PDA

View Full Version : Why is the Christian Sabbath on Sunday?



Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 05:33 PM
Why is the Christian Sabbath on Sunday?

Especially in light of this verse:

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested...

daughter
Mar 10th 2008, 05:36 PM
Christians celebrate Christ's ressurection on a Sunday, but I don't see why we don't also celebrate the Creation on a Saturday. This won't make me popular... but I do tend to think that Friday sunset to Saturday sunset is Sabbath.

2Witnesses
Mar 10th 2008, 05:43 PM
Why is the Christian Sabbath on Sunday?

Especially in light of this verse:

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested...

Fenris,

First of all, it is not a 'shabbat' per se. It is not a day when we do no labor. There is no such prohibition.

But as Daughter said, it is because we celebrate His resurrection. And in this regard, we, by faith 'enter into His rest'. For by faith we have ceased from our works fro righteousness.

So you could say Christ is our shabbat!

But as far as your 'forever' statement, there are many such in Scripture. And they do not always mean forever. Just like the blood offering are not 'forever'. Or the Levites offering blood offerings.

Do you really think we will 'work' 'forever'? Do you really think there will 'always' be a 'need' for the shabbat?

Christ fulfilled all the Law of Moses. And as He said, 'It is finished'. And one day we can say, 'it is finished', 'forever'. But even now we, by faith in Him, have entered into His 'rest'.

2Witnesses

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 05:46 PM
Christians celebrate Christ's ressurection on a Sunday, but I don't see why we don't also celebrate the Creation on a Saturday. This won't make me popular... but I do tend to think that Friday sunset to Saturday sunset is Sabbath.Hmm. Interesting.

HisLeast
Mar 10th 2008, 05:50 PM
:cry: So many good questions and yet only one lifetime to seek the answers.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 05:52 PM
First of all, it is not a 'shabbat' per se. It is not a day when we do no labor. There is no such prohibition.
I thought some do. Isn't that why some states have blue laws?
Maybe I'm mistaken though.


But as far as your 'forever' statement, there are many such in Scripture. And they do not always mean forever. Just like the blood offering are not 'forever'. Or the Levites offering blood offerings.Well, the verse says it is a sign forever. Forever means forever, so far as I know. Even the sacrifices that were 'forever' will be done again, when the Temple is rebuilt.


Do you really think we will 'work' 'forever'? Do you really think there will 'always' be a 'need' for the shabbat?As a sign between man and God? Why not?

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 05:56 PM
:cry: So many good questions and yet only one lifetime to seek the answers.No, no. In the hereafter all will be revealed. To the capacity that each individual is capable of...

2Witnesses
Mar 10th 2008, 06:00 PM
I thought some do. Isn't that why some states have blue laws?
Maybe I'm mistaken though.
Well, the verse says it is a sign forever. Forever means forever, so far as I know. Even the sacrifices that were 'forever' will be done again, when the Temple is rebuilt.
As a sign between man and God? Why not?

Fenris,

When we are last redeemed, we will BE in His presence, and not need any 'signs'.

Many states use to have blue laws. I cannot think of any now. Some churches pushed them. But they have all gone soft. Or is that 'south'?

One day ALL death will end, as I see it. This would include animals. But why? would you need a blood offering in the redemption? (especially since they do not atone).

Here in Israel, everything starts shutting down before 3pm. Many in Israel do not like this. I personally think a day of rest is important. But I would not pass a law. Shabbat is in the heart, and in the tongue.

2Witnesses

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 06:10 PM
Fenris,

When we are last redeemed, we will BE in His presence, and not need any 'signs'.Since that hasn't happened yet, maybe we still need signs? :idea:


Many states use to have blue laws. I cannot think of any now. Some churches pushed them. But they have all gone soft. Or is that 'south'?
So weren't the blue laws about not working on the sabbath?

2Witnesses
Mar 10th 2008, 06:16 PM
Since that hasn't happened yet, maybe we still need signs? :idea:
So weren't the blue laws about not working on the sabbath?

Fenris,

We have a 'sign' with us. It is called a cross. But if you desire a shabath sign, then keep it. That is nothing to me.

And yes, they were churches that felt Christians had a shabath. But, the thinking has changed. And for good reason!

2Witnesses

But if you 'seek after a sign', I would hope it would be the cross

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 06:37 PM
Fenris,

We have a 'sign' with us. It is called a cross. But if you desire a shabath sign, then keep it. That is nothing to me. It's not about what I desire. It's about what God told us to do.

2Witnesses
Mar 10th 2008, 06:40 PM
It's not about what I desire. It's about what God told us to do.

You,

Are so right. And one thing He told you to do was to listen to the Prophet who was to come after Moses, who would be like Moses.

Now, I am sure you have a different view, but 'like Moses' means to me He would be a 'law giver' sent by God. He would be the one to bring that 'new covenant' Jeremiah speaks. And I do mean 'new', not re-newed.

2Witnesses

Fenris,

I know what you are thinking. I know Moses said not to listen to any so called prophet that would lead you from the Law. But Jesus did not do that. He IS the fulfillment of the Law. He is Shabbat! He is Passover. He is Love!

Teke
Mar 10th 2008, 07:15 PM
Why is the Christian Sabbath on Sunday?

Especially in light of this verse:

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested...

Christianity didn't change the sabbath day to Sunday.

"Blue laws" are from 17th century Puritans' and their laws of morality, which carried very harsh penalties. For example, a five-shilling fine for absence from church on the Lord's Day. For a burglary committed on Sunday, in addition to the usual penalties the burglar had an ear cut off, and a third Sunday burglary meant the death penalty, there being no more ears. Lying or swearing earned time in the stocks. There were fines for playing cards, dice, or shuffleboard in public. Drinkers at inns were limited to half a pint of wine, and no alcohol was served after 9 P.M.

The sabbath is still the seventh day, Saturday. Sunday is the first day of the week, and what Christians call the Lord's Day (day of the Resurrection).

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 07:22 PM
Christianity didn't change the sabbath day to Sunday.



The sabbath is still the seventh day, Saturday. Sunday is the first day of the week, and what Christians call the Lord's Day (day of the Resurrection).
Ah, finally. OK, that answers that question.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 07:24 PM
You,

Are so right. And one thing He told you to do was to listen to the Prophet who was to come after Moses, who would be like Moses.Well, there were many such prophets.


Now, I am sure you have a different view, but 'like Moses' means to me He would be a 'law giver' sent by God.If you're going to pick nits, Jesus didn't give laws, he took laws away.


He would be the one to bring that 'new covenant' Jeremiah speaks. And I do mean 'new', not re-newed.It says 'new covenant', not 'new law'.




I know what you are thinking. I know Moses said not to listen to any so called prophet that would lead you from the Law. But Jesus did not do that. He IS the fulfillment of the Law. He is Shabbat! He is Passover. He is Love!I don't even know what that means.

2Witnesses
Mar 10th 2008, 07:26 PM
Ah, finally. OK, that answers that question.

Maybe,

I am wrong about Teke's answer. But I do not think she was saying there IS a Shabbat. Just that Saturday is called the 7th day, an Sunday the first day.

2Witnesses

2Witnesses
Mar 10th 2008, 07:34 PM
Well, there were many such prophets.

If you're going to pick nits, Jesus didn't give laws, he took laws away.
It says 'new covenant', not 'new law'.


I don't even know what that means.

Fenris,

I believe you about that last statement. But again, there was to be 'That Prophet', not refering to the many which would come in His name.

The New Covenant is the Law of the Spirit of Life written upon the heart of the believer. 40 days after Jesus rose, He sent the Spirit. This was just like Moses giving the Law 40 days after Passover.

2Witnesses

Sorry I double posted. I got carried away by the Spirit!

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 07:48 PM
Fenris,

I believe you about that last statement. But again, there was to be 'That Prophet', not refering to the many which would come in His name.Why did you capitalize "That Prophet"? The bible does not make that distinction.


The New Covenant is the Law of the Spirit of Life written upon the heart of the believer. 40 days after Jesus rose, He sent the Spirit. This was just like Moses giving the Law 40 days after Passover.
Right, but again, this is a point of faith and not fact.



Sorry I double posted. I got carried away by the Spirit!:) Quite ok. I see you feel passionately about your faith. Good for you!

Teke
Mar 10th 2008, 07:49 PM
Maybe,

I am wrong about Teke's answer. But I do not think she was saying there IS a Shabbat. Just that Saturday is called the 7th day, an Sunday the first day.

2Witnesses

It is commonly understood that Jews refer to the seventh day as the sabbath day. I wasn't saying that Christians observe that day as the Jews do. But Christianity is aware of the Jewish observance of the day.

Historically, Christians observe the law of the OT also, just not all the same as the Jews do. It is not the Jew who sets the precedence of the feasts of the Lord, but the historic Church. IOW we keep different feasts. Jews keep the OT feasts because they have no fulfillment/fullness as the Church does (that is pretty much the difference).

2Witnesses
Mar 10th 2008, 07:53 PM
Why did you capitalize "That Prophet"? The bible does not make that distinction.

Right, but again, this is a point of faith and not fact.

:) Quite ok. I see you feel passionately about your faith. Good for you!

Thanks Fenris,

I am passionate! I want all to become as I am. That is why I capitalize 'That Prophet'. I think Scripture intended such.

Good answer Teke! I must sleep now! Night!

2Witnesses

daughter
Mar 10th 2008, 08:02 PM
It is commonly understood that Jews refer to the seventh day as the sabbath day. I wasn't saying that Christians observe that day as the Jews do. But Christianity is aware of the Jewish observance of the day.

Historically, Christians observe the law of the OT also, just not all the same as the Jews do. It is not the Jew who sets the precedence of the feasts of the Lord, but the historic Church. IOW we keep different feasts. Jews keep the OT feasts because they have no fulfillment/fullness as the Church does (that is pretty much the difference).
Most of the feasts that the Church keeps have a basis in Judaism though... it's only Christmas that's weirdly off base. (Ha ha! Mary puts her foot in her mouth... AGAIN!)

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 08:10 PM
Most of the feasts that the Church keeps have a basis in Judaism though... it's only Christmas that's weirdly off base. (Ha ha! Mary puts her foot in her mouth... AGAIN!):lol::hug:

I'd rep you for this if I could.

Teke
Mar 10th 2008, 08:18 PM
Most of the feasts that the Church keeps have a basis in Judaism though... it's only Christmas that's weirdly off base. (Ha ha! Mary puts her foot in her mouth... AGAIN!)

Everything about the Church has a basis in OT practices. For instance, priests don't wear robes because they think they look nice. If Jesus appeared as a High Priest He'd be wearing the robes of a High Priest and a mitre (head covering) on His head, same as a bishop does for us.

Any Christian interested in the practices of the early church need only read about them. I've come across instances of the law of the OT observed by bishops of Christianity in writings of early church fathers (for instance, Gregory of Nyssa, 4th century, in preparing to bury his sister, Macrina, followed OT law in covering his parents bodies so he couldn't see them before he laid his sister beside their mother's body). The average lay person didn't busy themselves with such details, they just followed the rules of the Church.

Indeed the ancient Church had a very Jewish flavor to it.;)

As for Christmas, it has it's worldly influence. Which is why the feast is called the Nativity.

Ayala
Mar 10th 2008, 08:32 PM
A good passage for this discussion.

Romans 14:5-8

In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God. For we don't live for ourselves or die for ourselves. If we live, it's to honor the Lord. And if we die, it's to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

menJesus
Mar 10th 2008, 09:08 PM
I thought some do. Isn't that why some states have blue laws?
Maybe I'm mistaken though.
Well, the verse says it is a sign forever. Forever means forever, so far as I know. Even the sacrifices that were 'forever' will be done again, when the Temple is rebuilt.
As a sign between man and God? Why not?


This is a question that has burned in me for a week or so now. Is forever forever? Did God say what He meant, here?And did He mean what He SAID???

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 09:24 PM
This is a question that has burned in me for a week or so now. Is forever forever? Did God say what He meant, here?And did He mean what He SAID???I guess the answer to that depends on who you are. ;)

menJesus
Mar 10th 2008, 09:44 PM
I am a christian who is trying to learn and live, as best I can, the laws of God.

I think this would be a great subject for a thread: Is forever forever???

And for this, I defer to you... ;)

Fenris
Mar 10th 2008, 09:58 PM
I think this would be a great subject for a thread: Is forever forever???

And for this, I defer to you... ;):lol: hahaha very good!

Let me read a bit and make a thread on the subject.

menJesus
Mar 10th 2008, 10:03 PM
:) Oh, thank God! And thank you! :)

markedward
Mar 10th 2008, 11:30 PM
If you're going to pick nits, Jesus didn't give laws, he took laws away.
It says 'new covenant', not 'new law'.
Technically speaking, the Christian belief is not that Jesus "took laws away," but that He takes away our sins produced by them.

The Laws are still in place; Jesus did not take them "away" (He Himself stated He did not come to "abolish" them, but to "fulfill" them). The best that this can be described is that the Laws are still "here," but Jesus completely followed the Laws in place of us. This results in two options for the individual:

1- Follow the Law perfectly. This, however, is simply impossible because of our sinful nature, and anyone who tries to seek salvation through the Law alone will be condemned by even a single sin. In the eyes of God, even a single sin results in condemnation.

or

2 - Allow Jesus, who did follow the Law perfectly, to take the place of the individual in the eyes of God. Where we are incapable of following the Law perfectly, Jesus stands in our place so that we appear perfect through Him. Our sins, as a result, are counted among those that Jesus took upon Himself on the cross.

Jesus summarized the Law in the form of two commandments: Love God, and Love others. With those two spoken, the rest of the Laws stem out of just those two. The law that says Don't steal? Falls under "Love others." The law that says Don't commit idolatry? Falls under "Love God." Heck, "Love others" falls under "Love God" because loving God includes loving what He made, which would in turn include "others."

Jesus held the Laws in high regard and He even told people to go "Do as the Laws of Moses say."

So, technically speaking, no, Jesus did not "take the Law away." What He takes away is the condemnation brought on by the Law.

Teke
Mar 11th 2008, 12:56 AM
Jesus didn't give laws, he took laws away.



What laws did He take away?

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 05:25 AM
Technically speaking, the Christian belief is not that Jesus "took laws away," but that He takes away our sins produced by them.

The Laws are still in place; Jesus did not take them "away" (He Himself stated He did not come to "abolish" them, but to "fulfill" them). The best that this can be described is that the Laws are still "here," but Jesus completely followed the Laws in place of us. This results in two options for the individual:

1- Follow the Law perfectly. This, however, is simply impossible because of our sinful nature, and anyone who tries to seek salvation through the Law alone will be condemned by even a single sin. In the eyes of God, even a single sin results in condemnation.

Mark...

Good info. Christ, by His death, took away the condemnation of the Law. Which means, He took away the Covenant of the Law, for righteousness.

So, to say eating pork is a sin, is not true. How are we not condemned if we eat pork? But you are condemned if you eat and think you cannot.

2Witnesses

or

2 - Allow Jesus, who did follow the Law perfectly, to take the place of the individual in the eyes of God. Where we are incapable of following the Law perfectly, Jesus stands in our place so that we appear perfect through Him. Our sins, as a result, are counted among those that Jesus took upon Himself on the cross.

