PDA

View Full Version : Remember The Sabbath Day, To Keep It Holy



menJesus
Mar 7th 2008, 04:35 PM
How does it apply to us in this day and time? and what Scripture backs up your beliefs?

Thanks.



Exodus 20:8-11 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But 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:

11For 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.

Buck shot
Mar 7th 2008, 04:48 PM
Mark 2:26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Most of us has struggled with this issue. I know I have in the past.

Especially when I was asked to be a deacon. I was a millwright in a sawmill so I was scheduled for weekend work regularly. I finally had to make the stand that I would work if the mill was broken down but would not come in for something I could do during the week. God blessed and they did not fire me.

What I have settled with is that God gave us the Sabbath for us to have a day of rest because our bodies need this. If we do not take this rest then we have did ourselves the most injustice.

This is just my take.:hmm:

IWantMoshiach
Mar 7th 2008, 07:36 PM
Yeah I agree with the above poster...we should have a day of rest for Him and for ourselves it does make a difference and i feel refreshed and ready to tackle the upcoming week...

Kahtar
Mar 7th 2008, 07:42 PM
Yes, that day of rest is important, not only physically, but spiritually as well. Does it have to be on a Saturday? I don't think so. But by the same token, it is okay if it IS on a Saturday.
If you have the choice of Saturday or Sunday (not all have that choice) then it is up to you. But I would submit that selecting Saturday just because it is the day God chose is a pretty good reason. I know I can take my rest on either Saturday or Sunday, but I choose Saturday just simply because I love God and respect Him, and it is what He chose, thus it's good enough for me. Does that make sense?

IWantMoshiach
Mar 7th 2008, 07:47 PM
Yes, that day of rest is important, not only physically, but spiritually as well. Does it have to be on a Saturday? I don't think so. But by the same token, it is okay if it IS on a Saturday.
If you have the choice of Saturday or Sunday (not all have that choice) then it is up to you. But I would submit that selecting Saturday just because it is the day God chose is a pretty good reason. I know I can take my rest on either Saturday or Sunday, but I choose Saturday just simply because I love God and respect Him, and it is what He chose, thus it's good enough for me. Does that make sense?

I agree :spin:...it is important to do things the way He says to do it. Its funny i looked a little bit on sunday worship, and a catholic father came out and said that the catholic church changed the day of worship for christians from saturday to sunday...i guess to be distinct from the jews
the catholic father went on to state that he does not know why protestants worship on sunday since protestants reject catholic t
radition :hmm:

Kahtar
Mar 7th 2008, 07:49 PM
I agree :spin:...it is important to do things the way He says to do it. Its funny i looked a little bit on sunday worship, and a catholic father came out and said that the catholic church changed the day of worship for christians from saturday to sunday...i guess to be distinct from the jews
the catholic father went on to state that he does not know why protestants worship on sunday since protestants reject catholic t
radition :hmm:That is an interesting question my friend.:lol:

IWantMoshiach
Mar 7th 2008, 08:12 PM
That is an interesting question my friend.:lol:

It is indeed...it is indeed my friend...:eek:

Braves27
Mar 7th 2008, 08:12 PM
I agree :spin:...it is important to do things the way He says to do it. Its funny i looked a little bit on sunday worship, and a catholic father came out and said that the catholic church changed the day of worship for christians from saturday to sunday...i guess to be distinct from the jews
the catholic father went on to state that he does not know why protestants worship on sunday since protestants reject catholic t
radition :hmm:


That's exactly what happened; it was the Roman Emperor Consantine the Great (in conjunction with the catholic church), who changed worship for Christians to sunday for that exact reason.

And that's a thing that needs to be seriously thought on by many of today's "Christians", who condemn catholicism so often, especially for their traditions, yet keep so many of those same traditions.

IWantMoshiach
Mar 7th 2008, 08:14 PM
That's exactly what happened; it was the Roman Emperor Consantine the Great (in conjunction with the catholic church), who changed worship for Christians to sunday for that exact reason.

And that's a thing that needs to be seriously thought on by many of today's "Christians", who condemn catholicism so often, especially for their traditions, yet keep so many of those same traditions.

ahh spoken with true wisdom...i too have pondered this questions many a days :confused

menJesus
Mar 7th 2008, 08:40 PM
Yes, that day of rest is important, not only physically, but spiritually as well. Does it have to be on a Saturday? I don't think so. But by the same token, it is okay if it IS on a Saturday.
If you have the choice of Saturday or Sunday (not all have that choice) then it is up to you. But I would submit that selecting Saturday just because it is the day God chose is a pretty good reason. I know I can take my rest on either Saturday or Sunday, but I choose Saturday just simply because I love God and respect Him, and it is what He chose, thus it's good enough for me. Does that make sense?

I could see a Saturday Sabbath, but then what do you do about church?

IWantMoshiach
Mar 7th 2008, 08:50 PM
I guess you can still attend church on sunday nothing wrong with that but sunday is not THE sabbath

Kahtar
Mar 7th 2008, 09:40 PM
My wife and I take a day of rest. The next day we go to Church. We can do that. Not all can.
I don't consider church as being rest, because I teach there. That is my work........

menJesus
Mar 7th 2008, 09:46 PM
Oh, okay, now I understand.

BHS
Mar 8th 2008, 03:21 AM
It is my understanding that the Catholic church calls the protestant churches its "harlot churches" and say that "some day they will return". The reasoning is that they followed the Catholic tradition in moving the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday, which was a biggy. So the Catholic church already sees the protestant churches following to some extent in their tradition and they believe they will continue to progress in the Catholic tradition until one day they will rejoin the Catholic church.

BHS

stillforgiven
Mar 8th 2008, 04:14 AM
ahh spoken with true wisdom...i too have pondered this questions many a days :confused

I, on the other hand, didn't have a clue this was how it happened until just now. I honestly thought it happened during the very beginning of the church when scriptures spoke of them breaking bread on the first day of the week. And I thought that was due to the day of the week that Jesus rose from the grave.

godsgirl
Mar 8th 2008, 12:17 PM
We worship on Sunday because that's when the early church met-it doesn't have anything to do with what Catholics teach.


Acts 20:7
"And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread"

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come." (1 Cor 16:1-2)I do agree though, that rushing to worship, having fellowship, and going back again in the evening doesn't constitute a Sabbath rest. A day of rest is something we all need.

And Jesus rose on a Sunday-so that is another reason why Sunday is considered the "Lords Day".

pnewton
Mar 8th 2008, 12:22 PM
It is my understanding that the Catholic church calls the protestant churches its "harlot churches"That's not true. The proper term is separated brothers. The move from Saturday to Sunday was somewhat gradual. Evidence of the shift is in the New Testament where Sunday has already been come to be called the Lord's Day. This term is also used in the first century word "The Didache". (or teaching). The early Church met on both Saturday and Sunday, as they were almost all Jewish. They met on Saturday for the Sabbatical ceremony of readings and teaching. On Sunday they celebrated the resurrection with communion. Eventually, as Gentiles became the rule, rather the exception, the reading of scripture was moved to Sunday.

On the issue of a day or rest, I try to always honor the wisdom of God in instituting a Sabbath's rest. Since I work shift work, my week is never seven days and my weekend is not always Saturday and Sunday. What I do is set aside one day off each time I am off to be a day of rest, both for body and mind. I use it for what ever I think is needed most to refresh my energy, but usually such activities will include time for family, church and recreation.

Kahtar
Mar 8th 2008, 12:55 PM
I would humbly submit that they gathered together and broke bread every day. Breaking bread was simply eating, and did not necessarily refer to communion or a church service. Read the context.
Acts 20:6-7
(6) And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
(7) And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
You see, they were getting ready to leave the next morning. This was their last meal together. After the evening meal (breaking bread) Paul began speaking, and spoke basically all night long. And they left the next morning.

In the collection for the saints, the sabbath ends at sundown, thus the first day of the week begins at sundown immediately following the sabbath. Paul knew they would be gathered together on the sabbath, and knew that immediately after the sabbath, while they were all still gathered together, would be a good time for them to take up a collection for the saints, which he would gather as he came through. Says nothing about having a Sunday morning service.
1 Corinthians 16:1-3
(1) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
(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.
(3) And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by [your] letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

Where you read 'the Lord's Day' in Revelation, that is not referring to Sunday, but rather to the 'Day of the Lord'. John's vision is focused upon the Day of the Lord, the Day of the Lord's return, not on some occurance on a Sunday afternoon.

pnewton
Mar 8th 2008, 01:52 PM
Where you read 'the Lord's Day' in Revelation, that is not referring to Sunday, but rather to the 'Day of the Lord'. John's vision is focused upon the Day of the Lord, the Day of the Lord's return, not on some occurance on a Sunday afternoon. Perhaps, but I lean more to the vision occurring on Sunday. I believe both interpretations to be legitimate. My reasoning is the use of the phrase in the Didache, which is the nearest contemporary use.

But on the Lord's Day (kyriake de kyriou, literally, "the Lord's [day] of the Lord"), after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure." On the other hand, you could point out that John, being a Jew, could have used the phrase as was common in the OT prophets, specifically Joel springs to mind.

Kahtar
Mar 8th 2008, 02:09 PM
It was also common at the time to refer to Sunday as 'the first day of the week', as is seen all through the scripture. I rather suspect that if John, being a Jew, was referring to the first day of the week, he would have said 'on the first day of the week'.
John was in the Spirit. He was having a vision. And that vision concerned all the things that would take place at the coming of the Lord. The Day of the Lord all through scripture refers to that time period in which the resurrection, the final battle against satan and the judgment of the earth takes place. It is the Day of the Lord.
The entire book of Revelation is about the visions John saw about that Day of the Lord. That Day, btw, is not a 24 hour day.

