PDA

View Full Version : Is it a sin for a Christian to break the Saturday Sabbath?



Pages : [1] 2

Naphal
May 5th 2008, 03:42 AM
Open to anyone who wishes to speak up :)

Is it a sin for a Christian to break the Saturday Sabbath?

I have a hard time getting a clear answer on this for some reason.

My answer is no.

Your answer?

My heart's Desire
May 5th 2008, 05:35 AM
My answer is also NO. And the reason is that the 7th day Sabbath was given to Israel as a day of rest. It was first given to them when they were in the wilderness and manna was provided for them. God even provided extra manna for that day so they could even rest from getting food. He provided for them.
I find odd that some who might say that Israel is no longer God's chosen people, try to keep the 7th day Sabbath. I'm speaking of Gentiles or Christians as your question asks.

Athanasius
May 5th 2008, 05:51 AM
Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

uric3
May 5th 2008, 03:04 PM
The answer is no if your Read Col 2:14-17

"14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16Let 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: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

We see here the Christ blotted out the handwriting which was against us, which was the OT... obviously since it couldn't take away sin and no one could keep it. He nailed it to the cross... Another passage that deals with this is 2nd Cor 3:7-11 So we see the OT is done away with... we no longer follow its teachings

With that being said we can eat what we want was are not held accountable for feasts, holydays nor the sabbath.

Does that mean we don't use the OT... thats not so we can steal study and read from it and learn from it a lot to gather from it... just its laws are no longer binding so we can eat pork, we don't have to be circumcised, we can work on the sabbath if we so choose, etc... The commands we follow today are those of Christ.

Hope that helps

Love Child
May 5th 2008, 05:10 PM
I have a poll up that is very simular to this

Minister D
May 5th 2008, 05:28 PM
Ten Commandments {Moral Law} and Ceremonial Law {the temporary law for sin offering "the ordinances)

The Ten commandment have never been called the ordinances,

Click here to learn the differences
http://gdtr.topcities.com/life/chart.html


I also gave a sermon on this topic found here
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the_living_word_mission_life_Church/2008/01/19/Law-vs-the-Ordinances


What is it that defines Sin? What are we to repent of?

If the 10 Commandment's are done away with, {which you hear preached from behind the pulpit and we are told they were nailed to the cross} then there is no sin!

If there is no sin, what are we to repent of?

There only remains {1} answer!

Sense the 10 Commandments are done away with, then it is man's tradition that defines sin, THUS, no need for God, for man has declared himself above God.

People do not even know what they are to repent from!

They have no Idea what defines sin!

These people are not going to repent, they are listening to the lying preachers in the pulpits every Sunday morning, saying God's Commandments are nailed to the cross, they are done away with, NO they are NOT, It is the death penalty for breaking God's Commandments is what is nailed to the cross!

How does the Bible define Sin? 1 John 3:4 says that, “Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law.”
So what defines Sin? God's Royal Law {His 10 Commandments} tells us what defines sin.

Minister D :saint:

Ta-An
May 5th 2008, 05:30 PM
Open to anyone who wishes to speak up :)

Is it a sin for a Christian to break the Saturday Sabbath?

I have a hard time getting a clear answer on this for some reason.

My answer is no.

Your answer?Napal...... it is a case of following your heart :idea:... not what others say..... it is something you can go on your knees for, and ask G_d to guide you :)

Minister D
May 5th 2008, 05:54 PM
Open to anyone who wishes to speak up :)

Is it a sin for a Christian to break the Saturday Sabbath?

I have a hard time getting a clear answer on this for some reason.

My answer is no.

Your answer?

Do not believe what man says, believe what God's Word says, as the vastness of mankind is deeply deceived.

Minister D

uric3
May 5th 2008, 06:04 PM
Ten Commandments {Moral Law} and Ceremonial Law {the temporary law for sin offering "the ordinances)

The Ten commandment have never been called the ordinances,

Click here to learn the differences


What is it that defines Sin? What are we to repent of?

If the 10 Commandment's are done away with, {which you hear preached from behind the pulpit and we are told they were nailed to the cross} then there is no sin!

If there is no sin, what are we to repent of?

There only remains {1} answer!

Sense the 10 Commandments are done away with, then it is man's tradition that defines sin, THUS, no need for God, for man has declared himself above God.

People do not even know what they are to repent from!

They have no Idea what defines sin!

These people are not going to repent, they are listening to the lying preachers in the pulpits every Sunday morning, saying God's Commandments are nailed to the cross, they are done away with, NO they are NOT, It is the death penalty for breaking God's Commandments is what is nailed to the cross!

How does the Bible define Sin? 1 John 3:4 says that, “Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law.”
So what defines Sin? God's Royal Law {His 10 Commandments} tells us what defines sin.

Minister D :saint:

I see what you are saying here however the Bible is clear that they are done away with if not please explain 2nd Cor 3:7-11 and col 2:14-17... its quite clear.

I have people ask me well then if the 10 commandments are done away does that mean we can kill, steal, etc...?

The obvious answer is no... we now live under the commands of Christ we follow the NT those are how we define sin... if you go by the OT law then if you eat bacon you're in trouble my friend... also read Gal 5 if you try to bring back part of the old law you are a debtor to all of it start offering up bulls and goats...

Read John 13:34 and Matt 22:37 if you do those two commandments that pretty much has the entire 10 commandments wrapped up into two... save the sabbath with is no longer bound according to Col 2.

DanDMan64
May 5th 2008, 06:07 PM
Open to anyone who wishes to speak up :)

Is it a sin for a Christian to break the Saturday Sabbath?

I have a hard time getting a clear answer on this for some reason.

My answer is no.

Your answer?My answer is also NO. But I do have to point-out that I believe it is important to understand why that particular commandment was given in the first place, and that is to let us know that we need to take some time-off to rest once a week.

You know the old adage "All work and no play..." I think that commandment was given with that idea in mind, now if I could only get my wife to understand that! :lol:

Minister D
May 5th 2008, 06:51 PM
I did explain it, you simply did not view the chart


Minister D

uric3
May 5th 2008, 07:38 PM
I did explain it, you simply did not view the chart

{edit: links removed by mod}

Minister D

I saw the chart however that does not explain 2nd Cor 3:7-11 which states the 10 commandments are done away.

"7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ."

The only thing in the OT that Moses had which was written and engraven in stones was the 10 commandments... it was also the only time we see Moses face being covered via a veil... There is nothing else this passage could be talking about other than the 10 commandments unless something else was written and engaven in stone that I don't know about... What are you thoughts.

Jesusinmyheart
May 5th 2008, 08:09 PM
How does the Bible define Sin? 1 John 3:4 says that, “Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law.”
So what defines Sin? God's Royal Law {His 10 Commandments} tells us what defines sin.I agree with minister D fully.

It's part of the ten commandments and to call it a ceremonial Law gives way to the excuse that it is no longer valid.
I see it as a moral Law, just as the rest of the 10 commandments that come after it, because it foreshadows the way things are supposed to be in God's Kingdom.
The Sabbath still awaits a fulfillment, and presently still is a shadow of things to come.


2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? IOW what the Spirit writes on a soft willing heart has more glory)
2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.
2Co 3:11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. IOW the Law written on the heart has more glory than the Law which was written on stone.
But it is the SAME LAW, not a different one, remember God does NOT change, and neither would His rules.


A better perspective on how to understand abovce verses is needed.

That which is done away is not the law itself, but rather how it is made manifest.

The law written on stone was a ministration of death, but the SAME Law written on willing flesh in the heart of a Believer is that which remains, and has more glory and gives life.

Shalom,
Tanja

Clifton
May 5th 2008, 08:17 PM
I agree with minister D fully.

It's part of the ten commandments and to call it a ceremonial Law gives way to the excuse that it is no longer valid.
I see it as a moral Law, just as the rest of the 10 commandments that come after it, because it foreshadows the way things are supposed to be in God's Kingdom.
The Sabbath still awaits a fulfillment, and presently still is a shadow of things to come.


2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? IOW what the Spirit writes on a soft willing heart has more glory)
2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.
2Co 3:11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. IOW the Law written on the heart has more glory than the Law which was written on stone.
But it is the SAME LAW, not a different one, remember God does NOT change, and neither would His rules.


A better perspective on how to understand abovce verses is needed.

That which is done away is not the law itself, but rather how it is made manifest.

The law written on stone was a ministration of death, but the SAME Law written on willing flesh in the heart of a Believer is that which remains, and has more glory.

Shalom,
Tanja

I have long thought that some people were getting the 10 commandments mixed up and confused with the 603 commandments for the Israelites - which of those, as you may know, where not ALL applicable to "everyone" - those depended on certain factors, and even today, are not all feasible.

Blessings.

St Shy
May 5th 2008, 09:09 PM
I was inclined to believe in Sabbath-keeping when I was newly 'born again' if you will.

That hardly lasted long.

In any case, I think Paul is pretty clear about Sabbath-keeping. We have no business judging others based on keeping a Sabbath. I honestly can't see how keeping or not keeping a Sabbath does much to promote love, peace, humility, and purity, and whatever virtue you want to name.

