfillment of the Law, then Sabbath keeping with it's concern for sacred time set apart for loving God and resting with family, friends, animals, and community seems like an act of love.
It is sad that our society doesn't take time to slow down for Sabbath rest. Yes. Simplicity is key.

Esaias
01-01-2020, 12:01 PM
I understand I’m getting into this discussion late, so forgive me.

I’m not against anyone wanting to take certain days off for rest. And I agree with you Esaias as far as Jesus wanting to regulate our physical work, yet probably not in the sense you or I am meaning.

I’m putting this out there cause there maybe something I’m missing. Why did God give them the sabbath? I’m paraphrasing for space, God told them not to work, don’t gather food, don’t get your farm animals etc why? What’s the big deal with gathering food, or working, they do that the other days of the week. I believe, they just came from Egypt the place of bondage, the place where there was no rest, for over 400 years they were slaves. It’s a type and shadow for us, as we were slaves to sin we now have rest in the Holy Ghost our rest. He gave the sabbath as a reward, what’s our reward? I see the Old Covenant as our Old man, the New Covenant is our spiritual man.

Also...

Exodus 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


Is now

Matthew 5:38-42
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: [39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. [41] And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [42] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.


Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.


Matthew 5:21-23
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: [22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. [23] Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;


Exodus 20:14
Thou shalt not commit adultery.



Matthew 5:27-28
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: [28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


These are just a few examples we can go on and see where Jesus fulfilled what the law lacked. The law does not save us, the law allowed us to see who we are, sinners! Jesus told the religious order because the hardness of your heart Moses said to...

If your remembering the sabbath as a physical day that’s fine, yet don’t forget its the Holy Ghost.

Isaiah 28:11-12
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. [12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.


Matthew 11:28-30
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.


Our rest comes from the Holy Ghost. Many people especially in the church will sleep 8 -10 hours and wake up and felt like they slept 10 minutes, they have no rest. You can be at home and do no work and just rest all day, yet your weary? You can go fishing, hiking, hunting and you’ll find no rest. The only way your physical man will have rest is when your spiritual man is at rest. When your spirit is entangled there is no rest for the physical man, it doesn’t matter friend how many days you take off. Our rest is the Holy Ghost.

I haven't found the verse that says "the Holy Ghost is our rest"?

God threatened Judah saying He would speak to them via foreign conquest (stammering lips and another tongue) yet they would not listen. His message was was about rest, this is the rest, etc. Jeremiah however explained what that rest was:

Jeremiah 6:16 KJV
Thus saith the Lord , Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein .

Rest for the soul is found in "the old paths wherein is the good way". Rest is cessation of certain activities. The number one rest that people need is a cessation from fighting God. That is why rest and peace are so closely connected. It is an absence of war or enmity between man and God.

Now don't get me wrong, there can be no genuine rest apart from or outside of the Holy Ghost. But why is that? It is not because of some catharsis or emotional release, but because the Spirit brings freedom from the bondage of sin (disobedience).

As for the Sabbath day itself, God told Israel why He commanded it:

Exodus 31:15-17 KJV
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord : whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. [16] Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. [17] It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

The reason given is "for in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed." Sabbath keeping was a sign between them and God, it identified their God as the Creator of all things and thus the one and only true God. It was a banner if you will saying who their God was and to whom they belonged.

Some will say "Well then, it was a sign for those people, but not for me." However, the church IS ISRAEL. Not a new replacement Israel, but the same Israel of old, under a new covenant through Messiah. Moreover, this sign given to Israel is based on His work (and rest) as Creator of the universe, and since all mankind has one Creator, all should revere and honour Him. It was a sign limited to Israel by the fact only Israel worshipped the One God Creator and Father of all.

God expected the nations to learn from Israel and follow His ways:

Deuteronomy 4:5-8 KJV
Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. [6] Keep therefore and do them ; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. [7] For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for ? [8] And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

He said it would come to pass:

Isaiah 2:2-5 KJV
And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. [3] And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord , to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. [4] And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. [5] O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord .

Jesus gave this commission to the church:

Matthew 28:18-20 KJV
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Ephesians 3:7-11 KJV
Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. [8] Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; [9] And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: [10] To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, [11] According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

This includes the 4th commandment:

Isaiah 56:1-8 KJV
Thus saith the Lord , Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. [2] Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. [3] Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord , speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. [4] For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; [5] Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. [6] Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord , to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord , to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; [7] Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. [8] The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.