After 70 AD and the destruction of the temple, the persecution of the Jews became such that the church began distancing itself from all things Jewish. By the time of Constantine, the church had basically divorced itself from it's own Jewishness, for the sake of survival. So little by little, the common practices of the Jews were weeded out of the Christian world, including the sabbath day.
The changeover from sabbath to Sunday was a matter of survival. Since Christ rose on the first day of the week, that seemed like a good day to change to. Besides, it fit right into the worship of Mithra, the Sun god, and enabled Constantine to unite much of his kingdom religiously. But that is another thread.

matthew94
Mar 8th 2008, 03:42 PM
Sunday was seen as a special day of celebration very early on in the church, long before the Roman Catholic church emerged. Constantine is the one who confused this already existing celebration with the Old Testament Sabbath. So while it is true that constantine 'switched the sabbath' it is NOT true that the Christians up until constantine were keeping a saturday sabbath. Nor is it true that they weren't keeping Sunday as a special day of celebration.

We don't keep the Saturday Sabbath b/c we are not part of the Old Covenant. The Sabbath was a ceremonial law which was fulfilled by the rest that we have access to, 24/7, though Jesus. We celebrate a perpetual Sabbath. It just so happens that we meet together on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is not the Sabbath, just a day of celebration.

That being said, it is a good idea to pick a day as a day of physical rest.

BHS
Mar 8th 2008, 05:05 PM
I've read that the change in Sabbath to Sunday was not connected to the resurrection until perhaps the 4th century, though the change had already been made. Matthew, where do you get your information that the early Christians did not keep a Saturday Sabbath?

BHS

thethinker
Mar 8th 2008, 05:36 PM
The question is not whether a day of rest is good or not. The question is this: What must I do to be saved?

The old covenant principle was this: Disobey the sabbath and you must be put to death.

"And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying; 'Surely My sabbaths you shall keep, for a sign between Me and you throughout your generation....Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death' " (Exodus 31:12-15).

The Christian who requires that the sabbath be observed according to old covenant law must also require that the those who break the sabbath be put to death. It is totally arbitrary to impose an old covenant principle into the new covenant age without every "jot and tittle".

The new covenant principle is this: Every old covenant ordinance has been NAILED TO THE CROSS OF CHRIST INCLUDING THE SABBATH, Why? Because those ordinances were "against us" (Paul's own words, Colossians 2:11-19). Paul listed the sabbath ordinances specifically in this passage. Check it out.

matthew94
Mar 8th 2008, 06:28 PM
I've read that the change in Sabbath to Sunday was not connected to the resurrection until perhaps the 4th century, though the change had already been made.

That's exactly what I said. It wasn't until the 4th century that they started confusing Sunday with the Sabbath. But celebrating the resurrection on Sunday was already in widespread practice, though, of course, not as obligation. The early christians believed in a perpetual sabbath.


Matthew, where do you get your information that the early Christians did not keep a Saturday Sabbath?

BHS

The Christians with a Jewish heritage usually did keep Sabbath. But as the decades passed, fewer 'Christians' were of a Jewish heritage. There was no obligation to keep a Saturday Sabbath. So the quick answer to your question of where I get my information is that I get it from the early Christians themselves.

"No longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day." (Ignatius, 105)

"We do not live after the Law...and do not observe Sabbaths" (Justin Martyr, 160)

"The new law requires you keep a perpetual Sabbath" (JM, 160)

"We do not follow the Jews in their peculiarities in regard to food nor in their sacred days." (Tertullian, 197)

"The observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary" (Tertullian, 197)

"We understand that we still more should observe the Sabbath always. This is not only every seventh day, but at all times." (Tertullian, 197)

diffangle
Mar 8th 2008, 06:44 PM
The new covenant principle is this: Every old covenant ordinance has been NAILED TO THE CROSS OF CHRIST INCLUDING THE SABBATH, Why? Because those ordinances were "against us" (Paul's own words, Colossians 2:11-19).
So it's okay to steal, murder, and covet now?


Paul listed the sabbath ordinances specifically in this passage. Check it out.
Paul observed the Sabbath and the food laws, he was telling the believer's in Col. 2 to not let anyone judge them for observing those things b/c they "ARE shadows of things TO COME" not "WERE shadows of things THAT CAME".

pnewton
Mar 8th 2008, 07:06 PM
The Christians with a Jewish heritage usually did keep Sabbath. But as the decades passed, fewer 'Christians' were of a Jewish heritage. There was no obligation to keep a Saturday Sabbath. So the quick answer to your question of where I get my information is that I get it from the early Christians themselves.

Also:
"But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure" Didache / 50-120 AD

thethinker
Mar 8th 2008, 10:29 PM
So it's okay to steal, murder, and covet now?


Paul observed the Sabbath and the food laws, he was telling the believer's in Col. 2 to not let anyone judge them for observing those things b/c they "ARE shadows of things TO COME" not "WERE shadows of things THAT CAME".

No it's not okay to steal, murder and covet now. However, Paul said that the moral law is now to be served in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (Romans 7). So as far as the moral code goes we serve it now under this new covenant principle.

Yes Paul observed the sabbath law at the beginning. He also observed the days of purification in which animal sacrifices were to be offered. (Acts 21). Would you say that we should kill animals on the altar today? I think you would not. The author to the Hebrews said that the old covenant was "passing away". Note the present participle passing away. He did not say that it has passed away (past tense). It is NOW altogether passed away in our time. But the first Christians were living in the time when it was still passing away.

The old covenant did not end abruptly as most people think. It was phased out gradually until the destruction of the temple in ad70. It was at this time that the old covenant order ended COMPLETELY with all its ceremonial laws.

Paul said explicitly in Colossians 2 that the old covenant sabbaths were abolished along with everything else that was "against us". If you insist on keeping the sabbath around you must also keep the death penalty for breaking it. For Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until ALL was fulfilled.

So keep a pile of stones around so you can throw them at the next Christian you see break the sabbath.

diffangle
Mar 8th 2008, 11:51 PM
No it's not okay to steal, murder and covet now. However, Paul said that the moral law is now to be served in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (Romans 7). So as far as the moral code goes we serve it now under this new covenant principle.

Yes Paul observed the sabbath law at the beginning. He also observed the days of purification in which animal sacrifices were to be offered. (Acts 21). Would you say that we should kill animals on the altar today? I think you would not. The author to the Hebrews said that the old covenant was "passing away". Note the present participle passing away. He did not say that it has passed away (past tense). It is NOW altogether passed away in our time. But the first Christians were living in the time when it was still passing away.

The old covenant did not end abruptly as most people think. It was phased out gradually until the destruction of the temple in ad70. It was at this time that the old covenant order ended COMPLETELY with all its ceremonial laws.

Paul said explicitly in Colossians 2 that the old covenant sabbaths were abolished along with everything else that was "against us". If you insist on keeping the sabbath around you must also keep the death penalty for breaking it. For Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until ALL was fulfilled.

So keep a pile of stones around so you can throw them at the next Christian you see break the sabbath.
Do you believe Isaiah 66 has already been fulfilled or is it speaking of the future?

Isa 66:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=22&version=kjv#22)¶For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith YHWH, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Isa 66:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=23&version=kjv#23)And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith YHWH.

Isa 66:24 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=24&version=kjv#24)And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

diffangle
Mar 9th 2008, 12:26 AM
Paul said explicitly in Colossians 2 that the old covenant sabbaths were abolished along with everything else that was "against us".
Let's look at what Colossians 2 is "explicitly" talking about...

Col 2:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Col&chapter=2&verse=8&version=kjv#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.

Is YHWH's Word/Commandments "vain deceit", a "tradition of men",or a "rudiment of the world"? Imo, His Word is not those things.

Col 2:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Col&chapter=2&verse=14&version=kjv#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;

Could Paul be talking about ordinances that are commandments and doctrines of men(verse 8 & 22 contain the answer)? Is the actual fourth Commandment to observe the Sabbath "against us" or "for" us? How can something "for" us be "against us"?

Mar 2:27 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=2&verse=27&version=kjv#27)And He said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Col 2:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Col&chapter=2&verse=16&version=kjv#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]:

He's telling the believer's here to not let others judge them for keeping kosher, observing the Feasts of YHWH, and keeping the Sabbath and new moon.

Col 2:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Col&chapter=2&verse=17&version=kjv#17)Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

"Are"... "To Come", that means that those shadows aren't all passed away. We're still waiting for more to be fulfilled(second coming).

Col 2:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Col&chapter=2&verse=18&version=kjv#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,

"Voluntary humility" and "worshipping of angels" is not part of YHWH's Law/Commandments... he's addressing the gnosticism that was creeping in.

Col 2:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Col&chapter=2&verse=20&version=kjv#20)Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Col&chapter=2&verse=21&version=kjv#21)(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Col&chapter=2&verse=22&version=kjv#22)Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Again, the ordinances he is talking about are the one's that are commandments and doctrines of men... not YHWHs.



If you insist on keeping the sabbath around you must also keep the death penalty for breaking it. For Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until ALL was fulfilled.


