Sabbeth Keepers

[JoseC]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don't fall for the doctrine of the Pharisees!



Modern Pharisaism does the same thing with the fourth commandment. By claiming a "higher spiritual purpose", higher and "more important" than actual obedience to the commandment's words, they reject the commandment of God in order to keep man-made tradition.

Beware the leaven (teaching) of the Pharisees!

You saying Colossians 2:16-17 is Phariseeism?

What is your argument for this scripture?

[shazeep]

ya, i mean that passage at least recognizes "Sabbath days;" although i'm not sure Saturdays are meant there?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by JoseC

You saying Colossians 2:16-17 is Phariseeism?

Of course not.

What is your argument for this scripture?

I don't have an "argument for" any scripture. I simply believe the scriptures. Do you? AS WRITTEN?


8 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.

There is vain philosophy, which will take a person captive if they do not beware. This so called "philosophy" is deceitful and is according to the traditions of men, and the rudiments of the world (and not according to Christ).

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

We are complete in Christ and don't need the traditions of men or worldly philosophy to serve God acceptably.

Which is what the apostle said the following, a few verses previously:

6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:

The brethren at Colossae were exhorted to continue in the faith they had originally received. They were not to be led away captive by philosophy and vain deceit, which follows the traditions of men and rudiments of the world. They were to stay following Christ. (Side note: Where did Christ teach the fourth commandment is abolished? Traditions of men claim it has been, empty philosophy says it has been, but what saith Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath?)

Now let's look at the specific verses you mentioned.

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.

Paul tells the brethren not let any man judge them "in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths". The fact he is warning against false gnostic philosophizing teachers judging them "in respect of" the keeping of holy days shows the Colossians were in fact keeping God's appointed holy days to begin with.

He says let no man judge you and then concludes with "but the body of Christ". (The word "is" is italicisized because it doesn't exist in the Greek. By reading it as it is actually written it plainly means "but the body of Christ".)
The phrase "but the body of Christ" is the continuation of the thought "let no man judge you". People try to say it goes to "which are a shadow of things to come" but that is not supported by the actual text.
First, shadow is never contrasted with body (Gr. "soma") but rather with substance or antitype. Secondly, the sabbaths are (present tense) a shadow of "things to come" (not a shadow "of the body of Christ").

To make this say "the sabbaths are a shadow of Christ" does violence to the text and ignores what it actually says. The sabbaths ARE (presently, long after the cross) a shadow of THINGS (plural) to come (still future even though Christ already died and rose and ascended).

Therefore, as the actual grammar shows, Paul is saying let no man judge you BUT THE BODY OF CHRIST, that is to say, ignore the claims of heretics and follow the apostolic church faith doctrine and practice (ch 1:23).

Paul everywhere upheld the universal practice of the original apostolic churches as authoritative (see 1 Cor 11 for ex.) and does so here as well.


Notice Paul condemns the false teachings as "traditions of men" (vs 8) and "commandments and doctrines of men" (vs 22) which cannot be applied to commandments promulgated by God Himself (such as the fourth commandment of the Decalogue). Thus Paul is condemning non-biblical traditions of men and "philosophy", not God's sabbaths or the Colossians' observance of them. He is rather opposing the judgments of teachers of heresies, founded in extra-biblical philosophizing and non-Divine but human traditions, who were judging the Colossian brethren and their practice of the original apostolic faith.

See here:

http://www.herealittletherealittle.n...lossian-Heresy

Notice, the false teachers were promoting asceticism and dogmatic fasting (vs 21-23). Biblical sabbaths are "feasts" and thus the heretics (who were into ascetism) targeted and judged the brethren "in meat and drink" (vs 16) which means eating and drinking, ie "feasting".