However, if someone wants to keep it, that's between them and God. I won't judge them either, but to elevate Sabbath-keeping above virtues that even non-believers can respect and recognize does not seem reasonable to me at all and does not seem to match the spirit of the Gospel or the spirit of the NT writings which focuses on grace, forgiveness, and following after purity of heart versus wranglings about the letter of the law.

But don't take my word for it. I'm just saying from a more practical perspective and from being one who in the past went through severe depression because I was being taught to do this or that thing in order to be saved and many of the things I was not able to perform due to circumstances. So I am personally turned off by such arguments. I mean, it's not like life isn't already extremely complicated, especially when you throw the faith thing into the mix where not only do you have to deal with real life obligations but then you need to ever consider things you normally wouldn't have because of the Spirit working in you to do God's will versus doing your will when it violated his commandments.

Naphal
May 5th 2008, 09:25 PM
The Ten commandment have never been called the ordinances,

They are in the NT. The entire law is referred to as such:


Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

1378
1378 dogma {dog'-mah}

from the base of 1380; TDNT - 2:230,178; n n

AV - decree 3, ordinance 2; 5

1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a
suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment
3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living




Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in [the rules and requirements of the law of Moses]; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;



1 Kings 2:3 And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:

The law of Moses contains all the law of God, the ten commandments included.

BTW there is no such thing as the ten being called "the royal" commandments. That's from man only. The ten are no more royal than the least of the law.

Buck shot
May 5th 2008, 10:32 PM
Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.Mark 2:27

John 9:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=9&verse=16&version=9&context=verse) Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.


Jesus cannot sin and if you believed the Pharisees you would think He had. But since we know He can't. You must agree that a law that was made for man is not a sin against God. If it is a sin, it is against ourselves to break it. I would like to take a true day of rest every week but I cannot believe serving God on my days off is a sin!

Minister D
May 6th 2008, 12:27 AM
I saw the chart however that does not explain 2nd Cor 3:7-11 which states the 10 commandments are done away.


"7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ."

The only thing in the OT that Moses had which was written and engraven in stones was the 10 commandments... it was also the only time we see Moses face being covered via a veil... There is nothing else this passage could be talking about other than the 10 commandments unless something else was written and engaven in stone that I don't know about... What are you thoughts.


The old covenant has been done away (II Corinthians 3:6-18)

Again you do not understand the difference between God's Moral Law and "The old covenant which was based upon the Law of Moses". The new covenant is based upon grace through the finished sacrifice of Christ on the cross. {You no longer have to sacrifice a lamb at the alter}, Ceremonial Law {the temporary law for sin offering "the ordinances") this was one of the OLD Moses laws, Christ was the Lamb that removed the sin, but the 10 commandments of God are still very much in effect today, and when Christ died over 600 ordinances were nailed to the cross with him.

Now tell me, which one of the following would you say are done away with, if there are any done away with, then there is no sin, as it is God's Ten Commandments, that define sin.



EXODUS 20:3-17 NKJ


ONE
3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.




TWO
4 "You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.




THREE
7 "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.




FOUR
8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daugh-ter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.




FIVE
12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.




SIX
13 "You shall not murder.




SEVEN
14 "You shall not commit adultery.



EIGHT
15 "You shall not steal.



NINE
16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.



TEN
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."


God’s Ten Commandments are a law of love. (Moral law they are God‘s Law)
The Ceremonial law were observed as a result of sin. (They were not love)
The Sabbath of the Lord is set aside quality time with our Creator. (It is a love Commandment)
Some Questions To Consider:
Why would our God put His Sabbath in His law of love if it is not a law of love?
Why would God put His Sabbath in His eternal law of love if it’s not eternal?
Why didn't God put His Sabbath with all the ceremonial sabbaths if it was to end at the stake/cross?
Why didn't God put His Sabbath with the Jewish ceremonial sabbaths if His Sabbath was only for the Jews?
Did God’s eternal law change, when Jesus said till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” ?
Did God’s love for us diminish or end at the stake/cross?
Does God still want personal, quality time from us? Holy time with Him on His Holy Day anymore?
Lets See The Sabbath truth:
God did not include His Sabbath with the ceremonial laws that were nailed to the stake/cross because His Sabbath is Not a ceremonial law. God did not include His Sabbath with the ceremonial law, as His Sabbath is for Everyone. How could our God of infinite wisdom place a Temporary law in an Eternal law or a law that is NOT love in a law that IS love? Our God is not the author of confusion…“ ” 1 Corinthians 14:33. God put His Sabbath in His Moral Law of Love because it is a Law of Love and a very special one that is a SIGN it is God we love, worship and belong to.
Exodus 31:16-17 “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a PERPETUAL covenant. 17 It is a SIGN between me and the children of Israel FOR EVER: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”
Who was the New Covenant made with? You need to think very carefully before saying you are not a Jew or Child of Israel. See Romans 2:28-29 (http://gdtr.topcities.com/life/law_chart.html#1) and Galatians 3:28-29 (http://gdtr.topcities.com/life/law_chart.html#1). He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly and so if we are God’s children then we are Abraham’s seed and therefore children of Israel and heirs according to the promise.
Hebrews 8:10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:”
What a beautiful verse. God found fault with the Old Covenant in that the people would not obey His Commandments. So now God has written His law in our hearts and in our minds in hope that it will be our hearts desire to love and obey Him so He can be our God and we can be His people.

2 Peter 2:20
May 6th 2008, 12:37 AM
What if my ox falls in a ditch on the sabbath?

Jesusinmyheart
May 6th 2008, 01:40 AM
What if my ox falls in a ditch on the sabbath?

Then you pull it out, cause it is lawful to do good on the sabbath!!!

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
May 6th 2008, 01:45 AM
I have long thought that some people were getting the 10 commandments mixed up and confused with the 603 commandments for the Israelites - which of those, as you may know, where not ALL applicable to "everyone" - those depended on certain factors, and even today, are not all feasible.

Blessings.

Well i consider the 613 an extrapolation of the ten Commandments, just like the 10 Commandments are an extrapolation of the two greatest Commandments. They all point to the teaching of how to truly love one another.

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
May 6th 2008, 02:37 AM
Then you pull it out, cause it is lawful to do good on the sabbath!!!

Shalom,
Tanja

Is it good to go to work on the Sabbath? Is it good to gather sticks on the Sabbath if you need them lets say for a fire, which begs the question is it good to kindle a fire to cook with or keep yourself or your family warm on the sabbath?

Truthinlove
May 6th 2008, 02:41 AM
From article.....http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Sabbath/tabid/53/Default.aspx


THE NINE "MORAL" COMMANDS OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS ARE REITERATED in the New Testament:

1). To worship the Lord God only (1st commandment): no less than 50 times
2). Idolatry (2nd commandment): condemned 12 times
3). Profanity (3rd commandment): condemned 4 times
4). Honoring parents (5th commandment) is taught 6 times
5). Murder (6th commandment) condemned 6 times
6). Adultery (7th commandment) condemned 12 times
7). Theft (8th commandment) condemned 4 times
8). False Witness (9th commandment) condemned 4 times
9). Covetousness (10th commandment) condemned 9 times
* see references here * (http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Sabbath/tabid/53/Default.aspx#references)
References for the 9 "moral" commandments reiterated in the New Testament:
1st - Worship God - (53 times) Matthew 2:2; 2:8; 2:11; 4:9; 4:10; 14:33; 15:9; 28:9; 28:17, Mark 7:7, Luke 4:7; 4:8; 24:52, John 4:20,21,22(x2),23,24(x2); 9:38; 12:20, Acts 7:43; 8:27; 16:14; 17:23(x2); 18:7; 18:13; 19:27; 24:11, Romans 1:25; 12:1, 1 Corinthians 14:25, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:18, Hebrews 1:6; 9:1; 9:6; 10:2; 11:21, Revelation 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1; 11:16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4; 19:10; 22:8; 22:9
2nd - No Idolatry -

(20 times) Acts 15:20,29, Romans 1:25, 1 Corinthians 6:9; Chapter 8; 10:7,14; 12:2, 2 Corinthians 6:16, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Galatians 5:20, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5, 1 Peter 4:3, 1 John 5:21, Revelation 2:14, 20; 9:20; 21:8; 22:15
3rd - No Profanity -

(4 times) Matthew 12:36, Ephesians 5:4, Romans 2:24, Revelation 16:9
5th - Honor Parents -

(6 times) Matthew 15:5, Matthew 19:19, Mark 7:10; 10:19, Luke 18:20, Ephesians 6:2
6th - Murder -

(7 times) Matthew 5:21; 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 1:29; 13:9, James 2:11
7th - Adultery -

(12 times) Matthew 5:27,28,32; 19:9,18, Mark 10:11,19, Luke 16:18; 18:20, Romans 13:9, James 2:11, 2 Peter 2:14
8th - Stealing -

(6 times) Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 2:21; 13:9, Ephesians 4:28
9th - Lying -

(4 times) Matthew 15:9; 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20
10th - Don't Covet -

(9 times) Mark 7:22, Luke 12:15, Romans 1:29; 7:7; 13:9, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5, Hebrews 13:5, 2 Peter 2:14
Why is it that the duty to keep the Seventh day as Sabbath is not mentioned ONCE in the New Testament?
WHEN THE NEW TESTAMENT LISTS SINS, SABBATH BREAKING IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT:

In Mark 7:21-22 13 sins are listed. Jesus did not mention breaking the Sabbath.
In Romans 1:29-32 20 sins are listed and not one of them is Sabbath breaking.
In Galatians 5:19-21 a list of 15 sins are given,
In 2 Timothy 3:1-4 there's a list of 18 sins, but not once is Sabbath breaking mentioned!
WHY IS IT THAT NOWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS IT TAUGHT THAT THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT MUST BE OBSERVED?