To stone someone for breaking the Sabbath is a consequence of breaking the Law, it's not a Law, so just b/c Messiah came and took away the consequence of immediate death for breaking His Laws/Commandments doesn't mean that the actual Law/Commandment doesn't still stand. We can see in Revelation that those who choose to obey His Commandments will enter into The Kingdom.

Rev 22:14 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=22&v=14&t=KJV#14)Blessed [are] they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

BHS
Mar 9th 2008, 01:09 AM
That's exactly what I said. It wasn't until the 4th century that they started confusing Sunday with the Sabbath. But celebrating the resurrection on Sunday was already in widespread practice, though, of course, not as obligation. The early christians believed in a perpetual sabbath.

The Christians with a Jewish heritage usually did keep Sabbath. But as the decades passed, fewer 'Christians' were of a Jewish heritage. There was no obligation to keep a Saturday Sabbath. So the quick answer to your question of where I get my information is that I get it from the early Christians themselves.

"No longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day." (Ignatius, 105)

"We do not live after the Law...and do not observe Sabbaths" (Justin Martyr, 160)

"The new law requires you keep a perpetual Sabbath" (JM, 160)

"We do not follow the Jews in their peculiarities in regard to food nor in their sacred days." (Tertullian, 197)

"The observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary" (Tertullian, 197)

"We understand that we still more should observe the Sabbath always. This is not only every seventh day, but at all times." (Tertullian, 197)

Sorry Matthew, my first sentence was really directed toward PNewton's post "17".

While you may find the early Christian fathers' information reliable, I do not particularly, as many of them were IMO biased against Jewish ways, including Tertullian and Justin Martyr AND what they said was not inspired and could have easily been more to persuade. I look at these statements and think how quickly they deviated from 1st century practice! So I rely more upon what I can learn from the Scripture itself.

God bless,
BHS

Brother Mark
Mar 9th 2008, 01:20 AM
Just some food for thought.

Col 2:16-23

16 Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day — 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

I think the above passage goes both ways. Don't let anyone judge us in regard to food, or drink or fesival or new moon or a sabbath which are a mere shadow. So whether you keep the sabbath or don't keep the sabbath, do so unto the Lord. I am a servant of Christ. He is the one to judge us on these issues.

In other words, do what's in your heart concerning these things.

20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) — in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
NASB

I think it interesting that what he is speaking about is in accordance with both the commandments and the teachings of men. In the end, keeping the sabbath won't help you overcome your flesh! We need to be circumcised in the heart by the Lord of the Saboath for that. Either way, these commands are often given about things that are destined to perish (i.e. what we eat).

Getting with Christ is far more productive in overcoming our flesh.

matthew94
Mar 9th 2008, 01:23 AM
In the NT most of the Christians were Jews. One wouldn't expect the Jewish Christians to give up their cultural traditions. Some of them did. Some of them didn't. Some of them did just around other Jewish Christians or Jews so as to not offend. But gentile believers didn't keep the Jewish Sabbath. In my opinion it would be a mistake to feel obligated to keep Jewish culture. And it's a mistake to think the early church fathers were anti-jewish just b/c they didn't keep Jewish Sabbath.

IWantMoshiach
Mar 9th 2008, 09:05 AM
:rofl: It is always funny to hear christians say that the old covenant is dead. No covenant in the history of israel has ever been discontinued, that would make the Almighty out to be a liar. Its like some Christians have the idea that He was lying to the israelites when he gave the law, like He gave them the law just to see how much they could fail and then send His Son to redeem them...thats utterly ludicrous. The prophets are full of exhortation for the people to return to the law of the Almighty not abandon it.

And why does everyone keep saying the moral law is still in effect and not the rest of the law...the law is one, it always has been and always will be. Again the 4th commandment is not a moral one but clearly a religous one.

matthew94
Mar 9th 2008, 09:27 AM
:rofl: It is always funny to hear christians say that the old covenant is dead.

It seems to me you have an over-eager sense of humor. I'd guess most Christians who say such things are just basing it on biblical passages such as this one:

Hebrews 8:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=8&verse=13&version=31&context=verse)
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

The author here speaks of the Old Covenant as aging and about to disappear. How different is that from death?



No covenant in the history of israel has ever been discontinued, that would make the Almighty out to be a liar.

You're wrong. Covenants can be conditional. If Israel broke the covenant, God was free to take His offer away from them. Indeed, this is exactly what happened in a sense.

Hebrews 8:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=8&verse=8&version=31&context=verse)
But God found fault with the people and said : "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

God found that the Israelites had broken the covenant. And so He saw fit to establish a new covenant. Ending the first covenant does not make God a liar. In fact, He'd be a liar if He didn't end it since He spelled out the conditions of the covenant from the get go and said they must keep their end of the deal.

Matthew 21:43 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=21&verse=43&version=31&context=verse)
"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

God had made a covenant with Israel that they would be His treasured possession, a Kingdom of Priests to the world. But it was conditional. They had to obey His commands. They didn't. So the Kingdom was taken away from them and given to another (the church).


Its like some Christians have the idea that He was lying to the israelites when he gave the law, like He gave them the law just to see how much they could fail and then send His Son to redeem them...thats utterly ludicrous.

In fact God did give them the law so that they would fail so that they would see their need for the Son to redeem them. I am not sure how this makes God a liar.


And why does everyone keep saying the moral law is still in effect and not the rest of the law...the law is one, it always has been and always will be. Again the 4th commandment is not a moral one but clearly a religous one.

We, as Christians, don't follow any of the Old Covenant Law directly. We follow Jesus. That is the definition of a Christian. Jesus, being God, echoed the moral laws which flow directly from God's nature. The Old Covenant law, I agree, was a tightly knit unit. But we are not under any of it. We are under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It just so happens that He has the same moral nature as His Father and so all the moral laws of the Old Testament remain intact. You yourself admitted that the Sabbath was not a moral law, so it is no surprise that it did not remain in tact.

IWantMoshiach
Mar 9th 2008, 09:32 AM
matthew94,

I understand where you are coming from...now amidst all that you just quoted show me where this is taught (the anulling of the law) from the law, prophets, or writings

matthew94
Mar 9th 2008, 09:40 AM
matthew94,

I understand where you are coming from...now amidst all that you just quoted show me where this is taught (the anulling of the law) from the law, prophets, or writings

Why would the most important piece of evidence that we are under a 'new covenant' come from the 'old covenant'? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to respond to the 'new covenant' and explain why you think the 'old covenant' is still in effect? I think so. I await your reaction to my previous post.

IWantMoshiach
Mar 9th 2008, 09:51 AM
Why would the most important piece of evidence that we are under a 'new covenant' come from the 'old covenant'? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to respond to the 'new covenant' and explain why you think the 'old covenant' is still in effect? I think so. I await your reaction to my previous post.

The most important piece of evidence for the new covenant must be found in the "old covenant" because the "old covenant" is the measuring rod for all that is fit and unfit...The reason why the "old covenant" is still in effect is because attests to itself that it is eternal...and Christ reinforced this in the way he lived his life and his teachings

matthew94
Mar 9th 2008, 09:59 AM
The most important piece of evidence for the new covenant must be found in the "old covenant" because the "old covenant" is the measuring rod for all that is fit and unfit...The reason why the "old covenant" is still in effect is because attests to itself that it is eternal...and Christ reinforced this in the way he lived his life and his teachings

There's not much I can hope to accomplish in a discussion with someone with such an elevated view of the Old Covenant.

Hope you have a great day :)

IWantMoshiach
Mar 9th 2008, 10:06 AM
There's not much I can hope to accomplish in a discussion with someone with such an elevated view of the Old Covenant.

Hope you have a great day :)

You speak as though that is a negative thing(that i regard the "old covenant" as elevated)...it is still the word of the Almighty isn't it? :hmm:

p.s. thanks for the blessing...i hop you have a great day too :spin:

matthew94
Mar 9th 2008, 11:12 AM
You speak as though that is a negative thing(that i regard the "old covenant" as elevated)...it is still the word of the Almighty isn't it? :hmm:

p.s. thanks for the blessing...i hop you have a great day too :spin:

It's not a bad thing to hold the Old Covenant in high regards. I do too. Any negative vibe you got from me would be concern regarding what you could be elevating it against. You used pretty lofty words (as I bolded). One could almost view them as elevating the old over the new. But I'm trusting you mean no such thing.

pnewton
Mar 9th 2008, 11:26 AM
While you may find the early Christian fathers' information reliable, I do not particularly, as many of them were IMO biased against Jewish ways, including Tertullian and Justin Martyr AND what they said was not inspired and could have easily been more to persuade. I look at these statements and think how quickly they deviated from 1st century practice! So I rely more upon what I can learn from the Scripture itself.
You are not alone in putting no stock in any writing after the first century. That is one reason I included the Didache since it is contemporary with John's Revelation. However, even if we give no credence to anything apart from the Bible, these early writing do show that at least the church leaders that wrote them spoke of Sunday worship centuries ahead of Constantine. What you will not find are Church leaders condemning the practice of Sunday worship in this time period between the penning of Revelation and the edict of Constantine.

If we want to understan anything that was happening in the Church in that time period, you have to give some weight to something.

thethinker
Mar 9th 2008, 11:31 AM
Do you believe Isaiah 66 has already been fulfilled or is it speaking of the future?

Isa 66:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=22&version=kjv#22)¶For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith YHWH, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Isa 66:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=23&version=kjv#23)And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith YHWH.