[Esaias]

Christians keeping sabbath in post apostolic period:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/sabbath-history.html

[Esaias]

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/hi..._contents.html


http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/hi...#constitutions

[Esaias]

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/hi...tytwo.html#Eck


"In the summer of A.D. 1519 the great theological controversy took place at Leipzig, in which Eck, a great champion of the Papacy, who maintained the authority and infallibility of the Roman Church against Luther and Carlstadet.
...
By what arguments Dr. Eck refuted the Reformers, appears from the following:--
“Concerning the Authority of the Church. The Scripture teaches: Remember that you keep the Saturday; six days shalt thou labour and do all they work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord they God, etc. However, the church has transferred the observance from Saturday to Sunday by virtue of her own power, without Scripture, without doubt under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
Concerning Holidays and Fast-Days.--the Sabbath is commanded in various places in the Scriptures. But there is no mention of the cessation of the Sabbath and the institution of Sunday in the Gospels, or in Paul’s writings, or in all the Bible’ therefore this has taken place by the apostolic church institution it without Scripture.”
"If, however, the church has had power to change the Sabbath of the Bible into Sunday and to command Sunday keeping why should it not have also this power concerning other days, many of which are based on the Scriptures -- such as Christmas, circumcision of the heart, three kings, etc.
If you omit the latter, and turn from the church to the Scriptures alone, then you must keep the Sabbath with the Jews, which has been kept from the beginning of the world.” 12 (end of quotation)

[Esaias]

Having church on Sunday is not of apostolic origin, but comes from the exact same source as trinitarianism .

The RCC claims that all who are baptised in the titles signify by that fact that they are submitted to Rome's authority, for it was catholicism which gave us baptism into the trinitarian formula - by their own admission.

And keeping Sunday as the day of Christian worship has the SAME origin, and the same result: it, like trinitarian baptism, is a sign of the catholic religion as opposed to a truly sola scriptura (bible only) faith as the apostles delivered.

[Esaias]

Those who claim "what day you have church is irrelevent" always coincidentally decide on sunday, the great catholic holy day. Funny how that happens....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Pure fantasy. History proves christians kept sabbath for centuries after the close of the apostolic era.

Further there is no proof christians met regularly on the first day of the week in the bible. There is ONE - O N E - reference to a gathering of believers on the EVENING AFTER THE SABBATH and it was clearly a special meeting because paul was leaving in the morning.

But hey these be the days where everyone just makes it up as they go along so hey why not?

lol

We're dealing with God's Word. Only one reference is necessary. If homosexuality was condemned in only one verse, would that make such an admonishment irrelevant?

But the truth is... we see this "first day of the week" in Scripture THREE times, not once. The significance of the "first day" of the week is found in the following verses:

John 20:1
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

Notice... Jesus arose from the dead on the first day of the week. This is the most significant event in human history.

Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

Notice that believers were gathered together for worship on the first day of the week. We know this was Christian worship because it indicates that they did "break bread", a term used to denote the Lord's Supper and Christian fellowship.

1 Corinthians 16:2
On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.

The Christians gathered in Corinth were to set aside relief for the saints "on the first day of EVERY week". This indicates a continued collection each time they gathered... on the first day of the week.

Now, we do see something beyond these three texts. Paul indicates that this was also the instructions he gave those saints in Galatia:

I Corinthians 16:1-2
Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.

So, as you can see, the first day of the week was significant to the early church. It was NEVER called the "Sabbath", instead, it was a time set aside for Christian fellowship AFTER their Jewish obligations were met. This wasn't applicable to Gentiles and the Christian observance of Jewish custom faded after Judaism's rejection of Christianity and the destruction of the Temple.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Galatians 4: 9 But now having known God, or rather being known of God, how turn ye back to the weak and beggarly elements, to which ye desire to be in bondage again?

10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have laboured upon you in vain.

This teaches the church had no sacred days. Not even Sabbath. Chapter 3 said the law was Israel's schoolmaster til Jesus came. And chapter four says gentle believers were mistaken to use Israel's schoolmaster when Israel graduated from that elementary schooling themselves.

That passage in Galatians says it all, folks. The context from chapter three speaks of Israelite schoolmaster of law, involving sacred days, etc., and how Gentiles took that elementary school for Israel alone and implemented it to their spiritual detriment until Paul was fearful for them.