-Why is it that nowhere in the New Testament is failure to keep the Sabbath day condemned as sin?
-Why is the fourth commandment itself not repeated even ONCE in the New Testament?
-If the Sabbath keeping is so important for a disciple of Christ, why was it not mentioned in His sermon on the Mount or in ANY of His teachings?
-Why didn't Jesus command Sabbath keeping?
-Why didn't any of the Apostles command Sabbath keeping?
-Why didn't the Jerusalem counsel command Sabbath keeping or condemn Sabbath breaking? (Acts 15)

Some answer that the Jews already knew about the Sabbath so it was taken for granted that they would continue to keep it, but then why were the other nine commandments reiterated? Would they not be taken for granted as well? It would also seem that with so many Gentiles coming into the Church, that if keeping the Sabbath was so important there would be instruction in the New Testament Epistles somewhere concerning it. There are instructions for them concerning morality, ethics, worship, Church order and family lifestyle. Why would something as important as Sabbath keeping be ignored? Circumcision, which predates the Law and the Sabbath commandment was an issue in the New Testament Church and is addressed repeatedly in the New Testament Epistles and by the Jerusalem Counsel.

Minister D
May 6th 2008, 02:45 AM
What if my ox falls in a ditch on the sabbath?

get it out, if a friend's car is in a ditch, help them out,

Minister D
May 6th 2008, 03:11 AM
From article.....http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Sabbath/tabid/53/Default.aspx



THE NINE "MORAL" COMMANDS OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS ARE REITERATED in the New Testament:
1). To worship the Lord God only (1st commandment): no less than 50 times


2). Idolatry (2nd commandment): condemned 12 times


3). Profanity (3rd commandment): condemned 4 times


4). Honoring parents (5th commandment) is taught 6 times


5). Murder (6th commandment) condemned 6 times


6). Adultery (7th commandment) condemned 12 times


7). Theft (8th commandment) condemned 4 times


8). False Witness (9th commandment) condemned 4 times


9). Covetousness (10th commandment) condemned 9 times


* see references here * (http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Sabbath/tabid/53/Default.aspx#references)


References for the 9 "moral" commandments reiterated in the New Testament:


1st - Worship God - (53 times) Matthew 2:2; 2:8; 2:11; 4:9; 4:10; 14:33; 15:9; 28:9; 28:17, Mark 7:7, Luke 4:7; 4:8; 24:52, John 4:20,21,22(x2),23,24(x2); 9:38; 12:20, Acts 7:43; 8:27; 16:14; 17:23(x2); 18:7; 18:13; 19:27; 24:11, Romans 1:25; 12:1, 1 Corinthians 14:25, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:18, Hebrews 1:6; 9:1; 9:6; 10:2; 11:21, Revelation 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1; 11:16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4; 19:10; 22:8; 22:9


2nd - No Idolatry -
(20 times) Acts 15:20,29, Romans 1:25, 1 Corinthians 6:9; Chapter 8; 10:7,14; 12:2, 2 Corinthians 6:16, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Galatians 5:20, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5, 1 Peter 4:3, 1 John 5:21, Revelation 2:14, 20; 9:20; 21:8; 22:15

3rd - No Profanity -
(4 times) Matthew 12:36, Ephesians 5:4, Romans 2:24, Revelation 16:9

5th - Honor Parents -
(6 times) Matthew 15:5, Matthew 19:19, Mark 7:10; 10:19, Luke 18:20, Ephesians 6:2

6th - Murder -
(7 times) Matthew 5:21; 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 1:29; 13:9, James 2:11

7th - Adultery -
(12 times) Matthew 5:27,28,32; 19:9,18, Mark 10:11,19, Luke 16:18; 18:20, Romans 13:9, James 2:11, 2 Peter 2:14

8th - Stealing -
(6 times) Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 2:21; 13:9, Ephesians 4:28

9th - Lying -
(4 times) Matthew 15:9; 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20

10th - Don't Covet -
(9 times) Mark 7:22, Luke 12:15, Romans 1:29; 7:7; 13:9, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5, Hebrews 13:5, 2 Peter 2:14
Why is it that the duty to keep the Seventh day as Sabbath is not mentioned ONCE in the New Testament?


WHEN THE NEW TESTAMENT LISTS SINS, SABBATH BREAKING IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT:
In Mark 7:21-22 13 sins are listed. Jesus did not mention breaking the Sabbath.


In Romans 1:29-32 20 sins are listed and not one of them is Sabbath breaking.


In Galatians 5:19-21 a list of 15 sins are given,


In 2 Timothy 3:1-4 there's a list of 18 sins, but not once is Sabbath breaking mentioned!

WHY IS IT THAT NOWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS IT TAUGHT THAT THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT MUST BE OBSERVED?
-Why is it that nowhere in the New Testament is failure to keep the Sabbath day condemned as sin?


-Why is the fourth commandment itself not repeated even ONCE in the New Testament?


-If the Sabbath keeping is so important for a disciple of Christ, why was it not mentioned in His sermon on the Mount or in ANY of His teachings?


-Why didn't Jesus command Sabbath keeping?


-Why didn't any of the Apostles command Sabbath keeping?


-Why didn't the Jerusalem counsel command Sabbath keeping or condemn Sabbath breaking? (Acts 15)
Some answer that the Jews already knew about the Sabbath so it was taken for granted that they would continue to keep it, but then why were the other nine commandments reiterated? Would they not be taken for granted as well? It would also seem that with so many Gentiles coming into the Church, that if keeping the Sabbath was so important there would be instruction in the New Testament Epistles somewhere concerning it. There are instructions for them concerning morality, ethics, worship, Church order and family lifestyle. Why would something as important as Sabbath keeping be ignored? Circumcision, which predates the Law and the Sabbath commandment was an issue in the New Testament Church and is addressed repeatedly in the New Testament Epistles and by the Jerusalem Counsel.



OH they did, your just not listening

4. The fourth commandment, -"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy"


4th Commandment OT: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex 20:8-11)
4th Commandment NT: "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Mt12:8/Lk 6:5) [So the Sabbath is the TRUE Lord's Day]
" . . . it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days." (Mt12:12)
"But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day."(Mt 24:20 speaking of the time of tribulation just before His second coming)
" . . . they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he (Jesus) entered into the synagogue, and taught." (Mk1:21)
"And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." (Mk 2:27,28) [Notice: The Sabbath is NOT just for Jews, or Israelites, or Hebrews, or Semites (descendants of Shem), but FOR ALL MANKIND]
"And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach . . . " (Mk 6:2)
"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day . . . " (Lk 4:16)
" . . . (Jesus) taught them on the sabbath days." (Lk 4:31) AFTER JESUS' DEATH, HIS DISCIPLES OBSERVED THE SABBATH:


" . . . when they (the apostles) departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day." (Acts13:14)
"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." (Acts13:42) [Notice: the Gentiles (non-jews) wanted to hear the word of God on the next Sabbath. Paul DID NOT tell them, "Come back tomorrow, the first day of the week, because that's the day us Christians keep." He had them return the following SABBATH]
"And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." (Acts13:44)
"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." (Acts15:21)
"And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made." (Acts16:13)
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." (Acts17:2)
"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." (Acts18:4)
"For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works." (Heb 4:4) [See Eph 5:1 where it states that we are to be imitators of God.]
"There remaineth therefore a rest [See margin: Greek word is "Sabbatismos" which means "Sabbath-keeping"] to the people of God." (Heb 4:9) "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 66:22,23) [I realize this is an OT scripture, BUT as you can clearly see here, this is dealing with the NEW heavens and earth (after Christ's return) and it states that ALL shall keep the Sabbath then. It seems quite preposterous, that God would give the seventh day Sabbath to mankind at creation (Gen 2:1-3), re-introduce it to Israel BEFORE Sinai - after they lost sight of it in captivity (Ex 16:4,23,27-29), codify it at Sinai (Ex:20) having all His people observe it, including Christ, then change it to Sunday, just to change it back to Friday sunset - Saturday sunset. THE SABBATH HAS NEVER CHANGED AND IS STILL TO BE OBSERVED!]

If God changed His Sabbath Day, there would have to be a THUS SAITH THE LORD SOMEWHERE IN THE N.T., and there is not.

Jesusinmyheart
May 6th 2008, 03:30 AM
Is it good to go to work on the Sabbath? Is it good to gather sticks on the Sabbath if you need them lets say for a fire, which begs the question is it good to kindle a fire to cook with or keep yourself or your family warm on the sabbath?