Isa 66:24 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=24&version=kjv#24)And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Diffangle,
Yes Isaiah 66 has been fulfilled. The the new heaven and earth in Isaiah 66 is not the same prophecy as that in Rev. 21-22. In Isaiah 66 there is still death (v.20). But in Revelation 21-22 death has been abolished (21:4).

There was a new heaven and earth for Noah too. 2 Peter 3 says that the heaven and earth in Noah's time was destroyed. This means that when they came out of the ark they entered into the heaven and earth made new.

So you see that God renewed the heaven and earth more than once with the renewal of Rev. 21-22 being the FINAL renewal.



Iwant Mosiach said: "You speak as though that is a negative thing(that i regard the "old covenant" as elevated)...it is still the word of the Almighty isn't it?"


The old covenant is not "elevated" as you say. It is FULFILLED. That which is fulfilled passes away. Hebrews says,

"I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel.... When He [God] says, 'a NEW covenant' He has made the first obsolete" (8:8,13).

So the term "new covenant" in and of itself means that the old is GONE FOREVER. Therefore, the old is not "elevated". It is abolished.

BHS
Mar 9th 2008, 03:08 PM
In the NT most of the Christians were Jews. One wouldn't expect the Jewish Christians to give up their cultural traditions. Some of them did. Some of them didn't. Some of them did just around other Jewish Christians or Jews so as to not offend. But gentile believers didn't keep the Jewish Sabbath. In my opinion it would be a mistake to feel obligated to keep Jewish culture. And it's a mistake to think the early church fathers were anti-jewish just b/c they didn't keep Jewish Sabbath.

It isn't just because of not keeping the Sabbath -- it is documented history that the early church disassociated itself from the Jews for political reasons, etc. The Sabbath was established at Creation and had really nothing to do with Jewish culture. Regardless, I have my opinion and you have yours.

But I am curious how you think the Roman church functioned with Jews and Gentiles worshiping together, just as Y'shua envisioned. If they worshiped together, they had to meet together. There is nothing in the Scripture that I know of that the early Gentile Christians did not meet on the Sabbath. In fact they were encouraged to go to the synagogue to learn more in Acts 15.

BHS

diffangle
Mar 9th 2008, 04:46 PM
Diffangle,
Yes Isaiah 66 has been fulfilled. The the new heaven and earth in Isaiah 66 is not the same prophecy as that in Rev. 21-22. In Isaiah 66 there is still death (v.20). But in Revelation 21-22 death has been abolished (21:4).

There was a new heaven and earth for Noah too. 2 Peter 3 says that the heaven and earth in Noah's time was destroyed. This means that when they came out of the ark they entered into the heaven and earth made new.

So you see that God renewed the heaven and earth more than once with the renewal of Rev. 21-22 being the FINAL renewal.

Isa 66:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=15&version=kjv#15)For, behold, YHWH will come with fire, and with His chariots like a whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire.

Isa 66:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=16&version=kjv#16)For by fire and by His sword will YHWH plead with all flesh: and the slain of YHWH shall be many.

Isa 66:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=18&version=kjv#18)¶For I [know] their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see My glory.

Isa 66:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=19&version=kjv#19)And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, [to] Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, [to] Tubal, and Javan, [to] the isles afar off, that have not heard My fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles.


Isa 66:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=20&version=kjv#20)And they shall bring all your brethren [for] an offering unto YHWH out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith YHWH, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of YHWH.


Isa 66:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=23&version=kjv#23)And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith YHWH.

When did all this happen? When has all flesh come to worship Him?

IWantMoshiach
Mar 9th 2008, 08:15 PM
It's not a bad thing to hold the Old Covenant in high regards. I do too. Any negative vibe you got from me would be concern regarding what you could be elevating it against. You used pretty lofty words (as I bolded). One could almost view them as elevating the old over the new. But I'm trusting you mean no such thing.

You are right i wasn't elevating the "old" over the "new" i was just trying to point out that the covenants complement each other...they don't annul one another

IWantMoshiach
Mar 9th 2008, 08:21 PM
Diffangle,
Yes Isaiah 66 has been fulfilled. The the new heaven and earth in Isaiah 66 is not the same prophecy as that in Rev. 21-22. In Isaiah 66 there is still death (v.20). But in Revelation 21-22 death has been abolished (21:4).

There was a new heaven and earth for Noah too. 2 Peter 3 says that the heaven and earth in Noah's time was destroyed. This means that when they came out of the ark they entered into the heaven and earth made new.

So you see that God renewed the heaven and earth more than once with the renewal of Rev. 21-22 being the FINAL renewal.



Iwant Mosiach said: "You speak as though that is a negative thing(that i regard the "old covenant" as elevated)...it is still the word of the Almighty isn't it?"


The old covenant is not "elevated" as you say. It is FULFILLED. That which is fulfilled passes away. Hebrews says,

"I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel.... When He [God] says, 'a NEW covenant' He has made the first obsolete" (8:8,13).

So the term "new covenant" in and of itself means that the old is GONE FOREVER. Therefore, the old is not "elevated". It is abolished.

Hold on...fulfill can also mean to bring a deeper awareness of...what you quoted from is the book of hebrews...but the author of the book of hebrews quotes from jeremiah 31:31-33...you should read that verse in context and see that even the covenant spoken of says that He will write his law on their hearts and their minds...it does not say anything about the law changing or being obsolete

Brother Mark
Mar 9th 2008, 08:21 PM
You are right i wasn't elevating the "old" over the "new" i was just trying to point out that the covenants complement each other...they don't annul one another

Right. The old regulations have been done away with and the new covenant is better than the old. It supercedes it.

We still keep the Law as far as the spirit of the law goes. But the regulations have been replaced with by a superior covenant.

IWantMoshiach
Mar 9th 2008, 08:25 PM
Right. The old regulations have been done away with and the new covenant is better than the old. It supercedes it.

We still keep the Law as far as the spirit of the law goes. But the regulations have been replaced with by a superior covenant.

How can the old regulations be done away with when they are very much the meat of the covenant...the old regulations tell us how to keep the ten commandments...its not impossible to keep both the spirit of the law and the regulations they were meant for each other

Brother Mark
Mar 9th 2008, 08:29 PM
How can the old regulations be done away with when they are very much the meat of the covenant...the old regulations tell us how to keep the ten commandments...its not impossible to keep both the spirit of the law and the regulations they were meant for each other

Well, here is what the Hebrew writer said about it...

Heb 8:13-9:10

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

9 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. 3 And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, 4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant. 5 And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. 6 Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, 7 but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.
NASB

The new regulations replaced the old. There was an earthy tabernacle that showed the greater tabernacle. There was an earthly sacrifice that shadowed the greater sacrifice. There are priestly duties that were performed by Aaron and his sons that are now performed in the spirit by all believers.

IWantMoshiach
Mar 9th 2008, 08:41 PM
Well, here is what the Hebrew writer said about it...

Heb 8:13-9:10

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

9 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. 3 And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, 4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant. 5 And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. 6 Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, 7 but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.
NASB

The new regulations replaced the old. There was an earthy tabernacle that showed the greater tabernacle. There was an earthly sacrifice that shadowed the greater sacrifice. There are priestly duties that were performed by Aaron and his sons that are now performed in the spirit by all believers.

Right i am familiar with the book of hebrews i know what it says about shadows and copies of things in the heavenlies...the only thing is that the orginal source of the quote for the new covenant mentions nothing about annuling the old it only establishes the old in the hearts of the partakers of the new covenant (jer 31:31-33)...we are still promised a third temple with sacrifices in the future...

matthew94
Mar 10th 2008, 05:24 PM
But I am curious how you think the Roman church functioned with Jews and Gentiles worshiping together, just as Y'shua envisioned. If they worshiped together, they had to meet together. There is nothing in the Scripture that I know of that the early Gentile Christians did not meet on the Sabbath. In fact they were encouraged to go to the synagogue to learn more in Acts 15.

BHS

I think the strongest churches met every day, celebrating a perpetual sabbath.

As for evidence that they didn't meet on the Sabbath, I provided you with quotes that many early Christians did not. But I also think it's an odd thing to ask for considering many churches met daily. It's not a matter of proving they did NOT keep Sabbath, it's a matter of proving that they did. The burden of proof is upon those who are claiming that Christians should be doing something that Jesus never taught them to do. That gentile Christians went to the synogogues on Saturday surely has nothing to do with Sabbath keeping. Synogogues weren't even around when the Sabbath laws were made. They weren't attempting to keep Sabbath, they were meeting together when there were people to meet with, and since many Jews kept Sabbath, Saturday was that day.

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2008, 05:29 PM
Right i am familiar with the book of hebrews i know what it says about shadows and copies of things in the heavenlies...the only thing is that the orginal source of the quote for the new covenant mentions nothing about annuling the old it only establishes the old in the hearts of the partakers of the new covenant (jer 31:31-33)...we are still promised a third temple with sacrifices in the future...

But Hebrews does say the old was made obsolete and ready to disappear. The question is, what is he talking about? He answers that in Hebrews 9. It's the regulations of the old covenant.

We still keep it all in Spirit but not in letter.

thethinker
Mar 10th 2008, 05:36 PM
Isa 66:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=15&version=kjv#15)For, behold, YHWH will come with fire, and with His chariots like a whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire.

Isa 66:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=16&version=kjv#16)For by fire and by His sword will YHWH plead with all flesh: and the slain of YHWH shall be many.

Isa 66:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=18&version=kjv#18)¶For I [know] their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see My glory.