Jesus summarized the Law in the form of two commandments: Love God, and Love others. With those two spoken, the rest of the Laws stem out of just those two. The law that says Don't steal? Falls under "Love others." The law that says Don't commit idolatry? Falls under "Love God." Heck, "Love others" falls under "Love God" because loving God includes loving what He made, which would in turn include "others."

Jesus held the Laws in high regard and He even told people to go "Do as the Laws of Moses say."

So, technically speaking, no, Jesus did not "take the Law away." What He takes away is the condemnation brought on by the Law.

Mark...

Good info. Christ, by His death, took away the condemnation of the Law. Which means, He took away the Covenant of the Law, for righteousness.

So, to say eating pork is a sin, is not true. How are we not condemned if we eat pork? But you are condemned if you eat and think you cannot.

2Witnesses

daughter
Mar 11th 2008, 09:28 AM
I was thinking... it might look as though Jesus took laws away, but that may be because the laws were multiplied. I was reading Deuteronomy yesterday with my son, and we got to the part where Moses says, "don't add to these laws, and don't take away from them." And I thought... I know that a lot of Jewish practises at the time of Jesus were results of "hedging the Torah." Isn't hedging the Torah a form of "adding" to what Moses said?

The example I can think of is with food. I'm vegan, so this won't affect me, but if I wasn't vegan I'd be trying to stick to a kosher diet anyway. However... would I necessarily have two ovens to bake in? There's no law that there should be two ovens, so isn't it placing an unecessary burden on people to say we need them? Different pots and pans I can understand, because of the risk of cross contamination (my son ended up in hospital as a child because of accidental exposure to dairy products) but different ovens isn't something Moses asked for.

And yes, I know I'm not Jewish, but I still think we should take the Mosaic laws very seriously. Most of us don't take them seriously enough though.

I tend to think that Jesus "unhedged" the Torah... He didn't destroy it, but fulfilled it. I see Him as the fulfillment of sacrifice, the High Priest, and Messiah. But I don't think He took away any laws. He shone a new light on them...

Also, even if Christians don't feel they should obey the Laws of Moses, I've wondered a lot about why we don't at least pay more attention to where our meat comes from. The council at Jerusalem said that Gentile believers should refrain from eating strangled animals. But nobody follows that.

I think it was perfectly realistic for the Jewish Church (Christian believers) to acknowledge that a Gentile doesn't have to become a Jew to believe in the Jewish Messiah. Fenris has pointed out himself that Jews don't expect Gentiles to bear the burden of the Law. But the Jerusalem Council didn't suggest that we should despise the Law, and neither did Jesus.

So, why do so many Christians despise the Law?

I've read some really weird opinions on various forums... people who believe that Jews worship Moses, people who believe that Judaism is a purely works based religion with no room for Grace, and even Christians who say that the Ten Commandments are no longer necessary because we're under "Grace" not "Law." I've read of people laughing at a Jew because he had a mezuzzah on his door at work, and saying, "that won't protect you from me", as though it was a lucky charm - and not realising how off base and offensive such behaviour is.

What I'm saying is, we should pay attention to ALL the Bible, not just those bits we happen to like most. I find the descriptions of Temple Sacrifice in the the books of Moses really difficult... but I read them, and understand them... because without understanding the necessity of those sacrifices, how are we ever to know how serious sin is, and how great a thing Christ did for us in becoming Sin for us, and dying the death in our place?

When God says forever, by the way, I think He means "forever". We can do a word study on that elsewhere.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 12:14 PM
Technically speaking, the Christian belief is not that Jesus "took laws away," but that He takes away our sins produced by them.That's fine for the things we are supposed to not do. What about the things we are supposed to do?




1- Follow the Law perfectly. This, however, is simply impossible because of our sinful nature, and anyone who tries to seek salvation through the Law alone will be condemned by even a single sin. In the eyes of God, even a single sin results in condemnation.This belief can not be found in Judaism.


2 - Allow Jesus, who did follow the Law perfectly, to take the place of the individual in the eyes of God. Where we are incapable of following the Law perfectly, Jesus stands in our place so that we appear perfect through Him. Our sins, as a result, are counted among those that Jesus took upon Himself on the cross.Again, not found in Judaism. It is incumbent on each individual to do their part, not rely on another. Further, as I have already stated, the entire law does not apply to any one person. Some laws are only given to Israelites, or cohen-priests, or men, or women.

Not to be blasphemous, but only a woman is required to immerse in water after having her monthly period. Did Jesus have a period and immerse in water thereafter? Did Jesus sin and bring a sacrifice, then act as a cohen-priest and slaughter his own sacrifice? Did he grow crops and bring first-fruits to Jerusalem, and then accept the gift from himself?

Think it through.


Jesus summarized the Law in the form of two commandments: Love God, and Love others. With those two spoken, the rest of the Laws stem out of just those two. The law that says Don't steal? Falls under "Love others." The law that says Don't commit idolatry? Falls under "Love God." Heck, "Love others" falls under "Love God" because loving God includes loving what He made, which would in turn include "others."Right, and this is why I say that Judaism is law-based and Christianity is principle-based.

Now, I won't deny that those two rules are cardinal in Judaism as well. But how does one show that they love God? By following His laws.



So, technically speaking, no, Jesus did not "take the Law away." What He takes away is the condemnation brought on by the Law.
Which is arguing semantics if one is not obligated to follow it.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 12:15 PM
What laws did He take away?Pretty much all of them, is my understanding.

Teke
Mar 11th 2008, 01:01 PM
Pretty much all of them, is my understanding.

If that were true then they wouldn't be in our bibles. I have mentioned to you before, that the scripture, both OT and NT is what is known as "canon" in Christianity, which means it is the law. A Christian that tells you otherwise, is misinformed. And there are additional canons which aren't in the bible, but are recorded in historical documents of the Church, having been decided by councils.

That you are told any different, should be understandable by you, as you understand how there are Jews outside of Judaism who don't understand Judaism because they are not within it, but outside of it. It is the same with the Church.

However, I believe we both understand that one cannot take the scriptures, be it OT or NT and establish their own righteousness without the whole.;)

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 01:26 PM
I was thinking... it might look as though Jesus took laws away, but that may be because the laws were multiplied. I was reading Deuteronomy yesterday with my son, and we got to the part where Moses says, "don't add to these laws, and don't take away from them." And I thought... I know that a lot of Jewish practises at the time of Jesus were results of "hedging the Torah." Isn't hedging the Torah a form of "adding" to what Moses said?Well, a couple of points. First, the rabbis only made 5 new laws. I have posted on this in the past. The rabbis did erect a 'fence' around existing laws, in accordance with an understanding of Leviticus 18:30 "Observe my observances". The rabbis were bound by the dictum not to make rules that are impossible to follow, and any rabbinical decree that was not followed by the majority of religious Jews was rendered void. Over the millenia a few did fall by the wayside for that very reason.


The example I can think of is with food. I'm vegan, so this won't affect me, but if I wasn't vegan I'd be trying to stick to a kosher diet anyway. However... would I necessarily have two ovens to bake in?No.


There's no law that there should be two ovens, so isn't it placing an unecessary burden on people to say we need them?No one says one needs two ovens.


Different pots and pans I can understand, because of the risk of cross contamination (my son ended up in hospital as a child because of accidental exposure to dairy products) but different ovens isn't something Moses asked for.He didn't. :)


And yes, I know I'm not Jewish, but I still think we should take the Mosaic laws very seriously. Most of us don't take them seriously enough though. Many Jews don't either, for shame.


I tend to think that Jesus "unhedged" the Torah... He didn't destroy it, but fulfilled it. I see Him as the fulfillment of sacrifice, the High Priest, and Messiah. But I don't think He took away any laws. He shone a new light on them...Right, and that;s certainly a belief that one could ascribe to. It just doesn't fall within traditional Jewish understanding of why God gave us the law in the first place. The law serves many purposes, not one of which is a 'gotcha' from God.



I think it was perfectly realistic for the Jewish Church (Christian believers) to acknowledge that a Gentile doesn't have to become a Jew to believe in the Jewish Messiah. Fenris has pointed out himself that Jews don't expect Gentiles to bear the burden of the Law. But the Jerusalem Council didn't suggest that we should despise the Law, and neither did Jesus.

So, why do so many Christians despise the Law? Interesting points.


I've read some really weird opinions on various forums... people who believe that Jews worship Moses, people who believe that Judaism is a purely works based religion with no room for Grace, and even Christians who say that the Ten Commandments are no longer necessary because we're under "Grace" not "Law." I've read of people laughing at a Jew because he had a mezuzzah on his door at work, and saying, "that won't protect you from me", as though it was a lucky charm - and not realising how off base and offensive such behaviour is.Again, interesting points.



When God says forever, by the way, I think He means "forever". We can do a word study on that elsewhere.

I intend to start a thread on this.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 01:27 PM
If that were true then they wouldn't be in our bibles. I have mentioned to you before, that the scripture, both OT and NT is what is known as "canon" in Christianity, which means it is the law. A Christian that tells you otherwise, is misinformed.
Then why don't you keep kosher?

Teke
Mar 11th 2008, 01:55 PM
Then why don't you keep kosher?

I do, in that "kosher" means keeping appointed fasts. Currently the strictest of them is in force for the Lenten season which precedes Pascha (feast of the Resurrection). No meat (anything with a backbone including fish), no dairy, eggs, cheese, wine or oil. Our homes are cleared of these things.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 02:23 PM
I do, in that "kosher" means keeping appointed fasts.
No, I mean do you eat shellfish or pork?


Currently the strictest of them is in force for the Lenten season which precedes Pascha (feast of the Resurrection). No meat (anything with a backbone including fish), no dairy, eggs, cheese, wine or oil.That's all very good, but where is this commanded in the OT?

Teke
Mar 11th 2008, 02:56 PM
No, I mean do you eat shellfish or pork?

Your asking do I keep a Jewish fast, the answer is no. I am not Jewish. Jesus did not command us all to become Jewish, but to keep the law/commandments. This has always been a matter of council and guidance by God (Holy Spirit).


That's all very good, but where is this commanded in the OT?

Gentiles are not commanded to keep the feasts and fasts of Israel, as if we're Israel. We are not commanded to become Israel, that would be like a repeat of Babel in Genesis.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 03:02 PM
Your asking do I keep a Jewish fast, the answer is no.
It's not a 'fast' it about things we can and cannot eat.

Why does every discussion with you become a debate on the meaning of a word?


I am not Jewish. Jesus did not command us all to become Jewish, but to keep the law/commandments. Not eating pork IS a commandment.

Deuteronomy 14: 8 and the pig, because he has split hooves but does not chew his cud, he is unclean unto you; of their flesh ye shall not eat...



Gentiles are not commanded to keep the feasts and fasts of Israel, as if we're Israel.
This is not about a holiday (feasts and fast, in your vernacular), it is about various animals that are not to be eaten.

Teke
Mar 11th 2008, 03:25 PM
It's not a 'fast' it about things we can and cannot eat.

Why does every discussion with you become a debate on the meaning of a word?


I'm not debating word meanings. Christians call "things we can and cannot eat" a fast.


Not eating pork IS a commandment.

Deuteronomy 14: 8 and the pig, because he has split hooves but does not chew his cud, he is unclean unto you; of their flesh ye shall not eat...


This is not about a holiday (feasts and fast, in your vernacular), it is about various animals that are not to be eaten.

The commandment is specific to a certain group of people, who all present at that time, agreed to.
Are you to judge Gentiles based on your forefathers decisions?

markedward
Mar 11th 2008, 03:28 PM
This belief can not be found in Judaism.It is found in Christianity, hence, the forum.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 03:33 PM
I'm not debating word meanings. Christians call "things we can and cannot eat" a fast.And what gives you the right to decide what parts of the bible you do and don't follow?



The commandment is specific to a certain group of people, who all present at that time, agreed to.Isn't that the entire bible? So none of it applies to you or anyone else. :lol:






Are you to judge Gentiles based on your forefathers decisions?
No, but they weren't given the bible either.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 03:34 PM
It is found in Christianity, hence, the forum.
I know.

But it explains why Jews don't see Jesus as necessary.

Teke
Mar 11th 2008, 03:59 PM
And what gives you the right to decide what parts of the bible you do and don't follow?

As an individual it is not my right to decide anything. Just as you abide by what your group has decided, so do I. The Church is not a democracy, we obey our authority (the Church) or not.


Isn't that the entire bible? So none of it applies to you or anyone else. :lol:

No, that is not the entire of my bible, which includes the NT. Mine doesn't end with the OT alone, but with the Messiah in the NT.



No, but they weren't given the bible either.

Well, we weren't at Sinai, but that doesn't mean the underlying praxis is not correct. Which is why I pointed out that the Church made these ancient texts, by council, part of their canon. The Church gave the scriptures to us, not Moses.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 04:07 PM
As an individual it is not my right to decide anything. Just as you abide by what your group has decided, so do I. The Church is not a democracy, we obey our authority (the Church) or not.Ok, so the entire bible is still in effect, less whatever your church takes away.

What about Deuteronomy 12:32? "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."



No, that is not the entire of my bible, which includes the NT. Mine doesn't end with the OT alone, but with the Messiah in the NT.
Right, but none of us were at Sinai. You use that as a criteria for what we are commanded to do...



Well, we weren't at Sinai, but that doesn't mean the underlying praxis is not correct. Which is why I pointed out that the Church made these ancient texts, by council, part of their canon. The Church gave the scriptures to us, not Moses.What gave the church that right?

Teke
Mar 11th 2008, 04:43 PM
Ok, so the entire bible is still in effect, less whatever your church takes away.

The bible, for the Christian, is part of their tradition, it is not a book to go about condemning others by. It offers guidance, but that guidance alone doesn't replace the authority of the Church, which is our structure of authority.


What about Deuteronomy 12:32? "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."

The Church is careful in their observance. Which is why they take council (are conciliar) when approaching such subjects.


Right, but none of us were at Sinai. You use that as a criteria for what we are commanded to do...

No, I'm not using that as a criteria for what we, the Church, are to do or not do. That is your criteria, decided by your council of elders (Moses and the seventy elders) at Sinai. Just as you follow the advice of your rabbis, so do we follow the advice of ours (whom we call fathers).



What gave the church that right?

Jesus Christ gave the authority to the Apostles (the twelve), who in turn appointed others like them, meaning they held the same teaching and understanding of these things.

Our governing body consists of Jesus Christ the Son of God (actually the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and His twelve Apostles. (BTW Jesus also appointed seventy).

Messiah is greater than Moses and thereby has such authority as to appoint new leaders in the faith. This has continued in an unbroken succession within the Church. Meaning each successor followed the Apostles directions completely and unchanging.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 04:56 PM
Messiah is greater than Moses and thereby has such authority as to appoint new leaders in the faith.
Most interesting line in your entire post.

Jews believe that the messiah will not be greater than Moses.

Deuteronomy 34:10 And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face...

diffangle
Mar 11th 2008, 05:41 PM
Why is the Christian Sabbath on Sunday?