Depends on why you are working. Is it because you want to earn more cash? Is it because you want a nice new shed?
God provides all your needs for the Sabbath during the week, 6 days you shall labor is a command that equals and offsets the command to rest for one day. He rained 2 times the amount of manna the day before Sabbath so people would not go without.

If you did all you could on the day before gathering sticks, and the night got bitter cold and you had a child and it needs warmth, then heck yeah collect more wood if you ran out before Sabbath is over. No, God doesn't want you to start a fire unless your life/health depended on it. It is my understanding a fire started before the sabbath and kept alive during the Sabbath was allowed. God is not merciless, but he put rules in place to prevent people from just doing their hearts desire. Yeshua desired for people to have mercy, and in your case if you gathered sticks on the sabbath for the reason mentioned i would not point fingers and have you stoned. And if you were collecting because you were lazy the day before, i'd point out your error, and tell you not to do it again, because someone else may rat you out and have you stoned.
That is what Yeshua wanted.

It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. It is unlawful to do things for your own pleasure on the Sabbath.


Now, before i get any further, i'm hereby NOT telling anyone to keep the Sabbath, by all means research the scriptures, and ask God for truth, and He will give it to you. If he wants you to keep the Sabbath, He will write that onto your heart, and then by all means you should.

The reason i'm speaking my mind on this issue is because you asked if the Sabbath should be kept, and how it could be broken. so i asnwered. This does not mean i judge any non Sabbath keeper for their choice. It's not for me to judge.
Yeshua didn't come to judge either when He came, but when He comes back, then He and all that followed Him will judge the nations.

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
May 6th 2008, 03:31 AM
If God changed His Sabbath Day, there would have to be a THUS SAITH THE LORD SOMEWHERE IN THE N.T., and there is not.

That's a fallacious arguement I believe first claimed by Ellen White and constantly repeated by others. It has zero scriptural basis. God does not need to state those words to alter something. There is no "thus saith the Lord" concerning the change of the priesthood or the law but God did change both.

God doesn't utter "thus saith the Lord" a single time in the NT.

Naphal
May 6th 2008, 03:43 AM
Depends on why you are working. Is it because you want to earn more cash?


Yes. We work because we need to earn money. Is working good or bad?



God provides all your needs for the Sabbath during the week, 6 days you shall labor is a command that equals and offsets the command to rest for one day.

But you say it is good to do good work on the Sabbath. IF a man has a job, a good job doing good things, can he not work on the Sabbath without sinning?




If you did all you could on the day before gathreing sticks, and the night got bitter cold and you had a child and it needs warmth, then heck yeah collect more wood if you ran out before Sabbath is over.

Are you saying if you worked all day Friday and didn't have time to get the sticks that gathering sticks on the Sabbath would be an evil work even if it still was to keep the family warm?



No, God doesn't want you to start a fire unless your lifehealth depended on it.


We are more inclined to be healthy if we have heat, especially to heat water and foods and to keep illnesses away.

What is not good about making a fire? You have the argument that we can do good on the Sabbath without breaking it. Where is the line drawn then?




It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. It is unlawful to do things for your own pleasure on the Sabbath.

It is? I thought the Sabbath was made for man? I thought it's a day for man to rest and have pleasure rather than toil and work? IS there scripture that says man cannot have pleasure on the Sabbath ie: enjoy the Sabbath?



The reason i'm speaking my mind on this issue is because you asked if the Sabbath should be kept, and how it could be broken. so i asnwered.

I am glad you did. I am just trying to see what really is ok according to your belief. So far it sounds like it's ok to do all the things God said not to as long as you can justify them as "good" in some way and as long as you don't derive pleasure from them.





This does not mean i judge any non Sabbath keeper for their choice. It's not for me to judge.
Yeshua didn't come to judge either when He came, but when He comes back, then He and all that followed Him will judge the nations.


Will he judge Sabbath (Saturday) breakers? If so, is there any idea in scripture of what kind of punishment they will face?

Jesusinmyheart
May 6th 2008, 05:10 AM
Yes. We work because we need to earn money. Is working good or bad?

It's a result of the fall of man= Adam and Eve.




But you say it is good to do good work on the Sabbath. IF a man has a job, a good job doing good things, can he not work on the Sabbath without sinning?

Well, that's one thing that makes the issue murky and difficult. If i were a doctor or nurse, i would take the wages i earned on a sabbath and give it to a needy person.


Are you saying if you worked all day Friday and didn't have time to get the sticks that gathering sticks on the Sabbath would be an evil work even if it still was to keep the family warm?

No that's not what i'm saying, If i labored all friday up to sundown, and ran out on the sabbath before sundown, God wouldn't hold it against me if it was too cold to be comfortable or especially if it was life threatening to be without wood and fire. However, i would also trust God to provide, and make the stuff i gathered last all Sabbath. And, furthermore, and ideally, the community would pitch in so i wouldn't have to go gather more sticks.



We are more inclined to be healthy if we have heat, especially to heat water and foods and to keep illnesses away.
Too much heat isn't good eather less bacteria and viruses thrive in cooler climates.

What is not good about making a fire? You have the argument that we can do good on the Sabbath without breaking it. Where is the line drawn then?

Well here's the thing, God said not to kindle a fire on the sabbath, and i am not going to question that. If He deems fit He will explain to me why and all that someday.
You also have to know that Israel's climate is different than ours and especially not much like the far north of the USA. There can be snow in some regions, but overall the climate there is milder and not so cold as to cause harm.



It is? I thought the Sabbath was made for man? I thought it's a day for man to rest and have pleasure rather than toil and work? IS there scripture that says man cannot have pleasure on the Sabbath ie: enjoy the Sabbath?

Yes it is made For Man, to me meaning not for me to be selfish, or for my selfish gain. IOW as a Believer this verse speaks to my fellow beings. Of course that doesn't negate the fact i enjoy it. It's like enjoying giving someone a gift. It's not for you, but if you love someone it feels good to give. I would hardly consider that the same as what one normally calls pleasure. In this world most pleasure is of the selfish sort. How many people truly get pleasure out of reaping what they sowed by being unselfish? It's probably more common in Christian circles, and those atheists that follow their heart conscience than the mainstream citizen who runs after money and wealth.



I am glad you did. I am just trying to see what really is ok according to your belief. So far it sounds like it's ok to do all the things God said not to as long as you can justify them as "good" in some way and as long as you don't derive pleasure from them.
That would be downright evil to try and justify my cooking or whatever i'm doing by saying oh i was doing it for so and so, or i did it because i forgot the other day to prepare for the Sabbath. Then i hardly remembered, it right? I would be very careful to try and justify anything in that manner, that's one heck of a dangerous path to be on. Remember God knows every single one of your thoughts and motives of your heart.
I'm not guiltless in this, and i have previously done that myself. So i know of what you speak. It's downright evil.

No, i have to search my heart, and be sure i'm not doing it for the wrong reasons, or motive, that really goes for any day and thing, and occasion.



Will he judge Sabbath (Saturday) breakers? If so, is there any idea in scripture of what kind of punishment they will face?

In the OT scripture, God said those who broke the Sabbath would surely be cut off from Israel. This to me sounds very serious, and reminds me of a branch cut off from the tree. It will wither and die. God also spoke of being able to be grafted in again....repentance preceeding.

Let me tell you Naphal, I am not saying you will be cut off, because i cannot judge you in that. Who knows, maybe a while down the road God changes your mind about this. But maybe you refuse to hear. I don't know what God has in store for you, because i do not know you personally to know what God has in mind for you. Nor can i propose to know how God will work things out for you.
I just personally think that you allow much of the typical theology to color your perspective in this matter.
And i hope you would believe me that i say this with and out of love and compassion.

BTW, I'm not a SDA but i mostly identify my beliefs with those who call themselves Messianic Jews, just to throw out a general label. I may or may not agree with everything they do or say, just like i could agree or disagree with any given church, depending on the person preaching.

I hope that settles some more dust for you :hug:

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
May 6th 2008, 05:38 AM
But you say it is good to do good work on the Sabbath. IF a man has a job, a good job doing good things, can he not work on the Sabbath without sinning?
Well, that's one thing that makes the issue murky and difficult. If i were a doctor or nurse, i would take the wages i earned on a sabbath and give it to a needy person.

Would you think anyone working on the Sabbath that keeps the wages earned have broken the Sabbath?




Are you saying if you worked all day Friday and didn't have time to get the sticks that gathering sticks on the Sabbath would be an evil work even if it still was to keep the family warm?
No that's not what i'm saying, If i labored all friday up to sundown, and ran out on the sabbath before sundown, God wouldn't hold it against me if it was too cold to be comfortable or especially if it was life threatening to be without wood and fire.


I am more interested in the highlighted part. I thought you quoted a verse that said nothing should be done for ones own pleasure. Wouldn't wanting to be warm for some comfort (not life threateningly cold) be wrong against the Sabbath?


Isaiah 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

I know the Jews have a tradition where they camp out in tents and go without comforts to mimic times when Israel was in the wilderness. Seems that is in line with Sabbath obligations. Comfort appears to be wrong as it is "finding thine own pleasure".