Isa 66:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=19&version=kjv#19)And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, [to] Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, [to] Tubal, and Javan, [to] the isles afar off, that have not heard My fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles.


Isa 66:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=20&version=kjv#20)And they shall bring all your brethren [for] an offering unto YHWH out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith YHWH, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of YHWH.


Isa 66:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=23&version=kjv#23)And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith YHWH.

When did all this happen? When has all flesh come to worship Him?

God poured out His Spirit on "all flesh" on Pentecost. Yet I have met no one who insists that every man has the Spirit.

According to the Reformation Study Bible the Isaiah 66 prophecy was fulfilled in 520 B.C. [Note 0n Isaiah 56:1 -66:24, page 1124].

Isaiah 66:21 says that the Levitical priesthood is in effect. But Hebrews 7 says that the Levitical priesthood has been abolished and that Christ has replaced the Levitical system as Priest. Christ was not from Levi. He was from Judah (Hebrews 7).

Since Isaiah 66 refers to a time when the Levitical priesthood is in effect, and that priesthood has been displaced by One from Judah, then Isaiah 66 has been fulfilled.

thethinker
Mar 10th 2008, 05:43 PM
Hold on...fulfill can also mean to bring a deeper awareness of...what you quoted from is the book of hebrews...but the author of the book of hebrews quotes from jeremiah 31:31-33...you should read that verse in context and see that even the covenant spoken of says that He will write his law on their hearts and their minds...it does not say anything about the law changing or being obsolete

The writing of the law on our hearts is the New Covenant principle. Paul said that we serve now according to the "newness of the spirit" and not the oldness of the letter (Romans 7). The sabbath law is now to be observed in the spirit and not in the letter. Hebrews teaches that the sabbath law was a type of salvation.

Therefore, we observe the sabbath today by trusting in Christ ALONE who gives us rest. "Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest".

Paul explicitly said that the old covenant ordinances have been "nailed to the cross" (Col. 2). He included the sabbath specifically when he said this.

Live in the new covenant of God!

2Witnesses
Mar 10th 2008, 05:46 PM
The,

Only 'shabbat' that applys to believers is that we, by faith, have entered into His 'rest', having ceased from our works for righteousness.

2Witnesses

thethinker
Mar 10th 2008, 06:02 PM
The,

Only 'shabbat' that applys to believers is that we, by faith, have entered into His 'rest', having ceased from our works for righteousness.

2Witnesses



AMEN!!! Right on brother!

Studyin'2Show
Mar 10th 2008, 07:08 PM
When I see my hubby's shadow coming around the corner on a bright, sunny day, I know he's coming even if I can't see the real him yet. Now, once he comes around the corner, does his shadow go away? As long as there is light, he will still have his shadow with him. Is his shadow what's most important? No, but yet it remains. Do, I focus on his shadow instead of him? No, but nor do I deny it's existence.

In the same way, there are many shadows that showed those who were looking that Messiah was coming. All the Feasts of the LORD including the Sabbath are shadows of Messiah. Yet, now that He has arrived, does that mean His shadow has left? As long as there is Light, His shadow will also remain. Are His shadows more important than Him? God forbid! Yet they remain. Do I focus on the shadow instead of Him? Goodness no! But nor do I deny their existence.

My family and I have been so blessed both physically and spiritually since we began to both search for Messiah in these things as well as physically observing them. I never realized how exhilarating 24 hours could be. Really! Yeshua said that the Sabbath was made FOR man and I am soooo glad God made it FOR me! I sure can use it each week. I always wonder how many good ministers of the Gospel, would be more effective as they work for the LORD if they took the time He gave for them to rejuvenate. :hmm:

I also agree with what Kahtar said previously, that if someone is not able to take the 24 hours from Friday evening to Saturday evening, they can take another day. My brother is a firefighter. We all agree that there need to be firefighters working all 7 days. There are many who will have to work on that day but they should take the time to make sure they get their physical rest on another day. ;) The body's absolute need for physical rest in no way takes away from the spiritual rest we have in Yeshua.

God Bless!

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2008, 07:15 PM
I also find it interesting that the sabbath is part of the 10 commandments and not the regulations of the covenant. The 10 were placed inside the ark while the rest was not.

2Witnesses
Mar 10th 2008, 07:23 PM
When I see my hubby's shadow coming around the corner on a bright, sunny day, I know he's coming even if I can't see the real him yet. Now, once he comes around the corner, does his shadow go away? As long as there is light, he will still have his shadow with him. Is his shadow what's most important? No, but yet it remains. Do, I focus on his shadow instead of him? No, but nor do I deny it's existence.

In the same way, there are many shadows that showed those who were looking that Messiah was coming. All the Feasts of the LORD including the Sabbath are shadows of Messiah. Yet, now that He has arrived, does that mean His shadow has left? As long as there is Light, His shadow will also remain. Are His shadows more important than Him? God forbid! Yet they remain. Do I focus on the shadow instead of Him? Goodness no! But nor do I deny their existence.

My family and I have been so blessed both physically and spiritually since we began to both search for Messiah in these things as well as physically observing them. I never realized how exhilarating 24 hours could be. Really! Yeshua said that the Sabbath was made FOR man and I am soooo glad God made it FOR me! I sure can use it each week. I always wonder how many good ministers of the Gospel, would be more effective as they work for the LORD if they took the time He gave for them to rejuvenate. :hmm:

I also agree with what Kahtar said previously, that if someone is not able to take the 24 hours from Friday evening to Saturday evening, they can take another day. My brother is a firefighter. We all agree that there need to be firefighters working all 7 days. There are many who will have to work on that day but they should take the time to make sure they get their physical rest on another day. ;) The body's absolute need for physical rest in no way takes away from the spiritual rest we have in Yeshua.

God Bless!

Studying,

So by your reasoning we should keep the Levitical priesthood and blood offerings which Hebrews says are gone, faded away, like a shadow no longer needed; except to look 'back' on.

The Law was a 'whole', all 613. If you offend in one point, you offend in all. It was the 'COVENANT" of the Law for righteousness which was fulfilled. We now have a NEW Covenant.

One day, there will be no murder. So why a law? One day we will not work. So why need a shabbat. So how can you say these are 'eternal'? Yes, it will always be srong to kill. But there will be none.

If you want to keep a 'shabbat', do so. Just like the thing about meat, be convinced in your own mind. But shabbat is in the heart, and on the lipos, and not in the work you do.

2Witnesses

Studyin'2Show
Mar 10th 2008, 08:01 PM
Studying,

So by your reasoning we should keep the Levitical priesthood and blood offerings which Hebrews says are gone, faded away, like a shadow no longer needed; except to look 'back' on.

The Law was a 'whole', all 613. If you offend in one point, you offend in all. It was the 'COVENANT" of the Law for righteousness which was fulfilled. We now have a NEW Covenant.

One day, there will be no murder. So why a law? One day we will not work. So why need a shabbat. So how can you say these are 'eternal'? Yes, it will always be srong to kill. But there will be none.

If you want to keep a 'shabbat', do so. Just like the thing about meat, be convinced in your own mind. But shabbat is in the heart, and on the lipos, and not in the work you do.

2WitnessesAt this time there is no temple, so that point is moot. :hmm: Anyway, I didn't tell anyone else what they should or should not do. I merely shared what I do as I have been led by the Holy Spirit to do. Before the Holy Spirit led me to keep the Feasts of the LORD and the Sabbath, I did not. What I did do was share an example that may help someone who is considering this issue, understand how the shadow does not OVERshadow what it represents, yet nor is it replaced by what it represents.

Yeshua told the rich young ruler to keep the Commandments of the Father. The Shabbat is one of those Commandments. These things are no longer merely written on cold hard stone to be over us but should be written on our soft, willing hearts. We should not do what we do because we 'have to', but rather because we want to. It should be our desire. In regards to Shabbat, in working in the ministry I have seen FAR TOO MANY believers burnout from physically overworking themselves. That really is too bad considering Yeshua Himself said that the Sabbath was made FOR us. It was never to be against us as it had come to be seen. Yeshua set things straight and I for one and sure glad He did!

God Bless!

thethinker
Mar 10th 2008, 08:26 PM
At this time there is no temple, so that point is moot. :hmm: Anyway, I didn't tell anyone else what they should or should not do. I merely shared what I do as I have been led by the Holy Spirit to do. Before the Holy Spirit led me to keep the Feasts of the LORD and the Sabbath, I did not. What I did do was share an example that may help someone who is considering this issue, understand how the shadow does not OVERshadow what it represents, yet nor is it replaced by what it represents.

Yeshua told the rich young ruler to keep the Commandments of the Father. The Shabbat is one of those Commandments. These things are no longer merely written on cold hard stone to be over us but should be written on our soft, willing hearts. We should not do what we do because we 'have to', but rather because we want to. It should be our desire. In regards to Shabbat, in working in the ministry I have seen FAR TOO MANY believers burnout from physically overworking themselves. That really is too bad considering Yeshua Himself said that the Sabbath was made FOR us. It was never to be against us as it had come to be seen. Yeshua set things straight and I for one and sure glad He did!

God Bless!

Jesus told the rich young ruler to keep the law because they were still under the law. But Paul said that we now must serve according to the "NEWNESS of the spirit" and not the "oldness of the letter". Paul was talking about the ten commandments (Romans 7).

Nobody on this thread denies that Christians are to serve the law. What is denied is that the law is to be served in the old covenant manner that you say.

We can keep the sabbath according to the letter all we want. But if we break the new covenant sabbath which is "cease from your works-salvation" then we have transgressed the new covenant.