Especially in light of this verse:

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested...
Mainly b/c of the Catholic Church in the council of Laodicea and Constantine who married pagan practices with Christianity.

Imo, He means forever when He says forever. ;)

2Witnesses
Mar 11th 2008, 06:05 PM
Mainly b/c of the Catholic Church in the council of Laodicea and Constantine who married pagan practices with Christianity.

Imo, He means forever when He says forever. ;)

Diff...

So, blood offerings are 'forever'? And then Levy is 'forever'? Does blood mean a death? So will one day, not ALL death cease?

There are many 'forevers' which must be understood in light of NT revealtion, as it sheds lights on the shadows of the past OT.

2Witnesses

Frances
Mar 11th 2008, 08:18 PM
Why is the Christian Sabbath on Sunday?...

The Sabbath was inaugarated for the Jews to look back to Creation and is the 7th day of the week..
Christianity looks back to Christ's resurrection on the 1st day of the week.

Teke
Mar 11th 2008, 09:01 PM
Most interesting line in your entire post.

Jews believe that the messiah will not be greater than Moses.

Deuteronomy 34:10 And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face...

Deut. 34:10 is speaking of that time.

What did Moses say in Deut. 18...

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;



Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Deu 18:19 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him.

Sounds to me like The Prophet will be greater than Moses.

diffangle
Mar 11th 2008, 09:12 PM
Diff...

So, blood offerings are 'forever'? And then Levy is 'forever'? Does blood mean a death? So will one day, not ALL death cease?

There are many 'forevers' which must be understood in light of NT revealtion, as it sheds lights on the shadows of the past OT.

2Witnesses
As far as I'm concerned we will eternally need His blood... so the blood offering is forever. Also, the animal sacrifice will happen again, read Zech 14.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2008, 09:13 PM
Deut. 34:10 is speaking of that time. But the bible was written during Moses's lifetime. It would have been trivial to say that no greater prophet arose than him in his lifetime! :lol:


What did Moses say in Deut. 18...
...
Sounds to me like The Prophet will be greater than Moses.I don't see why you say that.

Teke
Mar 11th 2008, 09:45 PM
But the bible was written during Moses's lifetime. It would have been trivial to say that no greater prophet arose than him in his lifetime! :lol:

Then I suppose the scripture is being trivial in stating a historical fact of that time.


I don't see why you say that.

Your evading the scripture and what Moses said to them.:cool:

daughter
Mar 12th 2008, 10:39 AM
Diff...

So, blood offerings are 'forever'? And then Levy is 'forever'? Does blood mean a death? So will one day, not ALL death cease?

There are many 'forevers' which must be understood in light of NT revealtion, as it sheds lights on the shadows of the past OT.

2Witnesses
You know that the Levitical priesthood has survived intact, don't you? Modern DNA has allowed people to check, and there is a far higher concentration of a "levi" marker in the descendants of Jews with the surname Levi, or Cohen. Ossuaries in Israel have been tested for dna, and the modern "levis" are related to these ancestral "levis."

Seems to me like God preserved the Levitical line of priests for His own good purpose, in these end times. I mean, seriously what are the chances of the levitical priest hood surviving, in language, name and dna throughout all the dispersion, unless God intended to make good on His promise to them? And now we have the technology necessary to prove that God preserved not just His people, but the distinct tribes of them... particularly Levi.

We'll see something amazing happening with the descendants of Levi, I firmly believe that, probably in our lifetimes.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 12th 2008, 11:26 AM
The Sabbath is still Friday evening to Saturday evening and there are followers of Yeshua who do observe the Sabbath. Try not to paint with such a broad brush. ;)

It was the catholic church pope that declared that they had the right to change the Sabbath, but not all believers are catholic. I do not see man having the right to change what God has ordained and I do believe that forever mean forever!

God Bless!

daughter
Mar 12th 2008, 11:32 AM
The Sabbath is still Friday evening to Saturday evening and there are followers of Yeshua who do observe the Sabbath. Try not to paint with such a broad brush. ;)

It was the catholic church pope that declared that they had the right to change the Sabbath, but not all believers are catholic. I do not see man having the right to change what God has ordained and I do believe that forever mean forever!

God Bless!
I'd agree with that... but I'd say that all believers are "catholic", just not "Catholic!" Catholic used to mean "part of a universal body" rather than "an exclusive club headed by the pope."

My Grandad kept Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown, and so do my son and I. Though we're not Jews, so I don't know whether the "forever" in that mitzvah should count for us. But Sabbath is about entering into His rest, which was as much a part of the original creation as anything else. God didn't need to rest, but He knows that we do... hence the organisation of the week.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 12th 2008, 12:31 PM
Thanks for the correction, as you are quite right. The 'proper' use of the word 'catholic' does indeed include everyone in the body of Messiah! ;)

daughter
Mar 12th 2008, 12:44 PM
Ah, I just had my pedantic cap on. You have to expect that from me sometimes. :rolleyes: Drives folks up the wall for some reason!

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 01:11 PM
Then I suppose the scripture is being trivial in stating a historical fact of that time.It's like someone writing while George Washington was president: "Washington is the greatest president of the United States that there ever was." You don't see why it is trivial?



Your evading the scripture and what Moses said to them.:cool:No, I'm not. I don't see how it says that some future prophet will be greater than Moses.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 12th 2008, 01:14 PM
Ah, I just had my pedantic cap on. You have to expect that from me sometimes. :rolleyes: Drives folks up the wall for some reason!That's quite alright. Correction is good! :) Ironically, I was going to put 'Roman Catholic' instead but for some reason decided against doing so. :rolleyes: I should have gone with my first instinct. :D

Studyin'2Show
Mar 12th 2008, 01:24 PM
But the bible was written during Moses's lifetime. It would have been trivial to say that no greater prophet arose than him in his lifetime! :lol:Actually, Fenris, that portion of Deuteronomy was obviously penned AFTER Moses was already dead. How much so? :hmm: I don't know since the text is not specific. But it clearly says that SINCE then, implying some amount of time.

Deuteronomy 34:10 - But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 01:31 PM
Actually, Fenris, that portion of Deuteronomy was obviously penned AFTER Moses was already dead. How much so? :hmm: I don't know since the text is not specific. But it clearly says that SINCE then, implying some amount of time.Not necessarily. Jews believe that Moses penned the whole thing, including the passage about his death.


Deuteronomy 34:10 - But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.Well, no other prophets spoke to God 'face to face', I would say it still hasn't happened.

Also, verse 6 says And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor; and no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day

which is still true! So when we read the bible, chapter 34 speaks to us! "no one knows where Moses is buried until today....and since then no prophet arose like Moses.

Our perspective, anyway.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 12th 2008, 01:44 PM
Just curiously, why it believed that he penned the verses that speak of who buried him and where he was buried and the fact that 'to this day' no one knows where his grave is? He wouldn't be speaking in the proper tense since from his perspective the acts would be future tense not past tense. :hmm:

You know, technically, since I believe Yeshua is Immanuel; God 'with' us, He would not need to speak to Himself face to face. :D

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 01:48 PM
Just curiously, why it believed that he penned the verses that speak of who buried him and where he was buried and the fact that 'to this day' no one knows where his grave is? He wouldn't be speaking in the proper tense since from his perspective the acts would be future tense not past tense. :hmm:Well, as I said, it speaks to us in the present generation. Anyway, God knows the future and could tell Moses, "Write that no one knows where you are buried 'to this day.' It will be true for anyone who ever reads it'. :)


You know, technically, since I believe Yeshua is Immanuel; God 'with' us, He would not need to speak to Himself face to face. :D

Right, of course.

But we don't believe that God could become a human.

daughter
Mar 12th 2008, 01:55 PM
God can do anything. The analogy which strikes me (because I agree, it strikes me as utterly remarkable that He would come down as a man) is Solomon's awestruck prayer when he dedicated the Temple. That God should live in something made with human hands! Incredible, how can you fathom it?

Yet He did.

This is why I think it so significant that God John uses, of all verbs "to tabernacle" when he says (roughly translated) "the Word was made flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) amongst us."

No doubt about it, John was a Jew, and knew what he was saying, or he'd never have said that God "tabernacled amongst us."

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 02:10 PM
That God should live in something made with human hands! Incredible, how can you fathom it?

Yet He did.

Yes, that's true.

But no one would argue that God was contained by the walls of that temple.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 12th 2008, 03:17 PM
Yes, that's true.

But no one would argue that God was contained by the walls of that temple.I think that was her point. That as unbelievable as it was to fathom the Creator of the Universe in one relatively small building (considering Who it was :D), yet, you agree without doubt that His presence was indeed there.

She was using this as an analogy so you might consider that though the thought of Him being in a human body is hard to fathom, our God is quite capable to do that which man may consider impossible! ;)

Baruch HaShem!

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 03:28 PM
I think that was her point. That as unbelievable as it was to fathom the Creator of the Universe in one relatively small building (considering Who it was :D), yet, you agree without doubt that His presence was indeed there.

She was using this as an analogy so you might consider that though the thought of Him being in a human body is hard to fathom, our God is quite capable to do that which man may consider impossible! ;)

Baruch HaShem!
If God can do anything, why can't he forgive without sacrifice?

Souled Out
Mar 12th 2008, 03:33 PM
If God can do anything, why can't he forgive without sacrifice?

Who says that He can't?

daughter
Mar 12th 2008, 03:36 PM
He can do anything... but why should He?

If I have a persistently badly behaved child (I don't by the way... he's ridiculously angelic, but that's beside the point...) I could continue to forgive him. I could forgive him when he's three and he throws a tantrum in the supermarket. Even if he refuses to say sorry, I still love him. I can forgive him, it's my perogative as parent. I could forgive him when he's six, and pulling the legs off spiders. (By this point the real me would be giving the brat a good hiding, but that's beside the point as well.)

But what is the point of me forgiving him, if it does him no good?

Something I love from the psalms, and the prophets, is when they talk of the "sacrifice of praise." When we actually love God, then He can forgive us, and His forgiveness will benefit us, and help us to grow.

No point forgiving an unkind, unrepentant brat - although we could. Although God could, too.

But to forgive someone who loves us, who offers their broken pride as a sacrifice... that's going to work, isn't it?

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 03:38 PM
The Sabbath is still Friday evening to Saturday evening and there are followers of Yeshua who do observe the Sabbath. Try not to paint with such a broad brush. ;)

It was the catholic church pope that declared that they had the right to change the Sabbath, but not all believers are catholic. I do not see man having the right to change what God has ordained and I do believe that forever mean forever!

God Bless!

Speaking of broad brushes. Why do I keep seeing this info about "catholics", be they Roman or otherwise, changing the sabbath day. There may have been historical calendar changes for work weeks, for instance the Romans came up with a ten day work week at one point, but other than that, I don't see any direct command for a change.

Even in the canons of the Apostles there is no mention of such a change. In fact, the only direct command is that worship on the Lord's Day (1st day of the week) is to be done standing up, no kneeling , sitting, or prostrations. And this is the way it has always been in the ancient historic Church.
So Saturday, you can still worship however you are inclined, and/or you can work for the good of the people (charity, the perpetual state of grace). ;)

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 03:54 PM
Who says that He can't?
I thought that was a basic tenant of Christianity. I mean, if God can forgive without sacrifice, why did Jesus have to die?

daughter
Mar 12th 2008, 04:01 PM
God can forgive without sacrifice. Just... it doesn't do us any good at all. In the same way as a parent forgiving an unrepentant child is doing the child no favours. An unrepentant child needs to be punished. For his own sake, as well as everyone elses.

We don't realise how serious sin is, until there is sacrifice. Only when we are confronted with how serious sin is do we repent. That I think was the purpose of the sin offerings in ancient Israel, and it is that which I believe is completed through Christ. Israel was the only ancient civilisation which had a concept of God being Holy and righteous. Everyone else sacrificed to feed their God. Israel sacrificed because they knew how serious sin was to a Holy and a Righteous God.

Of course God could forgive us without us having to sacrifice... just as I could forgive a brattishly badly behaved child who refused to apologise.

But just because He can... should He?

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 04:04 PM
God can forgive without sacrifice. Just... it doesn't do us any good at all. In the same way as a parent forgiving an unrepentant child is doing the child no favours. An unrepentant child needs to be punished. For his own sake, as well as everyone elses.Why can't I be penitent without sacrifice? Why would a sacrifice make things better if I wasn't penitent?

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 04:11 PM
I mean, if God can forgive without sacrifice, why did Jesus have to die?

Because He is/was The Most Holy, and according to the law (Lev. 27:29) that is the only thing you can do with something so holy. IOW God is not redeemable.
But we are redeemable by God (Ex. 6:6)

daughter
Mar 12th 2008, 04:19 PM
Why can't I be penitent without sacrifice? Why would a sacrifice make things better if I wasn't penitent?
I don't know... but if you read the start of Isaiah, you see that God is more impressed with repentance than "sacrifice." Something for us all to think about.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 04:21 PM
Because He is/was The Most Holy, and according to the law (Lev. 27:29) that is the only thing you can do with something so holy. IOW God is not redeemable.
But we are redeemable by God (Ex. 6:6)
Another mystifying post by Teke. :confused

Souled Out
Mar 12th 2008, 04:21 PM
I thought that was a basic tenant of Christianity. I mean, if God can forgive without sacrifice, why did Jesus have to die?
I think the prevailing idea is that Christ died to appease and angry God, but I don't see it that way anymore. That's just me.

Some of the ancient and modern day Jewish writings and midrashes challenged my previously held view and flooded some light on the matter for me. Personally, it lined up perfectly with the scriptures and what I know about God's nature, so my view is not typical among the brethren.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 04:35 PM
I think the prevailing idea is that Christ died to appease and angry God, but I don't see it that way anymore. That's just me.

Some of the ancient and modern day Jewish writings and midrashes challenged my previously held view and flooded some light on the matter for me. Personally, it lined up perfectly with the scriptures and what I know about God's nature, so my view is not typical among the brethren.
Very nice post, but it doesn't answer the question. :lol:

Studyin'2Show
Mar 12th 2008, 04:54 PM
Speaking of broad brushes. Why do I keep seeing this info about "catholics", be they Roman or otherwise, changing the sabbath day. There may have been historical calendar changes for work weeks, for instance the Romans came up with a ten day work week at one point, but other than that, I don't see any direct command for a change.

Even in the canons of the Apostles there is no mention of such a change. In fact, the only direct command is that worship on the Lord's Day (1st day of the week) is to be done standing up, no kneeling , sitting, or prostrations. And this is the way it has always been in the ancient historic Church.
So Saturday, you can still worship however you are inclined, and/or you can work for the good of the people (charity, the perpetual state of grace). ;)Teke,

I'm not painting with a broad brush, just recounting history. You say if we want to we can keep the 7th day but that has not always been the case. Over the past 2500 years many people, mostly Jews but also other followers of the Almighty have been persecuted for keeping the 7th day Sabbath. Much of the persecution in the past two millennium has occurred at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. During the the Council of Trent this was said
“The authority of the Church is illustrated most clearly by the scriptures, for on one hand she recommends them, declares them to be divine, and offers them to us to be read, and on the other hand, the legal precepts in the scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord’s day. These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He says that He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the Church.” Gaspare de Posso, Archbishop of Reggio, Council of Trent, 1562.There is also the more subtle implication.
"Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s Day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ." Catholic Church Council in Laodicea, 364AD, Canon 29.History is not silent on this issue.