However, i would also trust God to provide, and make the stuff i gathered last all Sabbath. And, furthermore, and ideally, the community would pitch in so i wouldn't have to go gather more sticks.

Sure but if you did want sticks to have a comfortble fire that would be ok for you to do right?




We are more inclined to be healthy if we have heat, especially to heat water and foods and to keep illnesses away.
Too much heat isn't good eather less bacteria and viruses thrive in cooler climates.

Yes this is true. Perhaps this is why no fires should be kindled on the Sabbath? Maybe it's more about warmth than a literal fire?



Well here's the thing, God said not to kindle a fire on the sabbath, and i am not going to question that. If He deems fit He will explain to me why and all that someday.
You also have to know that Israel's climate is different than ours and especially not much like the far north of the USA. There can be snow in some regions, but overall the climate there is milder and not so cold as to cause harm.

Yes I knew of that. I believe God did not allow any fires on the Sabbath but they were able to remain alive without it for a day. No one could have a fire to cook with or to provide warmth.





I am glad you did. I am just trying to see what really is ok according to your belief. So far it sounds like it's ok to do all the things God said not to as long as you can justify them as "good" in some way and as long as you don't derive pleasure from them.
That would be downright evil to try and justify my cooking or whatever i'm doing by saying oh i was doing it for so and so, or i did it because i forgot the other day to prepare for the Sabbath. Then i hardly remembered, it right?

I'm not talking about forgetfulness. Just if one can find a good purpose for something that one can work, one can kindle a fire, bear a burden, etc etc.




I would be very careful to try and justify anything in that manner, that's one heck of a dangerous path to be on. Remember God knows every single one of your thoughts and motives of your heart.
I'm not guiltless in this, and i have previously done that myself. So i know of what you speak. It's downright evil.

Thank you for your honesty.



Will he judge Sabbath (Saturday) breakers? If so, is there any idea in scripture of what kind of punishment they will face?
In the OT scripture, God said those who broke the Sabbath would surely be cut off from Israel.



Yes I have read of those. Do you think that also is in effect in the NT?




Let me tell you Naphal, I am not saying you will be cut off, because i cannot judge you in that. Who knows, maybe a while down the road God changes your mind about this. But maybe you refuse to hear. I don't know what God has in store for you, because i do not know you personally to know what God has in mind for you. Nor can i propose to know how God will work things out for you.

I have no personal concerns about God judging me about the Saturday Sabbath. I am without fear about that and any OT regulations and rules :)
However, I am a sinner in other respects and for that reason I beg for forgiveness and confess my sins often, and give thanks for the shed blood of Christ.



I just personally think that you allow much of the typical theology to color your perspective in this matter.

Not at all. The church I grew up in did not speak of these things. My entire position came from studying the scriptures entirely for myself. Only after deciding for myself did I start discussing it with others and finding out what others and other theologies felt on it. The same goes for many biblical things such as the Rapture and Hell and the state of the soul after death etc.




And i hope you would believe me that i say this with and out of love and compassion.

I do.





BTW, I'm not a SDA but i mostly identify my beliefs with those who call themselves Messianic Jews, just to throw out a general label. I may or may not agree with everything they do or say, just like i could agree or disagree with any given church, depending on the person preaching.
I hope that settles some more dust for you


Can I ask in what ways would you differ with SDA's?

Jesusinmyheart
May 6th 2008, 06:13 AM
Would you think anyone working on the Sabbath that keeps the wages earned have broken the Sabbath?

Possibly, i can't make that call.




I am more interested in the highlighted part. I thought you quoted a verse that said nothing should be done for ones own pleasure. Wouldn't wanting to be warm for some comfort (not life threateningly cold) be wrong against the Sabbath?
Well let's be reasonable, if you body is in discomfort, or danger, or harm, would God want you to suffer?
Look at the story of the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath.
They may not have died from lack of eating and it would have been sacrifice (which Yeshua doesn't ask for on the sabbath either He doesn't want your sabbath to be miserable, but enjoyable. By the same token is TV really necessary?)
The disciples were clearly in discomfort, they were hungry, and Yeshua defended them.



Isaiah 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

I know the Jews have a tradition where they camp out in tents and go without comforts to mimic times when Israel was in the wilderness. Seems that is in line with Sabbath obligations. Comfort appears to be wrong as it is "finding thine own pleasure".

Sounds like you're talking about the feast of Tabernacles.... Some Jews do go through extremes, but i do not see God begrudging us in this way, this is what makes any holy day God mandated to be observed including and especially the Sabbath a burden, and that is what Yeshua really was against. His feasts and appointed times are to be enjoyed.



Sure but if you did want sticks to have a comfortble fire that would be ok for you to do right?
If you did everything in your power the day before to meet your needs and somehow faced unforeseen circumstances, yes, i agree.
Remember 6 days shall you labor.... that is a command too.
Scripture says let those who are lazy go hungry....


Yes this is true. Perhaps this is why no fires should be kindled on the Sabbath? Maybe it's more about warmth than a literal fire?

I'm not sure, but much of what God said in different things biologically speaking makes a ton of sense, medically speaking as well as otherwise.
I have read that to kindle a fire could also refer to not doling out punishment. Consider the scriptures where God's judgment is compared to fire.
It also reminds me of the verse where Yeshua said, I desire mercy, not sacrifice.


Yes I knew of that. I believe God did not allow any fires on the Sabbath but they were able to remain alive without it for a day. No one could have a fire to cook with or to provide warmth.

I don't know scripture doesn't say they had no fire, nor does it detail that they kept it alive, but i would assume they kept the fires going, or else why would they gather sticks on the day before meaning up until sunset.
I think it;s more likely that they gathered enough to keep the fire going.




I'm not talking about forgetfulness. Just if one can find a good purpose for something that one can work, one can kindle a fire, bear a burden, etc etc.

Well that would defeat the purpose of remembering the Sabbath day.... It's a thing of noticing the dayb approaching, and preparing for it.
Do all your work on the 6 days prior, to the best of your ability.


Thank you for your honesty.
I'm not want to pretend to be perfect or something i'm not. I'm still a work in progress or under construction myself.


Yes I have read of those. Do you think that also is in effect in the NT?

The way i see it, i would have to say yes from my viewpoint of understanding the scriptures.
If you consider everything i said what i believe the Sabbath stands for, then you realize that it;s not so much a ceremonial statue, but rather a moral statue, and just on that alone i see no reason for the Sabbath to be done away with, not to mention why would God drop one out of the ten?



I have no personal concerns about God judging me about the Saturday Sabbath. I am without fear about that and any OT regulations and rules :)
However, I am a sinner in other respects and for that reason I beg for forgiveness and confess my sins often, and give thanks for the shed blood of Christ.
Well let me tell you this (for future reference), you can only ask for forgiveness, on that which God points out to you as sin.:)


Not at all. The church I grew up in did not speak of these things. My entire position came from studying the scriptures entirely for myself. Only after deciding for myself did I start discussing it with others and finding out what others and other theologies felt on it. The same goes for many biblical things such as the Rapture and Hell and the state of the soul after death etc.
Ok, i'm not going to argue with you, but i want to tell you that what one has learned stays with you for a long time, and it's hard to change..i know, cause i struggled with my roman catholic past for a very long time, and probably still do to an extend.
In hindsight i find it quite amusing through what God has led me, from one end of the spectrum to the other, opposite ends.
Let me just throw out a scripture verse, and again, this is just for consideration, not to argue:
Gal 5:9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. (of dough)

I do.
:hug: I'm glad to hear it.


Can I ask in what ways would you differ with SDA's?

For one thing i don't believe Ellen G White to be a prophetres, at least i'm dubious.
I am not sure on their version of the end times scenario. I really can't tell, because i was only with them for maybe 2 weeks when i knew that wasn't my right church home either.

[/color]

Shalom,
Tanja

:P 15 characters....

My heart's Desire
May 6th 2008, 06:36 AM
Excuse my silly questions but did at first God say to the Israelites to "have church or should I say corporate meetings of worship" on the Sabbath? It seems to me that since they were after all walking around in a wilderness that they might need a day of rest. Did Gentiles keep the sabbath day? Did God command the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath day?

Naphal
May 6th 2008, 06:58 AM
Well let's be reasonable, if you body is in discomfort, or danger, or harm, would God want you to suffer?



Danger and harm sure, but just uncomfortable for 24 hours? Shoot, the day is usually warm enough so the cold would only be at night and you normally are asleep and you have blankets...




Look at the story of the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath.
They may not have died from lack of eating and it would have been sacrifice (which Yeshua doesn't ask for on the sabbath either He doesn't want your sabbath to be miserable, but enjoyable.

I don't know about that. You posted a verse that says a person has to avoid personal pleasure and I interpret that as comfortable and enjoyable things that one has during the week. The OT Sabbath to me was as much about resting from work as it was like a kind of fasting from some of the comfortable and pleasureable things in life. Kind of like a day long religious bootcamp, without any negative implications.







By the same token is TV really necessary?)
The disciples were clearly in discomfort, they were hungry, and Yeshua defended them.

Lets talk about this another time because my views on what happened would sidetrack this too much.