Paul said that the "handwritings", that is, the letter of the law, WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS! [Colossians 2]. He included the old covenant sabbath when he said this. It is plain to all who want to live under new covenant principles.

But those who like to keep one foot in the old covenant have difficulty seeing it.

diffangle
Mar 10th 2008, 10:31 PM
Paul said that the "handwritings", that is, the letter of the law, WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS! [Colossians 2].

Paul wasn't talking about YHWH's Law/Commandments in Col. 2... http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1566028&postcount=29

He was talking about the doctrines and commandments of men.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 10th 2008, 10:47 PM
Jesus told the rich young ruler to keep the law because they were still under the law. But Paul said that we now must serve according to the "NEWNESS of the spirit" and not the "oldness of the letter". Paul was talking about the ten commandments (Romans 7).

Nobody on this thread denies that Christians are to serve the law. What is denied is that the law is to be served in the old covenant manner that you say.

We can keep the sabbath according to the letter all we want. But if we break the new covenant sabbath which is "cease from your works-salvation" then we have transgressed the new covenant.

Paul said that the "handwritings", that is, the letter of the law, WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS! [Colossians 2]. He included the old covenant sabbath when he said this. It is plain to all who want to live under new covenant principles.

But those who like to keep one foot in the old covenant have difficulty seeing it.Just when exactly did I say that keeping the Sabbath is required for salvation? :o Me thinks you have me confused with someone else. I am saved through my acceptance of the sacrifice of Yeshua and that alone. What type of works is that? Also, when did I speak of the letter of the Sabbath? In fact, I agreed with Kahtar that the 'spirit' of the law was in keeping with the human body's need for 'physical' rest. That IS the NEWNESS of the spirit! Maybe you should go back through the thread and read what I ACTUALLY posted. ;)

God Bless!

thethinker
Mar 10th 2008, 11:11 PM
Paul wasn't talking about YHWH's Law/Commandments in Col. 2... http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1566028&postcount=29

He was talking about the doctrines and commandments of men.

Diffangle,
The "doctrines and commandments" of men are these: All teachings that carry over an old covenant law in to the new covenant.

So you're right in a sense. The problem is that you don't define your terms.

Think

Studyin'2Show
Mar 10th 2008, 11:19 PM
Diffangle,
The "doctrines and commandments" of men are these: All teachings that carry over an old covenant law in to the new covenant.

So you're right in a sense. The problem is that you don't define your terms.

ThinkYou've clearly NEVER heard of 'fence laws', huh? How about the 'oral law'? The Ten Commandments are definitely not the 'commandments of men'.

thethinker
Mar 10th 2008, 11:21 PM
Just when exactly did I say that keeping the Sabbath is required for salvation? :o Me thinks you have me confused with someone else. I am saved through my acceptance of the sacrifice of Yeshua and that alone. What type of works is that? Also, when did I speak of the letter of the Sabbath? In fact, I agreed with Kahtar that the 'spirit' of the law was in keeping with the human body's need for 'physical' rest. That IS the NEWNESS of the spirit! Maybe you should go back through the thread and read what I ACTUALLY posted. ;)

God Bless!

You appear to require the keeping of the sabbath for the Christian walk. Many NT passages discourage this too (Rom. 7, Hebrews, entire book, Galatians, entire book).

The Christian is not bound by the OC law for salvation and for his walk. We are "not under the law but under grace" in respect to all. The newness of the spirit is the NC principle.

You are free in Christ to bag groceries on the NC sabbath.

thethinker
Mar 10th 2008, 11:24 PM
You've clearly NEVER heard of 'fence laws', huh? How about the 'oral law'? The Ten Commandments are definitely not the 'commandments of men'.

When the letter of the law is demanded from the pulpit you are hearing the "commandments of men". We are to serve according to the "newness of the spirit" now, (Rom. 7).

Studyin'2Show
Mar 10th 2008, 11:25 PM
You appear to require the keeping of the sabbath for the Christian walk. Many NT passages discourage this too (Rom. 7, Hebrews, entire book, Galatians, entire book).

The Christian is not bound by the OC law for salvation and for his walk. We are "not under the law but under grace" in respect to all. The newness of the spirit is the NC principle.

You are free in Christ to bag groceries on the NC sabbath.Once again, I'll state the obvious. You are not responding to what I post, you are responding to what you think I mean. Not once have I even implied that keeping the Sabbath is 'required' to be a believer. In fact, I see it as a gift from God FOR us as Yeshua said. If you choose not to take advantage of the gift you've been given that's your choice. :dunno: Now, in the future please try to limit your responses to what I have actually posted. ;)

God Bless!

IWantMoshiach
Mar 11th 2008, 03:49 AM
But Hebrews does say the old was made obsolete and ready to disappear. The question is, what is he talking about? He answers that in Hebrews 9. It's the regulations of the old covenant.

We still keep it all in Spirit but not in letter.

Yes I know what Hebrews says :D...im just questioning the theology of hebrews if it is made obseolete surely the Almighty would have alluded to this somewhere in the law, prophets, or writings...but He does not...and neither does Christ...so where is the author of hebrews getting his theology :hmm:...

Thethinker,

I understand what paul said, but doesn't it make you wonder where he got his theology from...its not found in the scriptures anywhere...the constant message of the law and prophets and the writings is a return to the law of the Almighty not a nullifying of it...oy does anyone study the "old testament" anymore :confused...the "new" covenant and the "old" covenant do not have to cancel each other out

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 05:11 AM
Once again, I'll state the obvious. You are not responding to what I post, you are responding to what you think I mean. Not once have I even implied that keeping the Sabbath is 'required' to be a believer. In fact, I see it as a gift from God FOR us as Yeshua said. If you choose not to take advantage of the gift you've been given that's your choice. :dunno: Now, in the future please try to limit your responses to what I have actually posted. ;)

Studying,

I do support the 'spirit' of the shabbat. I have said, it is on your lips and in your heart. But there are those who do not stop where you do. They want the Law back.

2Witnesses

God Bless!
Studying,

I do support the 'spirit' of the shabbat. I have said, it is on your lips and in your heart. But there are those who do not stop where you do. They want the Law back.

2Witnesses

thethinker
Mar 11th 2008, 08:12 AM
Once again, I'll state the obvious. You are not responding to what I post, you are responding to what you think I mean. Not once have I even implied that keeping the Sabbath is 'required' to be a believer. In fact, I see it as a gift from God FOR us as Yeshua said. If you choose not to take advantage of the gift you've been given that's your choice. :dunno: Now, in the future please try to limit your responses to what I have actually posted. ;)

God Bless!

I could have been more clear. I was not saying that you implied that we must keep the literal sabbath to be saved. I was trying to say that once we have ceased from our works salvation we have kept the sabbath PERFECTLY and that no more is required of us. We eternally rest in Christ.

IWantMosiach said: "I understand what paul said, but doesn't it make you wonder where he got his theology from...its not found in the scriptures anywhere...the constant message of the law and prophets and the writings is a return to the law of the Almighty not a nullifying of it...oy does anyone study the "old testament" anymore :confused...the "new" covenant and the "old" covenant do not have to cancel each other out"


Paul's theology was revealed to him from the Holy Spirit. And the New Covenant does indeed cancel out the Old Covenant. Hebrews 8 says that when God said the word "new" He meant that the old is made "obsolete" and ready to "vanish away".

Okay everyone. When I count to three everybody say the words "NEW covenant". One, two, and three..... If you said these words you necessarily inferred that the OLD IS GONE!! FOREVER!!

When God said "new" He meant that the old is to go for good! But I guess that there will always be some form of judaizing even in our age. :(

Studyin'2Show
Mar 11th 2008, 10:26 AM
I think something that is missed by those who want to label everyone who loves the Law of God 'judaizer' is that there was and IS a law that has not come from God but that has been added on by man. The 'oral law' sometimes called 'fence laws' are that which rabbinic Jews still hold to today. These are rules and traditions that are found NOWHERE in God's word but yet they still to this day put themselves UNDER these things not of God.

Here's an example. In Acts 10 Peter tells Cornelius about the Law.

Acts 10:28 - Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

The FACT is that nowhere in God's Law does it say ANYTHING about a Jew not keeping company with or going into the home of a foreigner. Nowhere! So, why did Peter believe before that this was so? Because these commandments of men had been so ingrained into them that they considered them as from God. There were those who wanted to both then and now, enforce these laws (now called rabbinic law) upon the new believers. THESE are the judaizers! They wanted to put the 'law' (oral law) upon the back of us and Paul spoke against them. The Law of God is not bad or burdensome. Someone mentioned 613 laws within the Law of God. Well, the rabbinic law has literally thousands and they ARE burdensome. Once one is able to recognize the difference between the two (God's Law & rabbinic law) much between the tapestry of the Apostolic and the Hebrew Scriptures really falls into place. :D

Oh BTW, God's Law now being written on my heart, for me, means that it is now my DESIRE to follow God's lead not that I am FORCED to do one thing or another. There is so much gold in God's Law that is good for me. I believe it is a gift from God. :)

God Bless!

diffangle
Mar 11th 2008, 11:50 AM
Diffangle,
The "doctrines and commandments" of men are these: All teachings that carry over an old covenant law in to the new covenant.

So you're right in a sense. The problem is that you don't define your terms.

Think
Since Col. 2 is talking about the gnostic practices of voluntary humility and worshipping of angels(but you say it's talking about the Old Covenant)... can you tell me where those things are commanded in the Old Covenant?