God Bless!

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 05:03 PM
Another mystifying post by Teke. :confused

If the law mystifys you, how else can I explain it to you. How about the Hebrew word herem, what does it mean to you?

There are plenty of Christians confused on this matter as well. Even though the Greek word [i]anathema[i] should clarify it better for them. Instead it becomes a stumbling block in it's relating the meanings of both, accursed, and offered up to God. This is why you'll hear both related by Christians in relation to Christ. ie. "He became a curse (literally accursed) for us", and "He was an offering to God on our behalf".

This is what they are trying to relate in words.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 05:11 PM
This is what they are trying to relate in words.
That's great. Now I'm more confused than before.

Souled Out
Mar 12th 2008, 05:13 PM
Very nice post, but it doesn't answer the question. :lol:
Stickler...:lol:

To obey is better than sacrifice (paraphrased). I believe you would agree with that. God meets us where we are. Something in our conscience requires blood for wrong-doing (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). Sin, then payback (sacrifice) is a vicious cycle.

God, once and for all sent Christ to be the last, perfect sacrifice to stop the cycle. God has always wanted relationship and Christ makes that happen to satisfy our need.

We stop hiding, ashamed, because there's no reason to hide anymore. We stop the vicious cycle because the perfect sacrifice has covered all sin. Sin shouldn't hinder our ability to stand before Him because we have faith in what Christ did. We can enter into relationship with the Father once and for all, in spirit and in truth. (Paraphrased, elevator ride version)

I'm sure I forgot something...:hmm:

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 05:17 PM
Teke,

I'm not painting with a broad brush, just recounting history. You say if we want to we can keep the 7th day but that has not always been the case. Over the past 2500 years many people, mostly Jews but also other followers of the Almighty have been persecuted for keeping the 7th day Sabbath. Much of the persecution in the past two millennium has occurred at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. During the the Council of Trent this was saidThere is also the more subtle implication. History is not silent on this issue.

God Bless!

The council of Trent was an independent council, meaning it is not recognized by the whole church. However, I do not believe it is indicating that they changed Saturday to Sunday, but that the Church puts more significance on the Lord's day than on the sabbath day. This supports the dogma of the Church, who's fullness is found in Christ and not Judaism.

The Council in Laodicea was dealing with a lot of judaizing going on at the time. It has always been a canon of the churches that if one receives the fullness of Christ and His Church and then turns their back on that, they are lost. This decision stands to date as far as I know.
One is either all for Christ or not. False ecumenism doesn't help anything.

Teke
Mar 12th 2008, 05:22 PM
That's great. Now I'm more confused than before.

Understandable, as great is the mystery of God.:saint:

Studyin'2Show
Mar 12th 2008, 05:31 PM
The council of Trent was an independent council, meaning it is not recognized by the whole church. However, I do not believe it is indicating that they changed Saturday to Sunday, but that the Church puts more significance on the Lord's day than on the sabbath day. This supports the dogma of the Church, who's fullness is found in Christ and not Judaism.

The Council in Laodicea was dealing with a lot of judaizing going on at the time. It has always been a canon of the churches that if one receives the fullness of Christ and His Church and then turns their back on that, they are lost. This decision stands to date as far as I know.
One is either all for Christ or not. False ecumenism doesn't help anything.Saying that if you don't work on Saturday you are separated from Christ and that you shouldn't work on Sunday is pretty much tantamount to changing it. ;) Plus, clearly you can't say we are free to keep the 7th day Sabbath, then agree with the council that said if we do, we are rejecting Messiah. :o How odd?

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 05:42 PM
Stickler...:lol:

To obey is better than sacrifice (paraphrased). I believe you would agree with that. God meets us where we are. so far so good...


Something in our conscience requires blood for wrong-doing (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). Sin, then payback (sacrifice) is a vicious cycle.Why?


God, once and for all sent Christ to be the last, perfect sacrifice to stop the cycle. God has always wanted relationship and Christ makes that happen to satisfy our need. Why? Better, how? Sacrifice only works after the sin, not before it.


We stop hiding, ashamed, because there's no reason to hide anymore. We stop the vicious cycle because the perfect sacrifice has covered all sin. Sin shouldn't hinder our ability to stand before Him because we have faith in what Christ did. We can enter into relationship with the Father once and for all, in spirit and in truth. (Paraphrased, elevator ride version)

I'm sure I forgot something...:hmm:

I still don't see why it's necessary.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 05:43 PM
Understandable, as great is the mystery of God.:saint:Well, nothings being cleared up here...

Souled Out
Mar 12th 2008, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Souled Out:
To obey is better than sacrifice (paraphrased). I believe you would agree with that. God meets us where we are.

so far so good...
Yay!?



Originally posted by Souled Out:
Something in our conscience requires blood for wrong-doing (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). Sin, then payback (sacrifice) is a vicious cycle.

Why?If somebody hurts you or someone you love, you want to get them back - get some blood literally or some other way.

We break a window, we want to pay for it, and/or if we can't/don't/won't, we wind up feeling guilty and paying for it in the long run by becoming destructive to ourselves and/or other people.

My theory: we were made to be aware of other people.

Turn the other cheek breaks the cycle of eye for an eye.


Originally posted by Souled Out:
God, once and for all sent Christ to be the last, perfect sacrifice to stop the cycle. God has always wanted relationship and Christ makes that happen to satisfy our need.

Why? Better, how? Sacrifice only works after the sin, not before it. Why? For us.

Just like He provided the perfect sacrifice to Abraham, He did the same for us.

How? Are you asking how does it work? Faith. Looking non-religiously and understanding what the Cross truly means.

Not everybody has faith that Jesus died to be that ultimate sacrifice from sin, so they still do sacrifices in the form of some kind of works or they look forward to a rebuilt temple in order to continue sacrifices to cover their sins.

Christ covers all sin, past, present and future. This is debatable to some Christians but to me it's done...signed, sealed and delivered...

My debt is paid and I know it.

Originally posted by Souled Out:
We stop hiding, ashamed, because there's no reason to hide anymore. We stop the vicious cycle because the perfect sacrifice has covered all sin. Sin shouldn't hinder our ability to stand before Him because we have faith in what Christ did. We can enter into relationship with the Father once and for all, in spirit and in truth. (Paraphrased, elevator ride version)

I still don't see why it's necessary. I understand. Honestly, I didn't see it either before.

Jesus said He came to heal the sick (physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc), give sight to the blind, give us life abundantly, save us from our sins, all the good stuff.

Maybe you don't see the necessity for Christ because you're already good in all those areas...or maybe you're not yet aware that you are in need.

I dunno.....I came to the end of myself and found that I was in need. It's an individual thing...

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 07:19 PM
If somebody hurts you or someone you love, you want to get them back - get some blood literally or some other way.
So God is so angry at us that he wants to get us back? And the only way to appease Him is by spilling blood?




Christ covers all sin, past, present and future. This is debatable to some Christians but to me it's done...signed, sealed and delivered...

My debt is paid and I know it.
OK, but you must understand that a point of faith and not fact. And because it's faith, one may have faith in something else.


Jesus said He came to heal the sick (physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc), give sight to the blind, give us life abundantly, save us from our sins, all the good stuff. Why did he have to come here to do it? God can't work such wonders from above?


Maybe you don't see the necessity for Christ because you're already good in all those areas...or maybe you're not yet aware that you are in need. No, I don't see the necessity of Jesus because his whole raison detre is a sacrifice for our sin. And Jews don't see sacrifice as the only way to atone from sin.

2Witnesses
Mar 12th 2008, 07:52 PM
So God is so angry at us that he wants to get us back? And the only way to appease Him is by spilling blood?



[/font]OK, but you must understand that a point of faith and not fact. And because it's faith, one may have faith in something else.
Why did he have to come here to do it? God can't work such wonders from above?

[/font]No, I don't see the necessity of Jesus because his whole raison detre is a sacrifice for our sin. And Jews don't see sacrifice as the only way to atone from sin.

HI Fenris,

I slept well. And I suppose 'tight' as well. But what does not actually mean? I know they call getting drunk, getting tight. Are you advocating drinking before bedtime?:D

But listen, really. Atonement for sin is NOT the whole issue God is concerned with. And though you may differ here, I hold that man has a 'sin nature'. That as David said, 'And in sin did my mother conceive me'.

Because of the deception in Eden, man entered the realm of moral experience by choosing the evil over the good, and thus corrupting his innocence. And because of this, his image was scarred by sin. And sin became his master.

Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil. And this includes not only the acts we do in sin, but sin within us as well.

Man cannot help but sin! The Law was to show man how sinful he really was. And no matter how many acts of righteousness you may do uder the Law, they can never cleanse the soul of sin.

This is the work of Christ. And we receive this on the bases of faith in what He did for us. God was, in Christ, not holding out sins, or sin nature, against us. And He did this to show us His great Love.

Fenris, the Law came, not to save, bu to condemn. It came that sin might increase, not decrease! He it to contrast the Covenant of God's Grace, His love in Christ for sinful man.

And He love you Fenris! Trust Him through His Moshiach, Yeshua. I pray God will remove the stone of stumbling from your path.

2Witnesses

Souled Out
Mar 12th 2008, 08:02 PM
So God is so angry at us that he wants to get us back? And the only way to appease Him is by spilling blood?
That's the way we think, not God. He sent Christ to get us out of that cycle. For us it's no longer eye for an eye, it's turn the other cheek.

I don't believe God is angry, although a lot of people have that perception.


OK, but you must understand that a point of faith and not fact. And because it's faith, one may have faith in something else.Faith at some point does become fact otherwise why have faith in it if it isn't true (to you)?

Faith in something is fact, unseen.

And yes, I understand that your faith is not in the same place as mine.



Why did he have to come here to do it? God can't work such wonders from above?Yes He can work from above as well as within. He does both. He sent Jesus to show us His face, which is more than just showing/giving us His hand.


No, I don't see the necessity of Jesus because his whole raison detre is a sacrifice for our sin. And Jews don't see sacrifice as the only way to atone from sin.He also came to give us an example and a slew of other things.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 09:12 PM
HI Fenris,

I slept well. And I suppose 'tight' as well. But what does not actually mean? I know they call getting drunk, getting tight. Are you advocating drinking before bedtime?:D If it helps you sleep, why not? :lol:


But listen, really. Atonement for sin is NOT the whole issue God is concerned with. And though you may differ here, I hold that man has a 'sin nature'. That as David said, 'And in sin did my mother conceive me'.

Because of the deception in Eden, man entered the realm of moral experience by choosing the evil over the good, and thus corrupting his innocence. And because of this, his image was scarred by sin. And sin became his master.

Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil. And this includes not only the acts we do in sin, but sin within us as well.

Man cannot help but sin! The Law was to show man how sinful he really was. And no matter how many acts of righteousness you may do uder the Law, they can never cleanse the soul of sin.

This is the work of Christ. And we receive this on the bases of faith in what He did for us. God was, in Christ, not holding out sins, or sin nature, against us. And He did this to show us His great Love.
This is all very interesting, but it's not Jewish. The Jewish concept is more in line with Genesis 4:7 ...sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.



And He love you Fenris! Trust Him through His Moshiach, Yeshua. I pray God will remove the stone of stumbling from your path.

2Witnesses
Thank you, I guess.

Fenris
Mar 12th 2008, 09:28 PM
That's the way we think, not God. He sent Christ to get us out of that cycle. For us it's no longer eye for an eye, it's turn the other cheek.I don't think this way. Jews don't think this way. Maybe that's why we see Jesus as unnecessary.


I don't believe God is angry, although a lot of people have that perception.We don't.



Yes He can work from above as well as within. He does both. He sent Jesus to show us His face, which is more than just showing/giving us His hand.Why?


He also came to give us an example and a slew of other things.

What other things?

2Witnesses
Mar 12th 2008, 11:51 PM
If it helps you sleep, why not? :lol:

This is all very interesting, but it's not Jewish. The Jewish concept is more in line with Genesis 4:7 ...sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.


Thank you, I guess.

Hi Fenris,

Of course God encourages man to resist sin. That was one purpose of the Law. And without the intervention of God we would all quickly descend into the pit. For there is you know, a progression into the power of sin; a giving over to destruction, of going full blown depraved. (Nazi) 'The iniquity of the Ammorite is not yet full.'

Again, this concept that a man can save himself through his efforts to master sin, is pride, Jewish or Gentile.

How much 'mastery' is good enough for one to stand in the judgment? Christ takes all the guess work out!

I could not sleep, so I thought I would type a little. But enough is enough. Now I drink a little.

2Witnesses

Fenris
Mar 13th 2008, 01:07 PM
Again, this concept that a man can save himself through his efforts to master sin, is pride, Jewish or Gentile.

It's not pride. It gives human activity meaning.

2Witnesses
Mar 13th 2008, 02:06 PM
It's not pride. It gives human activity meaning.

Fenris,

Your statement made my case. It is 'your' activity, 'your' works, 'your' ability. God does not think much of man's 'effort'.

And isn't that the real stumbling block for any people, 'man's thinks he can do it'? So of course one would think, 'what do I need a savior for?'

Anyway. I hope you make it! But I know you will not. You are in my prayers, even if you do not think you need them. ;)

2Witnesses

Fenris
Mar 13th 2008, 02:27 PM
Fenris,

Your statement made my case. It is 'your' activity, 'your' works, 'your' ability. God does not think much of man's 'effort'. So God is like a bad father. "You're nothing, you always were nothing, you'll always be nothing."
I would never say that to my kids. Ever.


And isn't that the real stumbling block for any people, 'man's thinks he can do it'? So of course one would think, 'what do I need a savior for?'We don't need a savior. Not for the reason you think we do.


Anyway. I hope you make it! But I know you will not. You are in my prayers, even if you do not think you need them. ;)

2WitnessesIf you're praying to God that I 'see the light', you're right I dn't need them.
If you're praying to God to take care of me and my family, well, those kind of prayers are always appreciated!

2Witnesses
Mar 13th 2008, 02:54 PM
So God is like a bad father. "You're nothing, you always were nothing, you'll always be nothing."
I would never say that to my kids. Ever.
We don't need a savior. Not for the reason you think we do.
If you're praying to God that I 'see the light', you're right I dn't need them.
If you're praying to God to take care of me and my family, well, those kind of prayers are always appreciated!

Hi Fenris,

In Isa. 21:14 God says this, 'Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel.'

I do not think God regards us as worthless. I mean, He, out of His great love for us, sent His Son to die in our place.

I'll pray for your family, as well as you.

Father,

I thank you for Your wonderful grace and mercy, Your deep love for Fenris and his family. I ask You to watch over them, and keep them under Your wings. Be a shield about them; an ever present help in the time of need. Cause Your face to shine upon them, and grant them peace. And when they are in distress in these latter days, and all that You have said has come upon them, may they return to the Lord their God and listen to Your voice, and do all that You have commanded. For You are a compassionate God; You will not fail them, nor destroy them, nor forget Your covenant with their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Grant that they may see You, and know You, even as Your servant Job.