I know the Jews have a tradition where they camp out in tents and go without comforts to mimic times when Israel was in the wilderness. Seems that is in line with Sabbath obligations. Comfort appears to be wrong as it is "finding thine own pleasure".
Sounds like you're talking about the feast of Tabernacles.... Some Jews do go through extremes, but i do not see God begrudging us in this way, this is what makes any holy day God mandated to be observed including and especially the Sabbath a burden, and that is what Yeshua really was against.



But I read everything in the OT about the Sabbath and it wasn't a fun day of comfort and pleasure. It was a day of going without some nice things and not being able to do the things you normally wanted to. The best part of it was not having to work but it wasn't all "fun" per se'.





Yes I knew of that. I believe God did not allow any fires on the Sabbath but they were able to remain alive without it for a day. No one could have a fire to cook with or to provide warmth.
I don't know scripture doesn't say they had no fire, nor does it detail that they kept it alive, but i would assume they kept the fires going, or else why would they gather sticks on the day before meaning up until sunset.
I think it;s more likely that they gathered enough to keep the fire going.



I don't see any examples of them gathering sticks the day before the Sabbath, or that it was because they could keep fires burning. Kindle also can mean to encourage a fire to burn more. When you kindle someones anger it doesn't just mean to start their anger but to cause that anger to grow...to encourage it to get more and more and that's what one does with a fire to keep it from going out.





I'm not talking about forgetfulness. Just if one can find a good purpose for something that one can work, one can kindle a fire, bear a burden, etc etc.
Well that would defeat the purpose of remembering the Sabbath day.... It's a thing of noticing the dayb approaching, and preparing for it.
Do all your work on the 6 days prior, to the best of your ability.





I'm just talking about all the various discussions I've had with Sabbatarians. There is no absolutes as to the Sabbath rules and not all agree on what is still allowable and what isn't. Some are strict to the OT rules, some pick and choose and some just go to church on a Saturday but do nothing different. It's confusing to us non Saturday Sabbath keepers.




Yes I have read of those. Do you think that also is in effect in the NT?
The way i see it, i would have to say yes from my viewpoint of understanding the scriptures.
If you consider everything i said what i believe the Sabbath stands for, then you realize that it;s not so much a ceremonial statue, but rather a moral statue, and just on that alone i see no reason for the Sabbath to be done away with, not to mention why would God drop one out of the ten?



How is it moral as opposed to ceremonial?



Well let me tell you this (for future reference), you can only ask for forgiveness, on that which God points out to you as sin.

God does this through laws and commandments. I also make sure when I am confessing my sins that I try to list each one as I can but I also make sure to ask forgiveness of "all my sins" to cover any I forget or am not aware of etc.


Ok, i'm not going to argue with you, but i want to tell you that what one has learned stays with you for a long time, and it's hard to change..i know, cause i struggled with my roman catholic past for a very long time, and probably still do to an extend.

I was lucky not to grow up with church doctrines or traditions. I knew the basics and was free to search the scriptures for myself with what I feel to be very limited bias. I am sure growing up Catholic included a great many ingrained doctrines and beliefs and I am sure that was difficult to overcome.




For one thing i don't believe Ellen G White to be a prophetres, at least i'm dubious.
I am not sure on their version of the end times scenario. I really can't tell, because i was only with them for maybe 2 weeks when i knew that wasn't my right church home either.



I don't know all of their particular doctrines either and don't need to get into it in this forum. I was just curious what the differences were.

2 Peter 2:20
May 6th 2008, 12:36 PM
The problem with all of this is it is easy to get caught up in the same thing the Pharisees did. It was them who were trying to say this is acceptable and this is not acceptable on the sabbath. We must be careful not to fall into the error that they did. One says that it is OK to do good. Then what is good? It is leaving it up to man to decide and that will lead to trouble. If my ox is in a ditch I'll get it out. If my grass needs cut and it rained all day the day before then I'll cut it. If I have to go to work then I'll go to work. God is still God on the other 6. I try to bring honor to Him on all 7 and not just on 1.

diffangle
May 6th 2008, 02:05 PM
Excuse my silly questions but did at first God say to the Israelites to "have church or should I say corporate meetings of worship" on the Sabbath? It seems to me that since they were after all walking around in a wilderness that they might need a day of rest.
Exd 31:16 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=31&v=16&t=KJV#16)Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant.




Did Gentiles keep the sabbath day? Did God command the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath day?

Num 15:16 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=16&t=KJV#16)One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

As believer's we are grafted in with Israel(Rom. 11)... and a Jew is one that is a Jew inwardly, not outwardly(Rom. 2:29). Here's how we love YHWH...

1Jo 5:3 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=5&v=3&t=KJV#3)For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.

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

Jesusinmyheart
May 6th 2008, 02:10 PM
Excuse my silly questions but did at first God say to the Israelites to "have church or should I say corporate meetings of worship" on the Sabbath? It seems to me that since they were after all walking around in a wilderness that they might need a day of rest. Did Gentiles keep the sabbath day? Did God command the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath day?

In this again i take into account scriptures from the OT and the NT

Exo 12:49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you."

Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. Read this in context.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
May 6th 2008, 02:14 PM
The problem with all of this is it is easy to get caught up in the same thing the Pharisees did. It was them who were trying to say this is acceptable and this is not acceptable on the sabbath. We must be careful not to fall into the error that they did. One says that it is OK to do good. Then what is good? It is leaving it up to man to decide and that will lead to trouble. If my ox is in a ditch I'll get it out. If my grass needs cut and it rained all day the day before then I'll cut it. If I have to go to work then I'll go to work. God is still God on the other 6. I try to bring honor to Him on all 7 and not just on 1.

The Pharisees added to the rules of God, not to mention they did things for the wrong reason. That's not negating the Commands of God at all.

And all of this doesn't negate the fact that one should try to be godly on all days of the week, i agree with you there, but rather it is about having a day set aside, where one leaves all worldy worries behind to totally focus on God for one day, and be a servant to fellow man. It is a day to be enjoyed.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
May 6th 2008, 02:54 PM
Danger and harm sure, but just uncomfortable for 24 hours? Shoot, the day is usually warm enough so the cold would only be at night and you normally are asleep and you have blankets...

Well perhaps i used the wrong definition.
Let's put it this way, taking care of bodily discomfort IMO does not constitute selfish desire.
It's selfish desire and definitely things that don't bring glory to God that i believe should not be done on the Sabbath.
Watching TV could be a bad example, if i put in a tape which teaches us scripture it would make a big difference.




I don't know about that. You posted a verse that says a person has to avoid personal pleasure and I interpret that as comfortable and enjoyable things that one has during the week. The OT Sabbath to me was as much about resting from work as it was like a kind of fasting from some of the comfortable and pleasureable things in life. Kind of like a day long religious bootcamp, without any negative implications.

As explained above, perhaps i should have thought about better terminology.
Taking care of bodily discomfort IMO is not the same as selfish desire. Keywords: "from doing your pleasure" and "if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; "

As said before the example of Yeshua's disciples eating grain on the Sabbath because they were hungry, IMO is showing that this is not considered "doing your own pleasure".



Lets talk about this another time because my views on what happened would sidetrack this too much.

I'll take your word for that. Though i'm not sure why this would side track.
I'm curious of how you view the incident.



But I read everything in the OT about the Sabbath and it wasn't a fun day of comfort and pleasure. It was a day of going without some nice things and not being able to do the things you normally wanted to. The best part of it was not having to work but it wasn't all "fun" per se'.

That IMO is mainly because they failed the Spirit of Sabbath in some ways. And it seems they way you read it you too are missing it :hug:
If their heart was in it, they would have fun celebrating the day for what it stands for. I know i was thrilled seeing what Sabbath is about, especially on those times God showed me by example.


I don't see any examples of them gathering sticks the day before the Sabbath, or that it was because they could keep fires burning. Kindle also can mean to encourage a fire to burn more. When you kindle someones anger it doesn't just mean to start their anger but to cause that anger to grow...to encourage it to get more and more and that's what one does with a fire to keep it from going out.

That's true.... like i said before i'm not a complete expert on this.




I'm just talking about all the various discussions I've had with Sabbatarians. There is no absolutes as to the Sabbath rules and not all agree on what is still allowable and what isn't. Some are strict to the OT rules, some pick and choose and some just go to church on a Saturday but do nothing different. It's confusing to us non Saturday Sabbath keepers.

Well suprise, suprise..... the same can be said about any doctrine and theology...... hence we have a ton of different denominations. :lol:

There will come a day when God has worked on all of our hearts and our understanding will be in unison.



How is it moral as opposed to ceremonial?
IMO it is more of a majorly moral statue, in that it is a day totally set aside for our fellow man in the same Spirit as Yeshua was a servant to all when He walked the earth. It is an example of things that should be.

I guess it could be both moral and ceremonial, however, if anything i would say it;s a moral ceremony. :lol:


God does this through laws and commandments. I also make sure when I am confessing my sins that I try to list each one as I can but I also make sure to ask forgiveness of "all my sins" to cover any I forget or am not aware of etc.
Ok, this is what i do also, but here's the thing true repentance only happens when you are aware of what your sin is, and while i'm not saying that God won't forgive you the sin you're not aware of, it's however still a sin being practiced.
I think i will change my prayer to asking God for forgiveness of all my known sin, and to point out all sin i'm not aware of so i can repent and rectify.