Brother Mark
Mar 11th 2008, 01:04 PM
Yes I know what Hebrews says :D...im just questioning the theology of hebrews if it is made obseolete surely the Almighty would have alluded to this somewhere in the law, prophets, or writings...but He does not...and neither does Christ...so where is the author of hebrews getting his theology :hmm:...

And that my friend, is the crux of the issue. Is Hebrews inspired scripture or not?

Paul pretty much said similar things throughout his writings. We no longer live by the letter of the law but the Spirit of the Law. All believers are priest now and what does that mean in every day worship? What are our priestly duties unto God? It really doesn't have to do with the old temple any more. There is a new temple, one not built with hands.

Keep in mind, that God was the one that ripped the veil from top to bottom, not man.

thethinker
Mar 11th 2008, 03:22 PM
Since Col. 2 is talking about the gnostic practices of voluntary humility and worshipping of angels(but you say it's talking about the Old Covenant)... can you tell me where those things are commanded in the Old Covenant?

I am not following you here bro. Verses 13-14 explicitly says that we have been forgiven all trespasses by the "handwritings" written against us". These codes "nailed to the cross".

If these "written codes" were commandments written by men, then Christ died to cancel our sins against men. But our offenses were against God. Were they not? Were our trespasses against men or God?

The "doctrines of men" in this passage are those teachings that keep the old covenant codes alive. The sabbath is included in those things that were "nailed to the cross". God has established a new covenant. "For you are not under the law, but under grace....Therefore, standfast in the liberty wherein Christ has made you free" (Galatians).

Christ did not free you from man's laws. He freed you from God's laws.

Semi-tortured
Mar 11th 2008, 03:38 PM
I play soccer in a Sunday Men's league. That is physical work, but it is done for fun and recreation. Would that be considered breaking the Sabbath in terms of the old covenant? Just curious what other people think. :hmm:

diffangle
Mar 11th 2008, 04:44 PM
[quote=thethinker;1569129]I am not following you here bro. Verses 13-14 explicitly says that we have been forgiven all trespasses by the "handwritings" written against us". These codes "nailed to the cross".

If you would read what I said in this post( http://bibleforums.org/showpos...8&postcount=29) and read what S2S said about the fence laws of the pharisees that started fogging the lines between YHWH's Law and man's law then you'd understand. Look at verse 18...

Col. 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels

Again, where does YHWH's Law command these things?




If these "written codes" were commandments written by men, then Christ died to cancel our sins against men. But our offenses were against God. Were they not? Were our trespasses against men or God?

One of the things He did was come to straighten out what was the actual Word of YHWH and what was the word of men. He makes many references to man's traditions, look at what He says when questioned by the pharisees on why His disciples don't wash their hands(handwashing... a man-made commandment) before eating...

Mat 15:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=15&verse=3&version=kjv#3)But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?


Mat 15:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=15&verse=9&version=kjv#9)But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.




The "doctrines of men" in this passage are those teachings that keep the old covenant codes alive. The sabbath is included in those things that were "nailed to the cross". God has established a new covenant. "For you are not under the law, but under grace....Therefore, standfast in the liberty wherein Christ has made you free" (Galatians).

Where is voluntary humility and worshipping of angels in the Old Covenant?



Christ did not free you from man's laws. He freed you from God's laws.

Christ is God, that doesn't make sense that He would free you from His Laws...

Mat 7:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=7&verse=21&version=kjv#21)¶Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=7&verse=22&version=kjv#22)Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=7&verse=23&version=kjv#23)And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.(iniquity/anomia- Strong's G458- meaning the condition of without law, contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness)

thethinker
Mar 11th 2008, 05:42 PM
[quote]

If you would read what I said in this post( http://bibleforums.org/showpos...8&postcount=29) and read what S2S said about the fence laws of the pharisees that started fogging the lines between YHWH's Law and man's law then you'd understand. Look at verse 18...

Col. 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels
Again, where does YHWH's Law command these things?
One of the things He did was come to straighten out what was the actual Word of YHWH and what was the word of men. He makes many references to man's traditions, look at what He says when questioned by the pharisees on why His disciples don't wash their hands(handwashing... a man-made commandment) before eating...
Mat 15:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=15&verse=3&version=kjv#3)But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=15&verse=9&version=kjv#9)But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Where is voluntary humility and worshipping of angels in the Old Covenant?
Christ is God, that doesn't make sense that He would free you from His Laws.

Diff,
You are in essence saying that Christ died to forgive my trespasses against the doctrines of men. But real trespasses are against God's codes ALONE.

Furthermore, the things that were "nailed to the cross" are said to be a "shadow of things to come. But Christ is the substance" (verse 17).

So what you're really saying is that God adopted the philosophies of men and called them "shadows" of things to come with Christ being the "substance" of those things.

Do you really expect me to believe that "trespasses" are against the codes of men which are "shadows" of "good" things and of which Christ is the "substance"? The commandments of men were a "shadow" of Christ? He is the "substance" of MEN'S commandments? Jeez! :B

You say that "it doesn't make sense that Christ would free me from God's law". But that's exactly what Paul said:

"But now we have been delivered from the law...so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6).
And,
"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6).

It all makes perfect sense to me! But it is altogether unintelligible to the one that carries his old covenant baggage around.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 11th 2008, 05:42 PM
I play soccer in a Sunday Men's league. That is physical work, but it is done for fun and recreation. Would that be considered breaking the Sabbath in terms of the old covenant? Just curious what other people think. :hmm:Whichever side of the issue you come in on, that shouldn't be considered breaking Sabbath. Unless you are catholic or some other denomination that believes the Sabbath has been changed from Friday evening through Saturday evening to all day Sunday. ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Mar 11th 2008, 05:51 PM
Diff,
You are in essence saying that Christ died to forgive my trespasses against the doctrines of men. But real trespasses are against God's codes ALONE.

Furthermore, the things that were "nailed to the cross" are said to be a "shadow of things to come. But Christ is the substance" (verse 17).

So what you're really saying is that God adopted the philosophies of men and called them "shadows" of things to come with Christ being the "substance" of those things.

Do you really expect me to believe that "trespasses" are against the codes of men which are "shadows" of "good" things and of which Christ is the "substance"? The commandments of men were a "shadow" of Christ? He is the "substance" of MEN'S commandments? Jeez! :B

You say that "it doesn't make sense that Christ would free me from God's law". But that's exactly what Paul said:

"But now we have been delivered from the law...so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6).
And,
"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6).

It all makes perfect sense to me! But it is altogether unintelligible to the one that carries his old covenant baggage around.I think you are completely missing her point. Of course Yeshua's sacrifice covers all sin. That was not what was being referred to. Yeshua only said that He did not come to destroy the Law (which is the Law of God). However, many times Paul writes of the law and most times is NOT speaking of the Law of God, but the law of man that both diffangle and I are attempt to make you aware of. ;)

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 05:58 PM
Diff,
You are in essence saying that Christ died to forgive my trespasses against the doctrines of men. But real trespasses are against God's codes ALONE.

Furthermore, the things that were "nailed to the cross" are said to be a "shadow of things to come. But Christ is the substance" (verse 17).

So what you're really saying is that God adopted the philosophies of men and called them "shadows" of things to come with Christ being the "substance" of those things.

Do you really expect me to believe that "trespasses" are against the codes of men which are "shadows" of "good" things and of which Christ is the "substance"? The commandments of men were a "shadow" of Christ? He is the "substance" of MEN'S commandments? Jeez! :B

You say that "it doesn't make sense that Christ would free me from God's law". But that's exactly what Paul said:

"But now we have been delivered from the law...so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6).
And,
"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6).

It all makes perfect sense to me! But it is altogether unintelligible to the one that carries his old covenant baggage around.

Thinker..

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




The Law was for Israel in the flesh! Romans 7 teaches us this plainly:

1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. 4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ROM%207&version=31;#fen-NIV-28082a)] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.



Israel, as long as he was a 'child' of the flesh, was under the overseership of the Law. But when Christ came, and fullness came, and the time of the fulfillment came, all who entered Christ, left the flesh, having died with Christ. And if you are not in the flesh, you are not under the Law.

I keep trying to make this point and no one seems to get it. Christ removed, by His life, His death, His resurrection, the 'COVENANT' of the Law for righteousness. He did not remove the holiness of God.


But the eating of pork now, had NOTHING to do with the holiness of God! And so with most of the Law, the 613.



2Witnesses

thethinker
Mar 11th 2008, 06:16 PM
I think you are completely missing her point. Of course Yeshua's sacrifice covers all sin. That was not what was being referred to. Yeshua only said that He did not come to destroy the Law (which is the Law of God). However, many times Paul writes of the law and most times is NOT speaking of the Law of God, but the law of man that both diffangle and I are attempt to make you aware of. ;)

S2S,
Paul is speaking about the moral law in Romans 7. He said, "I had not known sin except the law had said "You shall not covet". This is the law that we have been delivered from. This is God's law.

So you're saying that the law "You shall not covet" is MAN'S law? It is by MAN'S law that Paul came to the knowledge of sin? What Bible are y'all reading?

What is it about serving in the "newness of the spirit" that you don't like?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 11th 2008, 06:18 PM
Israel, as long as he was a 'child' of the flesh, was under the overseership of the Law. But when Christ came, and fullness came, and the time of the fulfillment came, all who entered Christ, left the flesh, having died with Christ. And if you are not in the flesh, you are not under the Law.2WitnessesAbsolutely! Which is why the Law is no longer simply written on cold, hard stone. IT is now written on our soft, willing hearts. The Law of God was never bad for man. It is the medium that has changed. We, as believers, should be matured from the child that needed a tutor to an adult that has LEARNED.