Fenris, Sh'mahYisrael, is not enough in these end of days!

2Witnesses

Fenris
Mar 13th 2008, 03:03 PM
Very nice prayer. Thank you.

Souled Out
Mar 14th 2008, 03:05 AM
I don't think this way. Jews don't think this way. Maybe that's why we see Jesus as unnecessary.
I wasn't talking about religion. I was talking about people in general.

I repented for saying to you earlier that one day you and I will speak the same language. That was a silly, defeatist thing to say.

If we both claim to know the same God that shouldn't be a problem now. I'm done wall building. How about you?


We don't.We agree on that. I know He's not angry.


Why (did God send Jesus to show us His face)?God deemed it necessary in order to bring something to His creation that they didn't have before...One on one relationship and (see at the red below)


What other things?Freedom.

The thing is, I see that there are more Christians practicing Judaism than practicing the true freedom that they should be living in Christ.

Look around, there are plenty of us spreading our message but not many of us being our message. That shouldn't be.

When God came to live inside of me, when I truly, truly, truly met Christ, everything changed. Out the window went dead religion and desperate works.

As a matter of fact, there should be too much power and glory oozing here for you to stand, but there isn't. It should be so much that after all this time you should be clamoring for what we got...but you're not.

Why do you think that is?

Actually, I think you're being more successful at converting Christians to your ways and practices than we've been at showing you the honest to God truth about Christ.

Honestly, if you, being surrounded by all these Christians, don't want what we have, then we have failed at showing you the difference between what you have and what we have.

I mean if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...why would you want another duck when you already got one?

That, more than anything speaks about our lack of power and it saddens me.

You should be clamoring for our Jesus but instead you deem Him unnecessary, even after being here for so long.

Truly having Christ is far better than anything you could ever imagine. I don't desire to live in bondage disguised as love and obedience toward God. I love being in Christ way too much.

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 11:02 AM
I wasn't talking about religion. I was talking about people in general.

I repented for saying to you earlier that one day you and I will speak the same language. That was a silly, defeatist thing to say.

If we both claim to know the same God that shouldn't be a problem now. I'm done wall building. How about you?Of course.





The thing is, I see that there are more Christians practicing Judaism than practicing the true freedom that they should be living in Christ.

Look around, there are plenty of us spreading our message but not many of us being our message. That shouldn't be.

When God came to live inside of me, when I truly, truly, truly met Christ, everything changed. Out the window went dead religion and desperate works.

As a matter of fact, there should be too much power and glory oozing here for you to stand, but there isn't. It should be so much that after all this time you should be clamoring for what we got...but you're not.

Why do you think that is?

Actually, I think you're being more successful at converting Christians to your ways and practices than we've been at showing you the honest to God truth about Christ.

Honestly, if you, being surrounded by all these Christians, don't want what we have, then we have failed at showing you the difference between what you have and what we have.

I mean if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...why would you want another duck when you already got one?

That, more than anything speaks about our lack of power and it saddens me.

You should be clamoring for our Jesus but instead you deem Him unnecessary, even after being here for so long.

Truly having Christ is far better than anything you could ever imagine. I don't desire to live in bondage disguised as love and obedience toward God. I love being in Christ way too much.So be a Christian. I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 14th 2008, 11:09 AM
Actually, I think you're being more successful at converting Christians to your ways and practices than we've been at showing you the honest to God truth about Christ. Okay, exactly who has been converted by Fenris? :confused Only members that meet the specification requirements of this forum can even see this area. No one from the internet can simply google this area because of the restriction. No offense Fenris but I believe my witness TO Jews has become MUCH more effective since I met Fenris. When going out to do street ministry they don't tend to be nearly as steadfast as Fenris. In fact many of them are searching, so him answering questions here gives us a head start in understanding them.

BTW, one of the reasons Fenris is aloud here is that he has been a member since before the restrictions were put in place for non-Christians, so, in essence, he was grandfathered in. ;) Now let's get :OFFT:

God Bless!

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 11:15 AM
Okay, exactly who has been converted by Fenris? :confused OK guys, line up on the right for your circumcisions!

There, that should take care of that! :lol:

2Witnesses
Mar 14th 2008, 02:20 PM
OK guys, line up on the right for your circumcisions!

There, that should take care of that! :lol:

Fenris,

Been, ouch, there ouch, done, ouch, that, ouch!

2Witnesses ouch! This religion takes commitment!:D

Free Indeed
Mar 14th 2008, 03:17 PM
Why is the Christian Sabbath on Sunday?

Sunday isn't really a "Christian Sabbath", in the sense of a "Sabbath" recognized by Jews. It is more "the Lord's Day", the day of the resurrection, a mystical "Eight Day" of creation where all things are made new.

As Christians, we believe that the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ, because He rested in the tomb on the Sabbath. Our rest is therefore in Him.

Souled Out
Mar 14th 2008, 03:19 PM
So be a Christian. I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

Okay... You asked a question I answered....

Souled Out
Mar 14th 2008, 03:47 PM
Okay, exactly who has been converted by Fenris? :confused

There are plenty of Christians who are trying to put new wine in old skins, mixing law and grace, not knowing that one is only a shadow of the very One that is living inside them.

That's a problem in The Church, not just a BF thing. So yes, more Christians are adopting and finding satisfaction in practicing the Law, preferring the Old over the New thinking it is more than good enough.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 14th 2008, 04:04 PM
There are plenty of Christians who are trying to put new wine in old skins, mixing law and grace, not knowing that one is only a shadow of the very One that is living inside them.

That's a problem in The Church, not just a BF thing. So yes, more Christians are adopting and finding satisfaction in practicing the Law, preferring the Old over the New thinking it is more than good enough.For me my love for God's Law comes from simply reading the Bible and being led by the Spirit, not from chatting with Fenris. :lol: From what I have seen he rarely even speaks of such things. God's Word, God's Son and God's Spirit is what I follow, not man and not Fenris! :D No offense, Fenris. :P

Souled Out
Mar 14th 2008, 04:15 PM
For me my love for God's Law comes from simply reading the Bible and being led by the Spirit, not from chatting with Fenris. :lol: From what I have seen he rarely even speaks of such things. God's Word, God's Son and God's Spirit is what I follow, not man and not Fenris! :D No offense, Fenris. :P

But not many Christians are where you are, especially young ones, and instead of being Spirit lead are being lead by people who themselves don't have a real relationship with Christ. It begs the statement, "I never knew you."

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 04:56 PM
Word, God's Son and God's Spirit is what I follow, not man and not Fenris! :D No offense, Fenris. :P

None taken! The last thing I need are followers. Or worse, groupies! :lol:

Studyin'2Show
Mar 14th 2008, 05:32 PM
But not many Christians are where you are, especially young ones, and instead of being Spirit lead are being lead by people who themselves don't have a real relationship with Christ. It begs the statement, "I never knew you."Unfortunately, the same case can be made regarding just tradition Christian teachers who may be teaching based on their own opinion and not based on the Word of God. That's why I encourage every believer to get into the Word and read it for themselves. The only way to be sure you won't fall for the lie, is to absolutely be certain of the truth! There are indeed wolves in sheep clothing. I just don't see Fenris as one. If anything he's a wolf in wolf's clothing! :rofl: I mean look at his name, he's not hiding! :rofl:

Souled Out
Mar 14th 2008, 06:11 PM
Unfortunately, the same case can be made regarding just tradition Christian teachers who may be teaching based on their own opinion and not based on the Word of God. That's why I encourage every believer to get into the Word and read it for themselves. The only way to be sure you won't fall for the lie, is to absolutely be certain of the truth!

Absolutely, I agree. And the Word was made flesh, who's spirit now resides in every believer. There's way too much opinion going on and not enough direct revelation from God Himself.


There are indeed wolves in sheep clothing. I just don't see Fenris as one. If anything he's a wolf in wolf's clothing! :rofl: I mean look at his name, he's not hiding! :rofl:I agree, but there are many Christians who believe that the more Jewish they become (practicing the law, partaking of rituals, fleshy things) the more acceptable they will be to God, not realizing they are already righteous in God's eyes because of Christ.

Taking a sharp turn back to the OP, only Israel was given a Sabbath day in the Law. Our Sabbath IS Christ.

Absolutely EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING points to Christ for us, but there will always be some who will settle in their minds that they will adopt the shadow anyway, regardless of having the real thing.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 14th 2008, 06:43 PM
I agree, but there are many Christians who believe that the more Jewish they become (practicing the law, partaking of rituals, fleshy things) the more acceptable they will be to God, not realizing they are already righteous in God's eyes because of Christ.

Taking a sharp turn back to the OP, only Israel was given a Sabbath day in the Law. Our Sabbath IS Christ.

Absolutely EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING points to Christ for us, but there will always be some who will settle in their minds that they will adopt the shadow anyway, regardless of having the real thing.Well, they are wrong. Of course God does not love a person based on how Jewish they are. But I still don't know what that issue has to do with Fenris. To my knowledge no one has converted to Rabbinic Judaism because of Fenris' membership on BibleForums. And it is a misnomer to say that anyone 'converts' to being Messianic. Messianic simply means a follower of Yeshua Messiah, whereas a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. One is the Hebrew name and title, the other is the Greek translation, but they are both the same thing. As you pointed out there are many different ways that many different people serve God. I don't understand why me, or anyone else, choosing to observe the Sabbath 'DAY' would cause any trouble for another believer or somehow make me an outsider. :confused That in no way takes anything away from understanding that we receive our spiritual 'rest' in Yeshua. When the 'real thing' is in the light, there will ALWAYS be a shadow. The shadow does not simply cease to exist because I see that which is causing the shadow. The shadow still represents the 'real thing'. The 'real thing' is still what is important. Yeshua said to follow Him and HE observed Sabbath biblically (not Pharisiacally). Thus I follow Yeshua and observe Sabbath biblically (not rabbinically). ;) I see no reason why that would be a problem for anyone else. :D

God Bless!

Souled Out
Mar 14th 2008, 10:21 PM
Well, they are wrong. Of course God does not love a person based on how Jewish they are. But I still don't know what that issue has to do with Fenris. To my knowledge no one has converted to Rabbinic Judaism because of Fenris' membership on BibleForums. And it is a misnomer to say that anyone 'converts' to being Messianic. Messianic simply means a follower of Yeshua Messiah, whereas a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. One is the Hebrew name and title, the other is the Greek translation, but they are both the same thing. As you pointed out there are many different ways that many different people serve God. I don't understand why me, or anyone else, choosing to observe the Sabbath 'DAY' would cause any trouble for another believer or somehow make me an outsider. :confused That in no way takes anything away from understanding that we receive our spiritual 'rest' in Yeshua. When the 'real thing' is in the light, there will ALWAYS be a shadow. The shadow does not simply cease to exist because I see that which is causing the shadow. The shadow still represents the 'real thing'. The 'real thing' is still what is important. Yeshua said to follow Him and HE observed Sabbath biblically (not Pharisiacally). Thus I follow Yeshua and observe Sabbath biblically (not rabbinically). ;) I see no reason why that would be a problem for anyone else. :D

God Bless!

This has nothing to do with anyone in particular. I'm speaking about the rise of Christians walking the ways of the Old Covenant, making Christ of no effect.

Shadows only caste that which is to come - they are not the substance.

The shadow of your husband entering the room is letting you know that he's coming. There are no ifs, and or buts about it, he's coming because you can see his shadow.

But once he gets in the room, your focus is now on him, not his shadow. He is the substance. Try responding to his shadow when he speaks to you. Even better, try kissing his shadow and see how the man himself responds.:rofl:

The relationship is with the shadow caster, not the shadow.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 14th 2008, 10:35 PM
This has nothing to do with anyone in particular. I'm speaking about the rise of Christians walking the ways of the Old Covenant, making Christ of no effect.

Shadows only caste that which is to come - they are not the substance.

The shadow of your husband entering the room is letting you know that he's coming. There are no ifs, and or buts about it, he's coming because you can see his shadow.

But once he gets in the room, your focus is now on him, not his shadow. He is the substance. Try responding to his shadow when he speaks to you. Even better, try kissing his shadow and see how the man himself responds.:rofl:

The relationship is with the shadow caster, not the shadow.That is the point, Souled Out! I am NOT elevating the shadow ABOVE the substance but nor am I denying the shadow! Of course I would kiss my hubby, he is the 'real thing' not the shadow, but I do not say, "La la la there is no shadow there, your shadow has passed away because I kiss you." Of course his shadow is still there. And thus my focus is on Yeshua and my obedience is to Him and His commandments (not man or doctrine), I praise Him and thus bring glory to God. That is the path He has laid before me and that is the path I travel. But here's the funny thing, it's NOT work at all. His yoke is easy and His burden light, and I enjoy every step of the way! :pp

God Bless!

2Witnesses
Mar 15th 2008, 03:26 AM
That is the point, Souled Out! I am NOT elevating the shadow ABOVE the substance but nor am I denying the shadow! Of course I would kiss my hubby, he is the 'real thing' not the shadow, but I do not say, "La la la there is no shadow there, your shadow has passed away because I kiss you." Of course his shadow is still there. And thus my focus is on Yeshua and my obedience is to Him and His commandments (not man or doctrine), I praise Him and thus bring glory to God. That is the path He has laid before me and that is the path I travel. But here's the funny thing, it's NOT work at all. His yoke is easy and His burden light, and I enjoy every step of the way! :pp

God Bless!

Stud...

The point is we as partakers of Hid divine PRESENCE should face the SUN (SON), and allow our shadow to be BEHIND us. Not that we can't look behind us on occasion. The OT is still good for information, But out 'halacha', our guide for life is the NT.

2Witnesses

Studyin'2Show
Mar 15th 2008, 01:55 PM
Stud...

The point is we as partakers of Hid divine PRESENCE should face the SUN (SON), and allow our shadow to be BEHIND us. Not that we can't look behind us on occasion. The OT is still good for information, But out 'halacha', our guide for life is the NT.

2WitnessesIs the Sabbath day a shadow of US? :hmm: Do you face away from something to see its shadow? No to both, so what does this have to do with anything? You don't want to observe Sabbath, fine, but why does me observing Sabbath bother you? I have so enjoyed the journey the Father has brought me on that has led to this point. I am so pleased to receive the Sabbath my Lord has made FOR me. It is not a burden, it is a privilege. So works is not involved at all, just rest. ;)

God Bless! :)

2Witnesses
Mar 15th 2008, 06:58 PM
Is the Sabbath day a shadow of US? :hmm: Do you face away from something to see its shadow? No to both, so what does this have to do with anything? You don't want to observe Sabbath, fine, but why does me observing Sabbath bother you? I have so enjoyed the journey the Father has brought me on that has led to this point. I am so pleased to receive the Sabbath my Lord has made FOR me. It is not a burden, it is a privilege. So works is not involved at all, just rest. ;)

God Bless! :)

Stud...

You look over your shoulder or behind you to see your shadow, in this case. But I have told you before, I do not care if you want to observe the shabbat. I said that was fine.

But I have a problem with people saying we are obligated to observe the shabbat. I do not think you are. But if you think you 'must' observe, then it is sin to you if you do not.