I was lucky not to grow up with church doctrines or traditions. I knew the basics and was free to search the scriptures for myself with what I feel to be very limited bias. I am sure growing up Catholic included a great many ingrained doctrines and beliefs and I am sure that was difficult to overcome.
When i sat down after going through 3 different denominations and seeing they all held different beliefs and understanding, not to mention having had amassed several different commentaries, i had finally gotten to the point i wanted to know the REAL truth. So i threw everything out, and studied scripture with a mentality of not ever having done so before. I asked God for truth, and that was the first thing He taught me.
Yes, it was difficult to overcome, namely and foremost it left me feeling i'd never measure up, because the way i understood their doctrine was that one had to just about either be a priest or a nun in order to attain righteousness.


I don't know all of their particular doctrines either and don't need to get into it in this forum. I was just curious what the differences were.
I ditto you on that. There is however an i9nteresting study that shows SDA's to have a very healthy lifestyle and that they are at lesser health risks overall. I forget exactly where i saw that study.
One point of interest would be compare the Jews with the Samartians and their practices.... you'll be surprised.


Shalom,
Tanja

:rolleyes: 15 characters.....

My heart's Desire
May 6th 2008, 05:14 PM
Exd 31:16 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=31&v=16&t=KJV#16)Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant.



Num 15:16 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=16&t=KJV#16)One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

As believer's we are grafted in with Israel(Rom. 11)... and a Jew is one that is a Jew inwardly, not outwardly(Rom. 2:29). Here's how we love YHWH...

1Jo 5:3 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=5&v=3&t=KJV#3)For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.

Rev 22:14 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=22&v=14&t=KJV#14)Blessed [are] they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
So, the strangers also had to go to the priest and have them offer up sacrifices for their purging, and their sin as well?
I understand what you are saying, but I'm saying that if one looks at the Sabbath commandment one has to go back to where it was originally commanded and the reason why it was.

My heart's Desire
May 6th 2008, 05:33 PM
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, (Israel) so that every mouth may be closed and all the world (everyone) may become accountable to God;
Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law come the knowledge of sin.
Rom. 3:19-20

Rom. 10:1-4
Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them (Israel) is for their salvation.
2. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.
3. For not knowing God's righteousness and seeking the ESTABLISH THEIR OWN, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
4. For Christ is the END of the law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS to everyone who believes.

You see, in asking if breaking the Sabbath is sin or not one might as well be going to the book of Romans that talks about sin, the law and Christ. The question is not as simple as it looks.

Minister D
May 6th 2008, 05:35 PM
I was inclined to believe in Sabbath-keeping when I was newly 'born again' if you will.

That hardly lasted long.

In any case, I think Paul is pretty clear about Sabbath-keeping. We have no business judging others based on keeping a Sabbath. I honestly can't see how keeping or not keeping a Sabbath does much to promote love, peace, humility, and purity, and whatever virtue you want to name.

However, if someone wants to keep it, that's between them and God. I won't judge them either, but to elevate Sabbath-keeping above virtues that even non-believers can respect and recognize does not seem reasonable to me at all and does not seem to match the spirit of the Gospel or the spirit of the NT writings which focuses on grace, forgiveness, and following after purity of heart versus wranglings about the letter of the law.

But don't take my word for it. I'm just saying from a more practical perspective and from being one who in the past went through severe depression because I was being taught to do this or that thing in order to be saved and many of the things I was not able to perform due to circumstances. So I am personally turned off by such arguments. I mean, it's not like life isn't already extremely complicated, especially when you throw the faith thing into the mix where not only do you have to deal with real life obligations but then you need to ever consider things you normally wouldn't have because of the Spirit working in you to do God's will versus doing your will when it violated his commandments.

Then you need to hear my latest sermon,
Judgments (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the_living_word_mission_life_Church/2008/05/06/Judgments) Can we judge, or is it wrong?


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the_living_word_mission_life_Church/2008/05/06/Judgments

My heart's Desire
May 6th 2008, 06:19 PM
Exd 31:16 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=31&v=16&t=KJV#16)Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant.



Num 15:16 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&c=15&v=16&t=KJV#16)One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

As believer's we are grafted in with Israel(Rom. 11)... and a Jew is one that is a Jew inwardly, not outwardly(Rom. 2:29). Here's how we love YHWH...

1Jo 5:3 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=5&v=3&t=KJV#3)For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.

Rev 22:14 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=22&v=14&t=KJV#14)Blessed [are] they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
The commandments of God to Israel also involved sacrifices, food laws, cleanliness laws, feast days etc, etc. so saying that we are grafted into Israel (which we are) would then also put us under all the rest too.
EXCEPT that we are no longer under the law as we are under Christ Jesus. Eph.2:11-12
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands
12. Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL, AND STRANGERS TO THE COVENANTS OF PROMISE, HAVING NO HOPE AND WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD

Eph. 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought NEAR by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall.


AND WHAT WAS THE DIVIDING WALL?
Eph. 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace

What does all that mean?
Does it mean that it was the LAW of ordinances that separated us from Israel and from God? Israel was commanded to keep them and the Gentiles were not. The Law was given to Israel.
And does it mean that Jesus by abolishing in His flesh the enmity (hostility) which is what? (The Law of commandments?)
contained in ordinances, so that what?

So that in Himself He might make the two (Jew and Gentile) into one NEW MAN establishing PEACE.

My heart's Desire
May 6th 2008, 06:35 PM
I'm not saying I'm right or wrong but here is my thought. I believe that God's greatest commandment in Christ Jesus that He expects us to keep is the commandment to LOVE. In the 10 commandments, if you see God as God you will love as He is love. If you do not steal, kill, disobey your parents, or if you do not covet you will love your neighbor for if you do steal you are hurting your neighbor, same as killing, disobeying etc. All are based on love. If you covet anything of someone else's you are only showing love of self. For in coveting you may steal,kill and disobey in order to obtain what you want. What belongs to someone else. That is not love.
If you obey the commandment "Keep the Sabbath holy" then perhaps you are showing God love, but in keeping with the original meaning of the Sabbath (to rest) then I believe it is God showing His love and concern for us.
Then I think the rest goes right back to "Why are you trying to keep the Law?". Because you love God in Christ Jesus or are you trying to be saved by the works of the Law?

I thank God for the provision of a day of rest whenever that may be.

Studyin'2Show
May 6th 2008, 07:19 PM
So, the strangers also had to go to the priest and have them offer up sacrifices for their purging, and their sin as well?
I understand what you are saying, but I'm saying that if one looks at the Sabbath commandment one has to go back to where it was originally commanded and the reason why it was.No, they would not HAVE to. It was only the 'ger' (stranger) that CHOSE attach themselves to Israel and they would WANT to. It wasn't anything that was forced upon them.

Studyin'2Show
May 6th 2008, 07:31 PM
The commandments of God to Israel also involved sacrifices, food laws, cleanliness laws, feast days etc, etc. so saying that we are grafted into Israel (which we are) would then also put us under all the rest too.
EXCEPT that we are no longer under the law as we are under Christ Jesus. Eph.2:11-12
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands
12. Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL, AND STRANGERS TO THE COVENANTS OF PROMISE, HAVING NO HOPE AND WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD

Eph. 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought NEAR by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall.


AND WHAT WAS THE DIVIDING WALL?
Eph. 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace

What does all that mean?
Does it mean that it was the LAW of ordinances that separated us from Israel and from God? Israel was commanded to keep them and the Gentiles were not. The Law was given to Israel.
And does it mean that Jesus by abolishing in His flesh the enmity (hostility) which is what? (The Law of commandments?)
contained in ordinances, so that what?

So that in Himself He might make the two (Jew and Gentile) into one NEW MAN establishing PEACE.This is one that is easily misunderstood. To gain clarity on this I would first ask you to look through the Hebrew scriptures and pull out the laws that say the 'nations' are not allowed to come into fellowship with YHWH. Keep in mind that they were not to be 'unequally yoked' either so anything referring to marrying pagans is not the same. Look for anything that says that one not of Israel that wants to serve God is not to be permitted to. Go ahead, take your time.

......................

After you're done searching, you will find that there ARE NO LAWS to purposely cut off the nations from seeking after God. In fact, you will find that scripture says that the nations WOULD come to Him. So, why was Paul referring to some law that was a dividing wall? Because it was a law that man came up with without the command by God. They came after the people returned from exile. Remember when Ezra had the men send their wives and children away. Lots of very harsh ordinances came to be after this to keep the Gentiles out. They did not come from God. Knowing that this wall of separation did not come from God gives a fresh perspective of what Paul was ACTUALLY saying. ;)

God Bless!

Naphal
May 6th 2008, 11:08 PM
Originally Posted by Naphal
Danger and harm sure, but just uncomfortable for 24 hours? Shoot, the day is usually warm enough so the cold would only be at night and you normally are asleep and you have blankets...
Well perhaps i used the wrong definition.
Let's put it this way, taking care of bodily discomfort IMO does not constitute selfish desire.