When I was a child, I got in very big trouble once when my mother saw me crossing the street without looking both ways. I was UNDER her authority and I had broken HER law (and my bottom paid the price for it :D). Now, as an adult, I no longer have to fear because I am no longer UNDER my mother's authority or her law. However, I have learned that the 'law' my mother gave me was GOOD for me! I LEARNED from it! And now I don't cross the street without looking both ways. :) But not because I fear my mother's penalty and not because I feel I have to earn something. I do it because I have learned that it is good for me and I desire to do that which is good for me.

The Law of God is good FOR us. Just as Yeshua said that the Sabbath was made FOR man. I have learned from the tutor, though I am no longer UNDER that tutor. :D

God Bless!

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 06:27 PM
Absolutely! Which is why the Law is no longer simply written on cold, hard stone. IT is now written on our soft, willing hearts. The Law of God was never bad for man. It is the medium that has changed. We, as believers, should be matured from the child that needed a tutor to an adult that has LEARNED.

When I was a child, I got in very big trouble once when my mother saw me crossing the street without looking both ways. I was UNDER her authority and I had broken HER law (and my bottom paid the price for it :D). Now, as an adult, I no longer have to fear because I am no longer UNDER my mother's authority or her law. However, I have learned that the 'law' my mother gave me was GOOD for me! I LEARNED from it! And now I don't cross the street without looking both ways. :) But not because I fear my mother's penalty and not because I feel I have to earn something. I do it because I have learned that it is good for me and I desire to do that which is good for me.

The Law of God is good FOR us. Just as Yeshua said that the Sabbath was made FOR man. I have learned from the tutor, though I am no longer UNDER that tutor. :D

God Bless!

Studin..

Did the Law command one to be circumcised, a Jew? If they were not circumcised they were 'cut-off', from the people because they broke the covenant.

Is it sin today for a Jew not to be circumcised? Is it a sin for a 'believing Jew' not to be circumcised? Is it a sin for a Gentile male not to be circumcised?

2Witnesses

Studyin'2Show
Mar 11th 2008, 06:34 PM
S2S,
Paul is speaking about the moral law in Romans 7. He said, "I had not known sin except the law had said "You shall not covet". This is the law that we have been delivered from. This is God's law.

So you're saying that the law "You shall not covet" is MAN'S law? It is by MAN'S law that Paul came to the knowledge of sin? What Bible are y'all reading?

What is it about serving in the "newness of the spirit" that you don't like?thethinker,
What I said was that most times, Paul was not speaking of God's Law, and I will stand by that statement. The discussion of the different between the law of man and God's Law came up because someone had mentioned this scripture:

Colossians 2:13-14
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

In this instance Paul is NOT speaking of God's Law and there is a really big clue that show this. He spoke of requirements that were AGAINST us, which was CONTRARY to us. A simple reading of the Psalms especially Psalm 119, will show anyone interested that God's Law is good for us and NOT against us. Also, Yeshua IS God and He said that His commandments are not burdensome. These things that were nailed to the cross WERE burdensome. They were the rabbinic law; the oral law. The law that made Peter say that Jews were not permitted to go into the house of a Gentile, though NOWHERE in God's Law will you find that.

Look, we are all followers of Yeshua Messiah. If you interpret things differently, fine. I haven't made any lofty statement against you or anyone with your viewpoint. But when you all start throwing around the word 'judaizers' and start accusing those who love God's Law of believing a works-based salvation, then you have crossed the line. If you don't understand WHY we may do what we do, simply ASK and we'll share our interpretation. Don't assume anything! ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Mar 11th 2008, 06:52 PM
Studin..

Did the Law command one to be circumcised, a Jew? If they were not circumcised they were 'cut-off', from the people because they broke the covenant.

Is it sin today for a Jew not to be circumcised? Is it a sin for a 'believing Jew' not to be circumcised? Is it a sin for a Gentile male not to be circumcised?

2WitnessesI believe the SPIRIT has already been discussed in this issue. ;) It is the circumcision of the heart that is most important. Now, with that said, As I previously posted, I have learned that God's Law is good for us. Before I was even saved, when I had my son, the doctor (not Jewish) advised us to have him circumcised so I did. Many in the US are circumcised. If you are not circumcised and you want to get circumcised, that's your choice. Paul speaks of the circumcision here:

1 Corinthians 7:18-19
18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

In this passage he tells those who are circumcised not to become uncircumcised. :o How do you do that? You don't if you are talking of removing foreskin. However, the term 'circumcision' was also a term at the time which meant either those who had been born Jewish or those who had gone through the ritual of converting to Judaism. When understood in this context, you can see how he would be telling those former Gentiles who had gone through ritual conversion, that they did not need to undo that act but that they could simply serve Him as they are.

BTW, in verse 19 it says that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but that keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Is it your position that the Ten Commandments are not the commandments of God so this does not apply to them? :hmm:

diffangle
Mar 11th 2008, 09:18 PM
Diff,
You are in essence saying that Christ died to forgive my trespasses against the doctrines of men. But real trespasses are against God's codes ALONE.

Furthermore, the things that were "nailed to the cross" are said to be a "shadow of things to come. But Christ is the substance" (verse 17).

So what you're really saying is that God adopted the philosophies of men and called them "shadows" of things to come with Christ being the "substance" of those things.

Do you really expect me to believe that "trespasses" are against the codes of men which are "shadows" of "good" things and of which Christ is the "substance"? The commandments of men were a "shadow" of Christ? He is the "substance" of MEN'S commandments? Jeez! :B

You say that "it doesn't make sense that Christ would free me from God's law". But that's exactly what Paul said:

"But now we have been delivered from the law...so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6).
And,
"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6).

It all makes perfect sense to me! But it is altogether unintelligible to the one that carries his old covenant baggage around.
I will address this post later when I have more time but in the meantime, could you please answer my question to you... since you think Col. 2 is about the Old Covenant, where is the worship of angels and voluntary humility commanded in the OC? :confused

Brother Mark
Mar 13th 2008, 01:03 PM
Not being a Hebrew scholar... but I think it is referring to the commandments.... then also, the doctrines of men.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Hebrews teaches that the regulations of the covenant have been replaced.

Clifton
Mar 18th 2008, 12:45 AM
Papyrus fragments were discovered in the late 19th century at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, and with newer technology they been getting deciphered and unveiled since then. The term for these is:
"The Oxyrhynchus Papyri"

Here is one of the surviving fragments pertaining to Jesus:

Logion 2

Jesus taught saying, “If you do not fast, you will not find the Kingdom of Heaven. And if you do not remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy, you shall never see your Heavenly Father.”

I have yet to discover just what location in one or more of the Gospels that would be at;

However, for Logion 10, I know where this would be:
“The Kingdom of Heaven is within you. Only he who knows himself can find it.”

At Luke 17:21.

Blessings.

2Witnesses
Mar 18th 2008, 07:40 PM
I believe the SPIRIT has already been discussed in this issue. ;) It is the circumcision of the heart that is most important. Now, with that said, As I previously posted, I have learned that God's Law is good for us. Before I was even saved, when I had my son, the doctor (not Jewish) advised us to have him circumcised so I did. Many in the US are circumcised. If you are not circumcised and you want to get circumcised, that's your choice. Paul speaks of the circumcision here:

1 Corinthians 7:18-19
18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

In this passage he tells those who are circumcised not to become uncircumcised. :o How do you do that? You don't if you are talking of removing foreskin. However, the term 'circumcision' was also a term at the time which meant either those who had been born Jewish or those who had gone through the ritual of converting to Judaism. When understood in this context, you can see how he would be telling those former Gentiles who had gone through ritual conversion, that they did not need to undo that act but that they could simply serve Him as they are.

BTW, in verse 19 it says that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but that keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Is it your position that the Ten Commandments are not the commandments of God so this does not apply to them? :hmm:

Stud...

Was not circumcision a 'command of God' under the Law? I think we can both agree that it was.

So what did Paul mean by that statement? What if he meant, anything not repeated in the NT, by His holy apostle and prophets, was not a concern.

I have said before, Christ did not replace the holiness of God by His New Covenant. Murder is still wrong! But eating shellfish is not!

So it is not wrong for ANY believer to NOT circumcise. Period!

2Witnesses

Studyin'2Show
Mar 18th 2008, 07:54 PM
Stud...

Was not circumcision a 'command of God' under the Law? I think we can both agree that it was.

So what did Paul mean by that statement? What if he meant, anything not repeated in the NT, by His holy apostle and prophets, was not a concern.

I have said before, Christ did not replace the holiness of God by His New Covenant. Murder is still wrong! But eating shellfish is not!

So it is not wrong for ANY believer to NOT circumcise. Period!

2WitnessesI would hope you would agree that it would be bad for a believer not to be circumcised in their heart. Hence the command to circumcise is still in effect. ;) Is your heart circumcised?

diffangle
Mar 18th 2008, 10:06 PM
I would hope you would agree that it would be bad for a believer not to be circumcised in their heart. Hence the command to circumcise is still in effect. ;) Is your heart circumcised?
Ahhh, that pesky "vain deceit" of the OT...

Deu 10:16 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=10&v=16&t=KJV#16)Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.