2Witnesses

Studyin'2Show
Mar 15th 2008, 07:40 PM
Stud...

You look over your shoulder or behind you to see your shadow, in this case. But I have told you before, I do not care if you want to observe the shabbat. I said that was fine.

But I have a problem with people saying we are obligated to observe the shabbat. I do not think you are. But if you think you 'must' observe, then it is sin to you if you do not.

2WitnessesCan you get off the shadow thing unless you want to properly apply it to Yeshua, deal? Otherwise, please point out the post where I, or anyone else here, has stated what you 'must' do regarding the Sabbath? I grow tired of people not discussing what is actually said but choosing to discuss rather what they think someone may mean or what has been said to them before by someone else. I am not someone else, I am me. I can not speak for someone else. As I've said before, I have chosen to enjoy the Sabbath my Father has made FOR me, if you choose otherwise, that is your decision. :dunno: I have chosen to follow as the LORD leads 'me', I would encourage you and any other believer to do the same. ;)

God Bless!

Toymom
Mar 16th 2008, 01:26 AM
I did not read all 9 pages so forgive me if this has been said.
I think that some Christians mistakenly think Sunday is the Sabbath.
But it is not.
Sunday is the Lord's Day.
Christ is our true Sabbath rest.
I don't think Christians need to observe the Sabbath.

YoungLink
Mar 21st 2008, 11:30 PM
I also didn't read all 9 pages, but I personally believe that Christians are meant to observe the Sabbath on Saturday.

Minister D
May 6th 2008, 03:18 AM
The main reason "Christians" keep Sunday as their day of public worship is the belief that the Messiah rose from the grave on Sunday morning, and most Christian ministers preach this.

In order to know the exact day when the Messiah died and when he arose from the grave, we must be aware of certain facts regarding the Hebrew day and Passover Week.

1} The Hebrew day began at SUNDOWN and continued until the following sundown, the evening {then} the morning, the 1st day{Gen.1:5},Sundown ended one day and began another day.{Lev.23:32}.

2} Passover began on the 14th day of the month, in the fourteenth day of the first month at evening is the Lord's Passover {Lev.23:5},

3} There is a weekly Sabbath every seventh day {Saturday},and there are seven High Sabbaths, and all but one of them fall on different days of the week. The Passover lamb was to be killed in the evening of the fourteenth, at the going down of the sun and the next day {beginning at sundown},the fifteenth, is a feast day, A High Sabbath and ye shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening {Ex.12:6}, thou shalt sacrifice the Passover at evening, at the going down of the sun {Deut.16:6}. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD UNTO THE LORD: Seven days you must eat unleavened bread.. In the first day the 15th},ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein {Lev.23:6,7}

4}We must understand that the Messiah was that Passover Lamb and he died on the exact day and time that the Passover lambs were being sacrificed. Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened, for even Jesus, our Passover, is Sacrificed for us{1Cor.5:7}
Behold the Lamb of God {John.1:29}. Did the Messiah rise from the grave on Sunday morning? The Bible says No!
Mt.28:1 In the end of the Sabbath Saturday},just before sundown},as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.
Mt.28:6 HE IS NOT HERE; for he is risen.
Mk.16:2 and very early in the morning of the first day of the week, they came to the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.
Mk.16:6 He is risen, HE IS NOT HERE.
Lk.24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulcher.
Lk.24:6 HE IS NOT HERE, but is risen.
Jn.20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher.
Jn.20:2..they have TAKEN THE MESSIAH of the sepulcher, and WE KNOW NOT WHERE they have laid him...

ALL {4} gospels prove that He did not rise on Sunday morning. On Sunday morning, the Messiah was gone, He arose sometime before Sunday morning. Christians say the Messiah was buried just before 6:00 p.m. on Friday. That means He was in the grave Friday night, Saturday, and Saturday, night, since we know He was gone from the grave before Sunday morning, He therefore was in the grave one day and two nights! This is in direct opposition to scripture. The Messiah said that the only proof that He would give to prove He is the Messiah was that He would be in the grave 3 days and 3 nights, If He was not in the grave 3 days and 3 nights then He is not the Messiah!

An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah: For as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish so shall the Son of Man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth{Mt.12:39,40},Now who do we believe-the Messiah or what the world teaches? Let's search the scriptures and prove all things {John.5:39; 1Th.5:21},

And that day was the preparation ,and the Sabbath drew on{Lk.23:54},It was the preparation for the Passover. And it was the preparation of the Passover {Jn.19:14} The next day was a HIGH SABBATH {the 15th}.The Jews, therefore, because it was the preparation, that the body should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day for that day was an HIGH DAY} besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away {Jn.19:31}.

The crucifixion day the 14th}was the day before the HIGH SABBATH {the 15th},The Messiah died as the sun was going down about 3:00 p.m.} the 9th hour},on the fourteenth day and had to be buried before sundown {about 6:00p.m.} the twelfth hour}.Sundown began the next day-the HIGH SABBATH {the 15th}. "So these high priest, upon the coming of their feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the 9th hour to the 11th hour. The Messiah died at the exact time that the Passover lambs were being slain.

Mt.28:1-read: After the Sabbath {and there were two that week}, The 15th was a HIGH SABBATH and the 17th was the weekly Commandment Sabbath, Saturday. AND WHEN THE SABBATH WAS PAST, Mary Magdalene, and the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him {Mk.16:1},

After a Sabbath was past, the women bought spices to anoint the Messiah, and they returned, and prepared spices and ointments, and RESTED THE SABBATH DAY, according to the commandment {Lk.23:56}.

These two verses do not contradict each other, Mark was referring to the HIGH SABBATH {Thursday, the 15th}, the women bought the spices after this Sabbath was over, they bought and prepared the spices on Friday, the 16th and rested on the commandment Sabbath {Saturday}, So, we see there were {2} Sabbaths that week THEREFORE, the Messiah died at the 9th hour Hebrew time}-3:00p.m. Roman time on Wednesday "THE MIDST OF THE WEEK". He was buried just before the 12th hour, sundown, about 6: p.m.,which is also the beginning of the 15th the HIGH SABBATH. He lay in the grave all night and all day Thursday, the 15th {THE HIGH SABBATH}. He lay in the grave all night and all day Friday, and all night Friday, the 16th {the women prepared the spices}. He lay in the grave all night and all day Saturday, the 17th {weekly Sabbath}, He arose from the grave just before sundown {6:00p.m.}on Saturday, the weekly Sabbath, He arose exactly 72 hours after He was buried," {EXACTLY 3 DAYS AND 3 NIGHTS}," just as He said He would. That proves He is the Messiah!

Again, who do we believe? The Messiah or the world? There is a verse of scripture which would seem to prove that the Messiah rose from the grave on Sunday morning. Now after He had risen early on the 1st day of the week..{Mk.16:9} It is interesting to note that Mark 16:9-20 are not found in any of the most ancient manuscripts. It as inserted hundreds of years after the apostles by the early Roman Church.

The New International Version-note: the most reliable early manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20.

Oxford Niv Scofield study bible Note: verses 9-20 are not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; but the passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippoltus in the second or third century {2 Roman Catholic saints}.

The Living Bible-note: verses 9-20 are not found in the most ancient manuscripts, but may be considered and appendix giving additional facts. The Jerusalem Bible -note: Many manuscripts omit vs.9-20, and this ending to the gospel may not have been written by Mark, although it is old enough.

The new English bible-note:At this point {v8} some of the most ancient witnesses bring the book to a close.

Revised standard version-note: Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of v8

Phillips Modern English-note: An alternate ending found in certain manuscripts follows verse 8.
Good News for modern man gives an old ending to the gospel and then another old ending. {we can take our pick on which is the word of God.}

Bible scholars admit that Mark 16:9-20 are not part of the bible, why are they there then?

In the book of Ezekiel,chp.8, Ezekiel is shown several abominations but the greatest abomination is found in 15 and 16: Then said he unto me, hast thou seen this, O son of man? Turn yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house, and behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about 5 and 20 men, with their back toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east: and they worshipped the sun toward the east. On Easter Sunday morning, when Christian are standing in the early morning darkness with their backs toward their temple and awaiting the rising of the SUN, do they ever stop and wonder what they are doing? The Messiah asked us to remember His death and to keep that day as a memorial. THE WORLD DOES THE OPPOSITE. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this copy do shew the Lords death till He come{1st.Cor.11:26 }

The memorial of His death is sundown on the 14th day of the first month-PASSOVER, the exact same day as the original Passover which foreshadowed the Messiah, and which is now kept in a new light, we are to remember this day until the Messiah returns and then it may be "done away with". And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord through out your generations ; YOU SHALL KEEP IT A FEAST BY AN ORDINANCE FOREVER {Ex.12:42}, Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year to year {Ex.13:10},Since the Lord our Savior asks us to remember this very same day, can we still call it "JEWISH"? Can we say it is no longer to be a memorial? The only difference now is that the true believer recognizes the true meaning of Passover while the Jew remains in unbelief, although the Jew does not comprehend the true meaning of Passover or any of the High Sabbath},he still keeps and preserves it which is more than can be said for "so called NEW COVENANT BELIEVERS", there is no longer a need to sacrifice a lamb because Jesus ,our Passover, has been sacrificed for us, ONCE AND FOR ALL. All we need do now is "REMEMBER". That event was the 14th day of the 1st month, Abib, Passover, at the going down of the sun. If the Messiah arose as we have shown on the 17th day of the month, which is a different day every year, why do Christians always celebrate on the day of the SUN?

History can prove that God did not change the Sabbath, but history can prove that Man did.

Yeshua's Resurrection When?
http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/whenres.htm

talmidim
May 7th 2008, 04:16 AM
Perfect Peace Y'all, :D

To those that say that the Sabbath isn't for Christians, I'm curious then about murder, adultery and idolatry? Are those now suddenly OK? If not, then when did it become the Nine Commandments? :rofl:

To those that insist that Christians celebrate the "venerable day of the sun" as their Sabbath because the Messiah was resurrected on that day, they should know three things.


Messiah was resurrected on the day of First Fruits in fulfillment of prophecy. That day is reckoned as the first day after the Sabbath during the Passover week (Leviticus 23). Our Messiah is characterized in scripture as having resurrected and is the First Fruits of those that slept (1st Corinthians 15:20), indicating His fulfillment of the First Fruit of the resurrection, what we know from His teachings as the 'Harvest'. For those that can't count, this was an annual observance - not a weekly one.

The preincarnate Messiah gave man the Ten Commandments, for as it is written, He is Immanuel and the 'Word that was with Elohim and is Elohim'. And why is it written? Because He is the Author of the Ten Commandments and the Torah and the Prophets, and the Writings and the 'New' Testament. The Commandments are even written by His hand. Nowhere in scripture did He change His commandment about the weekly Sabbath. Instead, it was changed by the Roman Emperor and the Catholic (Universal) church, a claim they gladly verify.
The "venerable day of the sun", otherwise known as Sunday is a pagan day of observance to which Emperor Constantine was a lifelong adherent. It should come as no surprise that he changed the day of worship as the first official head of the Roman State Religion, in an effort to consolidate political power and artificially separate the followers of the Jewish Messiah Yahshuah from the Jews that did not accept Him. The penalty for non-compliance was death by torture...


And just in case someone wants to bring this up again, there is only one Sabbath. It is not the Christian Sabbath, the Jewish Sabbath or any other Sabbath. He very clearly said that He sanctified the seventh day and made it holy. He clearly gave it as a sign of His covenant between Himself and the children of Israel - forever. Even the formation of the word Sabbath in Hebrew is very closely linked to seven, swearing and fulfillment. It is based on the Hebrew root word that means to return home! Does any of this sound familiar? A covenant promise, marked by the seventh day, whose fulfillment has to do with returning home to Him in Paradise - and is ultimately fulfilled in sevens? Hmmm...

Despite all protestations to the contrary, the above is either verifiable by scripture, the historical record or both. And I am not trying to tell you what to believe, mainly because of the futility of that endeavor. ;) But for me, it certainly doesn't support the 'Christian Perspective' of the 'Sunday Sabbath'. It doesn't do a lot for the 'Nine Commandments' gambit either.

Concerning the Sabbath, that is - keeping the seventh day holy unto Him in remembrance of His covenant and His work in the creation:

He wrote it in stone.
He commanded it - forever.
He instructed us in how to observe it.
He warned us what would happen if we didn't keep ALL His commandments.

So, as the saying goes, 'Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you (read "men") more than unto God, judge ye.' (emphasis mine)

In His Love,
Phillip

2Witnesses
May 7th 2008, 08:15 AM
I also didn't read all 9 pages, but I personally believe that Christians are meant to observe the Sabbath on Saturday.

Hi,

The point is not a day. The point is a person, Yeshua. He is our shalom. He is our Shabbat. He is our rest.

2Witnesses

talmidim
May 7th 2008, 10:52 AM
Hi,

The point is not a day. The point is a person, Yeshua. He is our shalom. He is our Shabbat. He is our rest.

2WitnessesShalom 2Witnesses,

Exactly! He is the point! And He wrote the scriptures that say we should keep the Sabbath. Wrote it in stone with His own finger.

2Witnesses, the point is obedience. Yahshua commanded the observance of the Sabbath. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of a single time when He suggested we follow His instruction. He always insisted that our obedience was a life and death proposition.

If He is your shalom, your rest - then why would you not want to rest in the manner He instructed you? He said that If we love Him that we should keep His commandments. And I am sure that you love Him. So what's the big deal?

The story of the bread from heaven is an interesting one. Elohim gave the miracle of the bread to prove (read 'TEST') both the children of Israel AND the mixed multitude.

Exo 16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

What law you ask? The Sabbath! Read the chapter. Now isn't this the same Elohim that is the same yesterday, today and forever? Look at what He did. The bread would not keep overnight - except on the Sabbath. And then a double portion fell the day before so they wouldn't have to go and collect it - on the Sabbath. Then He continued in this pattern for forty YEARS. You think He might have been trying to train us to follow this pattern?

So what are you saying? That now He has changed His mind? Would you mind citing scripture to that effect? I mean something as definitive as the commandment He gave saying to keep the Sabbath - forever. And please don't think to give me some verse that might lead you to believe that His disciples maybe met on the first day of the week. That is far from definitive in my way of thinking.

Revinius
May 7th 2008, 06:49 PM
I generally have my Sabbath on a Saturday, its important to have a weekly Sabbath, but i do not think it particularly matters on which day it is held. The Lord is honoured on all days.

talmidim
May 7th 2008, 08:22 PM
I generally have my Sabbath on a Saturday, its important to have a weekly Sabbath, but i do not think it particularly matters on which day it is held. The Lord is honoured on all days.Shalom Revinious,

Evidently, Elohim and His Messiah disagree with you. He did pick a day. Made it one of His 'Top Ten' instructions! Said it was a life or death matter. Of course that is only based on what they said.

We will get the opportunity to explain ourselves soon enough I guess. Good luck with that, BTW. Because it will not be your parents, principal, pastor, preacher, pope, policeman, pal or patsy that will stand before the Throne of Judgment. It is billed as a solo appearance. Of course you will have the Very Best Representation blood or money can buy. But even those folks can get convicted if they don't follow their Councilor's instructions.;)

Teke
May 8th 2008, 02:29 PM
Perfect Peace Y'all, :D

To those that say that the Sabbath isn't for Christians, I'm curious then about murder, adultery and idolatry? Are those now suddenly OK? If not, then when did it become the Nine Commandments? :rofl:

What happened to not judging people about days and times.
As to the comparison, there is one where Jesus is asked to judge a woman accused of adultery, He forgives her, do you think He broke the law.


To those that insist that Christians celebrate the "venerable day of the sun" as their Sabbath because the Messiah was resurrected on that day, they should know three things.

Sunday is the first day of the week and is by tradition dedicated to the Lord in remembrance of the Resurrection.






Messiah was resurrected on the day of First Fruits in fulfillment of prophecy. That day is reckoned as the first day after the Sabbath during the Passover week (Leviticus 23). Our Messiah is characterized in scripture as having resurrected and is the First Fruits of those that slept (1st Corinthians 15:20), indicating His fulfillment of the First Fruit of the resurrection, what we know from His teachings as the 'Harvest'. For those that can't count, this was an annual observance - not a weekly one.

The preincarnate Messiah gave man the Ten Commandments, for as it is written, He is Immanuel and the 'Word that was with Elohim and is Elohim'. And why is it written? Because He is the Author of the Ten Commandments and the Torah and the Prophets, and the Writings and the 'New' Testament. The Commandments are even written by His hand. Nowhere in scripture did He change His commandment about the weekly Sabbath. Instead, it was changed by the Roman Emperor and the Catholic (Universal) church, a claim they gladly verify.
The "venerable day of the sun", otherwise known as Sunday is a pagan day of observance to which Emperor Constantine was a lifelong adherent. It should come as no surprise that he changed the day of worship as the first official head of the Roman State Religion, in an effort to consolidate political power and artificially separate the followers of the Jewish Messiah Yahshuah from the Jews that did not accept Him. The penalty for non-compliance was death by torture...


And just in case someone wants to bring this up again, there is only one Sabbath. It is not the Christian Sabbath, the Jewish Sabbath or any other Sabbath. He very clearly said that He sanctified the seventh day and made it holy. He clearly gave it as a sign of His covenant between Himself and the children of Israel - forever. Even the formation of the word Sabbath in Hebrew is very closely linked to seven, swearing and fulfillment. It is based on the Hebrew root word that means to return home! Does any of this sound familiar? A covenant promise, marked by the seventh day, whose fulfillment has to do with returning home to Him in Paradise - and is ultimately fulfilled in sevens? Hmmm...

Despite all protestations to the contrary, the above is either verifiable by scripture, the historical record or both. And I am not trying to tell you what to believe, mainly because of the futility of that endeavor. ;) But for me, it certainly doesn't support the 'Christian Perspective' of the 'Sunday Sabbath'. It doesn't do a lot for the 'Nine Commandments' gambit either.

Concerning the Sabbath, that is - keeping the seventh day holy unto Him in remembrance of His covenant and His work in the creation:

He wrote it in stone.
He commanded it - forever.
He instructed us in how to observe it.
He warned us what would happen if we didn't keep ALL His commandments.

So, as the saying goes, 'Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you (read "men") more than unto God, judge ye.' (emphasis mine)

In His Love,
Phillip


Quite a bit of conjecture and assumption, obviously drawn from worldly knowledge (gossip in other words) and not that of the Church, which understands the seven days as a liturgical calendar for the Church and it's feast days. Least this is what scriptures teaches and the Church has continued in.;)

Revinius
May 8th 2008, 03:25 PM
Shalom Revinious,

Evidently, Elohim and His Messiah disagree with you. He did pick a day. Made it one of His 'Top Ten' instructions! Said it was a life or death matter. Of course that is only based on what they said.

We will get the opportunity to explain ourselves soon enough I guess. Good luck with that, BTW. Because it will not be your parents, principal, pastor, preacher, pope, policeman, pal or patsy that will stand before the Throne of Judgment. It is billed as a solo appearance. Of course you will have the Very Best Representation blood or money can buy. But even those folks can get convicted if they don't follow their Councilor's instructions.;)





Hmmm i didnt realise i was saved by Grace plus keeping the Sabbath on a certain day?

Studyin'2Show
May 8th 2008, 05:14 PM
Hmmm i didnt realise i was saved by Grace plus keeping the Sabbath on a certain day?I don't think that's what he meant, but it does sort of sound like that, huh? I guess he will have to explain that one. :hmm:

Stay Blessed! :)

talmidim
May 8th 2008, 09:48 PM
What happened to not judging people about days and times.This was a question about the Ten Commandments, which you artfully dodged. Do you think it is OK to keep only nine of them? Evidently so. In which case you do not answer to me. I was just asking how you viewed this topic. Accusations aside, I have your answer.

Quoting scripture in context to support a viewpoint is not judgmental of anyone but one's self. But I can understand your sensitivity to the practice if you rely on church tradition to understand His commandments.

As to the comparison, there is one where Jesus is asked to judge a woman accused of adultery, He forgives her, do you think He broke the law.The law to which you refer states that BOTH transgressors are to be brought before the PRIESTS. If you read the story carefully, you will find that they were trying to set Him up. Just like this question is a set up. And just as He did not judge her, I do not judge either...


Sunday is the first day of the week and is by tradition dedicated to the Lord in remembrance of the Resurrection.Emphasis mine. Tradition, not scripture.


Quite a bit of conjecture and assumption, obviously drawn from worldly knowledge (gossip in other words) and not that of the Church, which understands the seven days as a liturgical calendar for the Church and it's feast days. Least this is what scriptures teaches and the Church has continued in.;)Aren't your accusations of gossip baseless, mean-spirited and judgmental? And aren't your accusations a red-herring to detract from my original question?

I'll ask it again. How is it OK to only keep only nine commandments? And how is it OK to change the Word written in stone by the hand of Elohim, as a commandment - forever?

YoungLink
May 8th 2008, 09:50 PM
Hmmm i didnt realise i was saved by Grace plus keeping the Sabbath on a certain day?
You could replace the sabbath with any other commandment in that case.

YoungLink
May 8th 2008, 10:07 PM
I was thinking reading John- after Jesus was resurrected weren't his disciples surprised? So I don't see how they would have been keeping Sunday as the Sabbath when they were meeting as they didn't know until after they had met up that he was resurrected.
But that may not be a point at all- just a thought I had when I read it a while ago.

talmidim
May 8th 2008, 10:33 PM
Hmmm i didnt realise i was saved by Grace plus keeping the Sabbath on a certain day? Shalom Revinius,

So its OK to commit murder, because you have found grace? How about just slapping you mother around? Maybe just lusting after your neighbor's wife - not touching her mind you. But you have been saved by grace, so that is OK?

There once was a ordinary man. He had a lovely family and a good job. Not saying he was perfect. But for the most part, he was a law abiding citizen. And up until that time he never had any trouble with the law.

Then one day there came into his life an accuser. This accuser spared no effort digging up every last bit of dirt he could on this poor guy and portraying it in the worst possible light before the judge. The man found himself in jail, accused of multiple felonies and his reputation shot. He lost his job and his family lost faith in him and deserted him. It seemed his life was over.

Then came along a defense attorney that had a perfect record. The councilor took pity on this guy and told him that he would take his case pro-bono. But there was a condition. The defendant had to do everything his councilor told him to do. Because the law is the law and the judge is strict but fair in his interpretation of it.

The man took hope. He marveled at the grace shown him by this councilor. But he forgot the councilors warning. So while he was out of jail on his own recognizance, he transgressed one of the conditions of his release. The accuser caught wind of his transgression and dragged him before the judge. But the man did not repent. He had faith in his defender and his perfect record.

The man had found grace. And he had great faith in his defender. But his faith was without works. And in the end, his faith availed him nothing because he did not repent of his ways. The grace that his councilor showed him, did him no good. He had refused to follow his instructions. And the judge had no choice but to find him guilty.

Revinius
May 9th 2008, 05:48 AM
The new covenant does not state that a sabbath should be kept regardless of how wise it may be to keep. The law has been fulfilled in this area and the freedom Christ gives in that encompasses the Sabbath laws just like any other transgression. The early church didnt have a Sabbath, they met every day. Nowhere in Pauls letters does he tell Gentiles that they must have a Sabbath and keep it Holy as you are suggesting, which i would presume would have been a common question of outsiders if it was demanded of them? I think its important to have a Sabbath as demonstrated by the Lord in Genesis, but its not a legalistic process that must be enforced on said day, its a faith based thing where you take a day off and commune with the Lord.

talmidim
May 9th 2008, 09:37 AM
Hello Revinious,

Thank you for responding and for sharing your views. I realize that we will probably never agree, yet I feel compelled to truthfully respond to you as a brother in Messiah. Please do not take this as an effort to compel you to accept my beliefs. It is only what I owe. It is your due.

The new covenant does not state that a sabbath should be kept regardless of how wise it may be to keep. The law has been fulfilled in this area and the freedom Christ gives in that encompasses the Sabbath laws just like any other transgression. Likewise there is nowhere in the teachings of Messiah where it says that the Sabbath, or any of the other Ten have been done away with. If I stop my car at a stop sign, it is fulfilling the law. If I teach that you don't have to, it is abrogating the law. Nowhere does Messiah or His disciples abrogate this commandment that I can see.

It is my belief that the freedom to which you refer comes from two sources. The first was Paul's teaching about circumcision and being a debtor to the whole law. I believe that this was based in the belief that you do not have to be joined with the children of Israel in the covenant of Sinai. The second is similar, in that this also provided freedom from the rulings of the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, the legal authority of the people of Israel that had enforced their traditions found in their so called 'oral Torah'.

Nowhere is there professed any freedom in transgressing the commandments. It was the pre-incarnate Messiah that wrote them, no?

By accepting the Yahshua as Messiah, we became neither Jew not Greek, bond nor free, but one in Him. And I find this consistent with scripture because the 'Ten' were given before the Sinai covenant. So the freedom came from the removal of any earthy authority in spiritual matters. There is nothing that stands between you and your Father in heaven. No is there anything that stands in the way of you keeping His commandments as He intended.


The early church didnt have a Sabbath, they met every day. Nowhere in Pauls letters does he tell Gentiles that they must have a Sabbath and keep it Holy as you are suggesting, which i would presume would have been a common question of outsiders if it was demanded of them? I find this statement astonishing, considering the evidence to the contrary. Scripture clearly states that it was Paul's custom to meet on the Sabbath in the Synagogue with both Jews and Greeks...

Act 13:13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.
Act 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Act 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Act 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Act 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
Act 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

Act 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them.
Act 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

I could very well have added commentary to all of the above, showing how the Greek (read Gentile) met on the Sabbath too. Suffice to say that this was many years after the resurrection of Messiah. It also continued after these people accepted Yahshua as Messiah. And the only scripture I know that could possibly be misconstrued on this topic is where Paul tells his converts:
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
But we know from other scriptures that there were those Jews that forbade the Gentiles to practice these things unless they submit to circumcision and convert to Judaism first. But this Paul taught against.

On the other hand the subject of Sabbaths and Feast obviously did come up. And it came up about something that they were already practicing. It is highly unlikely that these gentiles spontaneously took up these practices on their own. It is something that they were taught and Paul was their teacher. Your 'common question of outsiders' is answered here.

So this scripture cannot be used to justify breaking the commandments. And please notice that the holydays or Feast Days were included with the weekly Sabbaths in this admonition. We are to observe His Feast Days too.

There is some extra-scriptural confirmations of Sabbath keeping in the manner of the Jews, after the death and resurrection of Messiah. Polycrates, the Bishop of Ephesus, a disciple of John the Apostle, in response to an inquiry from the other bishops about the reckoning of the Day of the Resurrection, wrote that John and all the congregation kept the Feast of the Passover in the custom of the Jews and according to the scriptural calendar. But his input was ultimately dismissed and the bishops declared a departure from the calendar and commandments of Adonai. Ahh, the traditions of men...


I think its important to have a Sabbath as demonstrated by the Lord in Genesis, but its not a legalistic process that must be enforced on said day, its a faith based thing where you take a day off and commune with the Lord.My dear brother in Messiah. Faith will bring you to sacrifice for your brothers and sisters - and for Elohim. But obedience is greater than sacrifice.

Yes it is good to stop and commune with the Lord. But it is better to be obedient and meet with Him on the days that He chooses, not the days that we choose. And one more thing before I put this to rest. Paul said, "Which are a shadow of things to come" in reference to Sabbaths and Feast Days.

The word used in Hebrew that refers to these implies that the Sabbaths and Feasts are a rehearsal of things to come. So for me personally, I will continue to rehearse in the manner that the Director instructs, that I may be ready to play my part as He intends.

Be blessed my friend. And thank you for patiently allowing me to explain my understanding of these matters.

In His Love,
Phillip

Revinius
May 9th 2008, 03:35 PM
I do not disagree that commandments are still in place, but the commandments were presented to God's people in the same way that their first King was presented to them, because they required faith. The commandmants are a vehicle through which Israel could live with God and place their faith in Him.

The commandments still stand, but Jesus fulfilled them, they are no longer something that is like a rock which we cannot lift. The new covenant is one under Grace and not Law.

Colossians 2:16-17 - Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a 'shadow of Christ' which is no longer binding since the substance of Christ has come. The Sabbath is a reflection of Christ, he is a reality now to us as the Messiah and as such he is essentially our Sabbath.

I think your stop sign analogy is flawed, if a sign has been in place and then a traffic light has been placed there then one does not have to obey the stop sign anymore. One obeys the traffic light as the stop sign has been superceded.

Nowhere in the Old Testament or New are the Gentiles commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle for the Lords creation.

I dont have much time to write as its getting late over here, but if you want more of what i have to say on the topic please let me know. :)

Teke
May 9th 2008, 04:54 PM
I'll ask it again. How is it OK to only keep only nine commandments? And how is it OK to change the Word written in stone by the hand of Elohim, as a commandment - forever?

[/COLOR][/SIZE]


To tell the truth, it's all OK obviously. God will forgive us in our ignorance.
God will forgive people who believe a day means more than any other day. And not because He needs to forgive them for His sake, but for the sake of others who would persecute them for doing it.

I don't see much in those who believe that scripture is to be taken and made their own to use against other people. Not even if the other people are breaking commandments. If I did I'd be like those Jesus gave a reality check on.

We don't need any written stones any longer, it's all written in our hearts. Though it is the last place we look.

The Sabbath is the seven day liturgical cycle for worship. Of that I am convinced. ;)

talmidim
May 9th 2008, 07:48 PM
I do not disagree that commandments are still in place, but the commandments were presented to God's people in the same way that their first King was presented to them, because they required faith. The commandmants are a vehicle through which Israel could live with God and place their faith in Him.So they ARE still in effect, just not ALL of them? Huh?


The commandments still stand, but Jesus fulfilled them, they are no longer something that is like a rock which we cannot lift. The new covenant is one under Grace and not Law. What so difficult about the Ten that you can't lift. It was all those traditions and fence laws He was talking about.


Never did Messiah speak against the commandments He gave.

Always did He speak against teaching, "for doctrine the commandments of men".


Colossians 2:16-17 - Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a 'shadow of Christ' which is no longer binding since the substance of Christ has come. The Sabbath is a reflection of Christ, he is a reality now to us as the Messiah and as such he is essentially our Sabbath.Revinius, did you even read what I posted? I am disappointed. That's not what those verses say at all...
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
It says that these things are prophetic of things concerning His ministry, that have not yet come to pass. You do know that He is coming back, right? And His ministry is not yet complete? Have you ever studied that prophetic significance of His Appointed Times?


I think your stop sign analogy is flawed, if a sign has been in place and then a traffic light has been placed there then one does not have to obey the stop sign anymore. One obeys the traffic light as the stop sign has been superceded.That of course assumes that He has REMOVED the Sabbath. And as I showed you, it wasn't Him OR His disciples. Look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Read the 'Mirror'. They will gladly tell you that they (the RCC) changed the day of worship. It is a church 'tradition' that they claim carries the same weight as (if not more than) scripture. The only difference between the Catholics and the Protestants in this is that the Protestants did not protest enough.


Nowhere in the Old Testament or New are the Gentiles commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle for the Lords creation.Really my friend? Then who were the mixed multitude that were with the children of Israel in the wilderness? Weren't they commanded to keep the Sabbath? Didn't they partake of the bread from heaven? My KJV tells me that they were.

Exo 16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove (read 'test') them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

The law spoken of here was the Sabbath. Remember the bread would not keep except on the Sabbath? And they were commanded to rest on the seventh day? And this was not as a TEST, whether or not they would obey Him?

This occurred directly after they escaped pharaoh, so all of the 'mixed-multitude' that followed them out of Egypt were included, contrary to what you say. The covenant at Sinai would not happen for some time. But here He speaks of His law. And I personally think that these are the same 'Ten' that He has been trying to drill into His children since the fall of Adam. But that is just me.

OK, this covers the voice out of the Tower of Cloud by day and the Pillar of Fire by night. What about the Messiah? Oh yeah! They are the same person!(Need scripture?) And He said that He did not come to destroy the Law... He said if you love me, keep My Commandments.

So what about Paul? It is rumored that the Apostle Paul taught New Covenant brethren, not to follow the Law of Moses. But if you read his letters carefully you will see that Paul was teaching against the law of the Pharisees, NOT the law of Moses or the commandments of Elohim. The Pharisees taught that salvation came through works and not faith. What Paul taught was that the believer was not bound by the authority of the Pharisee, the ones who taught, "for doctrines, the commandments of men." Yeah, that law...


I dont have much time to write as its getting late over here, but if you want more of what i have to say on the topic please let me know. :)Rest well.

talmidim
May 10th 2008, 06:10 AM
To tell the truth, it's all OK obviously. God will forgive us in our ignorance. Teke, I am skeptical of your 'its all good' take on this topic. And who can claim ignorance of His commandment to keep the Sabbath? And who can claim ignorance that the Sabbath was changed by the decree of man?


God will forgive people who believe a day means more than any other day. And not because He needs to forgive them for His sake, but for the sake of others who would persecute them for doing it.

I don't see much in those who believe that scripture is to be taken and made their own to use against other people. Not even if the other people are breaking commandments. If I did I'd be like those Jesus gave a reality check on. Persecute? Use against people? Teke, I'm surprised at you. For someone to peaceably quote scripture in support of an understanding of the practice of the Apostles should not be characterized as 'persecution' or 'taken to use against people'. However, I understand some denominations are not unfamiliar with the practice.

The 'reality check' as I recall was as follows:
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


This from http://www.religioustolerance.org/sabbath.htm


Why and When the Weekly Sabbath was Moved

During the period 30 CE (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm) to 313 CE, Christians lived in a predominately Pagan world. There was a mosaic of Pagan religions in the Roman Empire:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif The long established, official religion of the Roman Empire was Pagan. It involved worship of -- or at least nominal sacrifices to -- a pantheon of Roman deities, both Gods and Goddesses.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif A strong competitor to Christianity in those days was a third religion: Mithraism. This faith involved the worship of a Persian God Mithra, and was popular among the Roman civil service and military.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif There were many other smaller religions, including the Pagan religions of Greece and Egypt, and the mystery religions.

The Roman religion and Mithraism reserved Sunday as their day of religious observance. Many Christians were probably tempted to follow suit.
The Christians were also motivated to change the Sabbath day as a method of distancing themselves from the Jews. Two reasons were:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif The Government intermittently persecuted the Jews at this time; it was safer for Christianity to be considered as a separate religion rather than as a sect of Judaism. http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif Relations between the Jews and Christians was hostile at this time. The early Christian church had suffered much persecution from the Jews.

In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire:
"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
The Church Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath. They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day." There are many indicators in the historical record that some Christians ignored the Church's ruling. Sabbath observance was noted in Wales as late as 1115 CE. Francis Xavier was concerned about Sabbath worship in Goa, India in 1560 CE; he called for the Inquisition to set up an office there to stamp out what he called "Jewish wickedness". A Catholic Provincial Council suppressed the practice in Norway in 1435 CE.
These 'churches' certainly knew how to persecute the laity in order to shore up their man-made doctrines. Just call out the Inquisitors...

I chose this article for no other reason than because it contained most of the relevant facts concerning the changing of the Sabbath observance. The scriptural and historical record fully supports that the Sabbath was not changed by the Messiah or His Apostles as so many of today's professional churchmen claim. The unlawful change to this commandment is still practiced because many with a vested interest still falsely teach 'for doctrine the commandments of men'.

These facts can be readily verified in any number of scholarly sources or with a simple search of the web. Therefore I am puzzled how so many people can claim ignorance. Heck, just Google 'Council of Laodicea' or 'Constantine' and this stuff pops up. It is found in most reputable historical reference books and encyclopedias.


We don't need any written stones any longer, it's all written in our hearts. Though it is the last place we look. Teke, I am familiar with the prophecy that you attempt to paraphrase. But what you say and what His Word says differ markedly:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Teke, it doesn't say He will change His law. It says He is going to put His law in our hearts. There is no inference that He is going to write a different law in our hearts. Where did you get that idea from? Certainly not from those verses. Nowhere does scripture teach a change to this commandment.


The Sabbath is the seven day liturgical cycle for worship. Of that I am convinced. ;)Perhaps according to you. But according to Him, it is an eternal commandment to observe the seventh day as a remembrance of His work in the creation and one that He gave as a 'mark' of His covenant. Scripture also says He gave the Sabbath as a test to prove who would walk in His law. And from what I read in scripture, this is a pass-fail, life or death test.

As I understand it, He shed His blood for the remission of sins, not so that we could be unrepentant and willfully disobedient of His eternal commandments. Am I wrong?

Naphal
May 10th 2008, 07:32 AM
I find this statement astonishing, considering the evidence to the contrary. Scripture clearly states that it was Paul's custom to meet on the Sabbath in the Synagogue with both Jews and Greeks...

So? If I went to preach Jesus to a temple full of Jews does that also mean I keep the Sabbath?



Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Here they met every day. That includes Saturdays and Sundays. There wasn't a certain, commanded day of the week to meet together in the temple (known as going to church in modern times).


Acts 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
Acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

Same is seen here.

Acts 13:13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.
Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

Some believe that Paul went to the Synagogue because he "kept the Sabbath" but there is nothing in the texts to suggest anything like this. Paul merely went to where people were gathered so he could preach Jesus to them.

Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Acts 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Paul also was able to preach to both Gentiles and Jews at the Synagogue.

Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
Acts 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

Here we see that Paul would go whereever and whenever to reach people to preach to.

Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Acts 19:9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

He preached every day. It didn't matter if it was Saturday or Wednesday. All days were the same to Paul. The important thing for him was to spread the Gospel.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

So here we read "as his manner was". Shall we assume that this means he "kept the Sabbath" ie: didn't work, didn't travel far, didn't bear a burden or kindle a fire? Of course not. His "manner" was to go to the Jews and Gentiles on a Saturday where they were gathered and "reason" (this means to discuss and debate) with them about how Jesus was the promised Messiah. Shoot, Christians should do that to this day! Every Saturday they should come into temples and synagogues and "reason" with the people there about Jesus and the gospel! That wouldn't mean these Christians "kept the Sabbath".

talmidim
May 10th 2008, 09:34 AM
Let's see,



They met on the Sabbath in the Synagogues - but the didn't keep the Sabbath.



The Sabbath was officially changes hundreds of years later by decree - but the didn't need to make the decree, because they didn't keep the Sabbath anyway.


This is where I bow out. Believe what you will, at least you have been informed.

Bye now! :wave:

Naphal
May 10th 2008, 09:37 AM
Let's see,



They met on the Sabbath in the Synagogues - but the didn't keep the Sabbath.


The Sabbath was officially changes hundreds of years later by decree - but the didn't need to make the decree, because they didn't keep the Sabbath anyway.







Yes that is correct.





This is where I bow out. Believe what you will, at least you have been informed.


Ditto.

Teke
May 10th 2008, 02:48 PM
Perhaps according to you. But according to Him, it is an eternal commandment to observe the seventh day as a remembrance of His work in the creation and one that He gave as a 'mark' of His covenant. Scripture also says He gave the Sabbath as a test to prove who would walk in His law. And from what I read in scripture, this is a pass-fail, life or death test.

As I understand it, He shed His blood for the remission of sins, not so that we could be unrepentant and willfully disobedient of His eternal commandments. Am I wrong?



Nobody needs to change any commandments, just the way they think about them. ;)
Christianity observes the Sabbath as a week, and as worship. The liturgical calendar of the OT is based on weeks, beginning with Passover bringing in Pentecost and the counting of weeks. When Israel failed to keep the feasts, they had but only to look toward God for repentance and begin anew with Passover at the Spring equinox. Meaning get back to their seven day cycle of feasts to the Lord.

Historically and biblically, this is the way that Israel and the Church have kept feasts to the Lord. And far as I know, you can't get seven days in one day, so it is a bit silly to try to. ie. keep one day and remember six others or some such thing

We worship God every week all week long. Christianity is a way of life, not a religion.

talmidim
May 10th 2008, 03:01 PM
Yes that is correct.

Ditto.

I was just phrasing your argument in such a way as to show how ridiculous it sounds. But like I say, if that is what you want to believe then you get to try the same argument with Him. Good luck with that.:D

talmidim
May 10th 2008, 03:15 PM
Nobody needs to change any commandments, just the way they think about them. ;)
Christianity observes the Sabbath as a week, and as worship. The liturgical calendar of the OT is based on weeks, beginning with Passover bringing in Pentecost and the counting of weeks. When Israel failed to keep the feasts, they had but only to look toward God for repentance and begin anew with Passover at the Spring equinox. Meaning get back to their seven day cycle of feasts to the Lord.

Historically and biblically, this is the way that Israel and the Church have kept feasts to the Lord. And far as I know, you can't get seven days in one day, so it is a bit silly to try to. ie. keep one day and remember six others or some such thing

We worship God every week all week long. Christianity is a way of life, not a religion.Now there is another good argument to take to the throne.

"Gee, I know what you commandments says. That we are to keep the seventh day holy and all, and that we are commanded to work on the other six days - but I was thinking in a whole new paradigm! I just thought how much better your commandment would be if we just loved on you all week long and worked whenever we felt like it.

Oh! I almost forgot! We decided to change how you wanted us to remember your Feast Days too. Our way is actually better than yours. And we liked it so much that we taught millions if not billions of your children to do the same thing.

You know, its not really like disobedience. It's kinda like what King Saul did, keeping the cattle to sacrifice to you. You know our heart, right? So, what do you think?

The heart of man is filled with WHAT continually? What do you mean obedience is greater than sacrifice!

Lord! Lord!"

talmidim
May 10th 2008, 03:26 PM
If we thought of the scriptures and the historical record as evidence and analyzed it in that fashion...


(think about it for a moment instead of protesting your innocence)


...there is no argument made in this thread that would keep the accused from being charged, tried and convicted in a court of law. And even with the greatest Counselor as our Advocate we would still be found guilty. Why? Because we would be convicted out of our own testimony.

We knowingly transgress and do not repent. Look up the penalty for that in scripture, OT or NT...

And btw, Shabbat Shalom!

Teke
May 10th 2008, 03:41 PM
Now there is another good argument to take to the throne.

"Gee, I know what you commandments says. That we are to keep the seventh day holy and all, and that we are commanded to work on the other six days - but I was thinking in a whole new paradigm! I just thought how much better your commandment would be if we just loved on you all week long and worked whenever we felt like it.

Oh! I almost forgot! We decided to change how you wanted us to remember your Feast Days too. Our way is actually better than yours. And we liked it so much that we taught millions if not billions of your children to do the same thing.



What are you saying Talmidim, we're only holy on the seventh day....the seventh day is only holy......
If such is true, then why didn't Jesus rise on the holiest day of the week according to your tables of stone. Or why don't we just do good deeds only on that one day you appointed for us.

Just don't see your reasoning of this subject.

Here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=123557) is another thread on the subject in reference to Matthew 28:1. Perhaps you can explain our error.:cool:

Studyin'2Show
May 10th 2008, 05:45 PM
What are you saying Talmidim, we're only holy on the seventh day....the seventh day is only holy......
If such is true, then why didn't Jesus rise on the holiest day of the week according to your tables of stone. Because He was resting! :lol: I'm teasing! But seriously, we need to get away from the 'my day's better than your day' mentality. It's not about one day being better than another, for me. It's about God telling His people to 'remember' a particular day as a reminder of His creation work. That's not hard and I don't find it a burden. ;)

God Bless! :)

diffangle
May 10th 2008, 05:58 PM
And btw, Shabbat Shalom!


Shabbat Shalom Tal! :pp:pp:pp Praise YHWH that He made this day FOR us instead of against us.

Mar 2:27 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&c=2&v=27&t=KJV#27)And He said unto them, The sabbath was made for man

Revinius
May 10th 2008, 08:33 PM
Talmidim, i will reply to your post soon, but as i havent the time currently you will have to wait a little. Look forward to our discussion though.

Naphal
May 10th 2008, 10:32 PM
I was just phrasing your argument in such a way as to show how ridiculous it sounds. But like I say, if that is what you want to believe then you get to try the same argument with Him. Good luck with that.:D

Christians won't have any reason to argue with God over the Sabbath and what it is.

Teke
May 10th 2008, 11:06 PM
Because He was resting! :lol: I'm teasing! But seriously, we need to get away from the 'my day's better than your day' mentality. It's not about one day being better than another, for me. It's about God telling His people to 'remember' a particular day as a reminder of His creation work. That's not hard and I don't find it a burden. ;)

God Bless! :)

To be completely honest, God didn't tell people any such thing.

talmidim
May 11th 2008, 12:51 AM
Huh?

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,...

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Teke
May 11th 2008, 01:25 AM
Is that the explanation for sabbath meaning both a day and a week.:confused

talmidim
May 11th 2008, 01:51 AM
Teke, what are you saying?

Keeping the Sabbath means to cease your work on the seventh day. It occurs by definition once a week.