It's a very fine line.




Taking care of bodily discomfort IMO is not the same as selfish desire.

I believe it can be...




Keywords: "from doing your pleasure" and "if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; "
As said before the example of Yeshua's disciples eating grain on the Sabbath because they were hungry, IMO is showing that this is not considered "doing your own pleasure".



No, but they should have gotten food the day before so they wouldn't have to work getting food....same idea behind you believing that gathering wood was a form of work not allowed on the Sabbath.




How is it moral as opposed to ceremonial?
IMO it is more of a majorly moral statue, in that it is a day totally set aside for our fellow man in the same Spirit as Yeshua was a servant to all when He walked the earth. It is an example of things that should be.
I guess it could be both moral and ceremonial, however, if anything i would say it;s a moral ceremony.



I wouldn't feel right in calling it both but I do view it differently than the command not to steal or murder. If the Sabbath wasn't a ceremonial concept then nothing in the bible was ceremonial. Meaning, it is the height of ceremonial things.



Ok, this is what i do also, but here's the thing true repentance only happens when you are aware of what your sin is, and while i'm not saying that God won't forgive you the sin you're not aware of, it's however still a sin being practiced.

Technically not being aware of what is wrong isn't a sin but only God can decide so I pray the way I described and rely on mercy and grace and forgiveness.



When i sat down after going through 3 different denominations and seeing they all held different beliefs and understanding, not to mention having had amassed several different commentaries, i had finally gotten to the point i wanted to know the REAL truth. So i threw everything out, and studied scripture with a mentality of not ever having done so before. I asked God for truth, and that was the first thing He taught me.


That's a good way to do it.


I ditto you on that. There is however an i9nteresting study that shows SDA's to have a very healthy lifestyle and that they are at lesser health risks overall. I forget exactly where i saw that study.
One point of interest would be compare the Jews with the Samartians and their practices.... you'll be surprised.

They do tend to be very healthy but not all of them. They have sickly among them as well. There are studies done which show that Asian cultures have the highest lifespans on the planet and they eat diets that contain a lot of unclean meats/animals. I've never believed the food laws were health based as much as command based. I'm sure you may disagree but Paul does speak of how all foods are ok to eat and says it's a personal choice and not a health choice.

Rom 14:14 The Lord Jesus has made it clear to me that God considers all foods fit to eat. But if you think some foods are unfit to eat, then for you they are not fit.

valleybldr
May 6th 2008, 11:15 PM
Rom 14:14 The Lord Jesus has made it clear to me that God considers all foods fit to eat. But if you think some foods are unfit to eat, then for you they are not fit.
Man eats things that God does not consider "food." Paul was not trying to counter what God had already made "clear." todd

Naphal
May 6th 2008, 11:20 PM
Man eats things that God does not consider "food." Paul was not trying to counter what God had already made "clear." todd

Believe as you wish. Paul had no issue with anything people ate as food.

Rom 14:17 God's kingdom isn't about eating and drinking. It is about pleasing God, about living in peace, and about true happiness. All this comes from the Holy Spirit.

Vhayes
May 6th 2008, 11:31 PM
So I have to ask - and I'm not meaning this to be a question designed to be smart-mouthed.

Why did Jesus come?

If the Law is what we are to live by, why add Jesus to the mix? What's the point when blood sacrifice of animals did the same?

Thanks in advance for any answers -
V

Jesusinmyheart
May 7th 2008, 12:46 AM
It's a very fine line.
Scripture, your own Heart if you're brutally honmest with yourself, and God know when that line is crossed.




I believe it can be...

See above...





No, but they should have gotten food the day before so they wouldn't have to work getting food....same idea behind you believing that gathering wood was a form of work not allowed on the Sabbath.
Well God commanded them to gather twice as much, and saw to it that it wouldn't spoil, if they wanted to eat warm manna, then they likely gathered extra wood also.


I wouldn't feel right in calling it both but I do view it differently than the command not to steal or murder. If the Sabbath wasn't a ceremonial concept then nothing in the bible was ceremonial. Meaning, it is the height of ceremonial things.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, that then therefore all of it has to be moral. At any rate, i figured you would not see this the same way i do.


Technically not being aware of what is wrong isn't a sin but only God can decide so I pray the way I described and rely on mercy and grace and forgiveness.
That's not what i said. It's not a sin not knowing that one has sinned. But just because you don't know you sinned doesn't absolve you from that sin either.
Hence the reason God sent His Son Yeshua. It's also the reason Yeshua sent the Holy Sp[irit so we could be led into all truth and so that we could learn and repent.


That's a good way to do it.
Agreed.



They do tend to be very healthy but not all of them. They have sickly among them as well. There are studies done which show that Asian cultures have the highest lifespans on the planet and they eat diets that contain a lot of unclean meats/animals. I've never believed the food laws were health based as much as command based. I'm sure you may disagree but Paul does speak of how all foods are ok to eat and says it's a personal choice and not a health choice.
Of course there are sickly, but the overall ratio is quite impressive.

Rom 14:14 The Lord Jesus has made it clear to me that God considers all foods fit to eat. But if you think some foods are unfit to eat, then for you they are not fit.

I'm not quite sure i agree with the translation you're using, as it seems to make things appear slightly different than scripture says.

Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.





Shalom,
Tanja

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

valleybldr
May 7th 2008, 01:08 AM
Believe as you wish. Paul had no issue with anything people ate as food.

Rom 14:17 God's kingdom isn't about eating and drinking. It is about pleasing God, about living in peace, and about true happiness. All this comes from the Holy Spirit.

You sure do get allot of mileage from Rom 14 by taking it out of context. Paul isn't saying it's fine to eat things God has deemed unclean. No one, with any common sense, thinks all things are clean to eat. If they put that in practice they might not be alive too long depending on what they consume. todd

Naphal
May 7th 2008, 02:37 AM
Rom 14:14 The Lord Jesus has made it clear to me that God considers all foods fit to eat. But if you think some foods are unfit to eat, then for you they are not fit.

I'm not quite sure i agree with the translation you're using, as it seems to make things appear slightly different than scripture says.

Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.


It uses more modern English is all but all translations say the same thing and make the same point. No food is unclean like it had been. At first all food was ok to eat, then the law said some was unclean, then after the law everything was ok again but it is up to each person to decide what they want to eat and what not to. It's the same way for the Saturday Sabbath.

Naphal
May 7th 2008, 02:38 AM
You Paul isn't saying it's fine to eat things God has deemed unclean.

That's exactly what Paul says because God no longer deems the unclean things unclean to eat anymore.

Rom 14:14 The Lord Jesus has made it clear to me that God considers all foods fit to eat. But if you think some foods are unfit to eat, then for you they are not fit.


For you they are unclean but for me they are not.

diffangle
May 7th 2008, 02:53 AM
That's exactly what Paul says because God no longer deems the unclean things unclean to eat anymore.

Rom 14:14 The Lord Jesus has made it clear to me that God considers all foods fit to eat. But if you think some foods are unfit to eat, then for you they are not fit.


For you they are unclean but for me they are not.
The way I interpret that passage is that Paul is speaking of things that YHWH considers food that man/gnostics were trying to say were unfit to eat... gnostics that were practicing things like abstaining from all meat strictly for ascetic purposes which of course have no basis in Scriptures. Paul was dealing with a gnostic element in many of the places he preached(like Colossia and Rome).

My heart's Desire
May 7th 2008, 04:39 AM
So I have to ask - and I'm not meaning this to be a question designed to be smart-mouthed.

Why did Jesus come?

If the Law is what we are to live by, why add Jesus to the mix? What's the point when blood sacrifice of animals did the same?

Thanks in advance for any answers -
V
Exactly! The Law cannot save as it gives knowledge of sin. So Jesus came. The Sacrifices could not save only cover UNTIL Jesus came they pointed to the final Sacrifice, which He gave.

My heart's Desire
May 7th 2008, 05:06 AM
This is one that is easily misunderstood. To gain clarity on this I would first ask you to look through the Hebrew scriptures and pull out the laws that say the 'nations' are not allowed to come into fellowship with YHWH. Keep in mind that they were not to be 'unequally yoked' either so anything referring to marrying pagans is not the same. Look for anything that says that one not of Israel that wants to serve God is not to be permitted to. Go ahead, take your time.

......................

After you're done searching, you will find that there ARE NO LAWS to purposely cut off the nations from seeking after God. In fact, you will find that scripture says that the nations WOULD come to Him. So, why was Paul referring to some law that was a dividing wall? Because it was a law that man came up with without the command by God. They came after the people returned from exile. Remember when Ezra had the men send their wives and children away. Lots of very harsh ordinances came to be after this to keep the Gentiles out. They did not come from God. Knowing that this wall of separation did not come from God gives a fresh perspective of what Paul was ACTUALLY saying. ;)

God Bless!
I'm not misunderstanding at all. My point was that the Law even the 10 commandments was given to Israel. Yes, as you say, I suppose to also the stranger who chose to sojourn with them.
BUT...after Christ came He broke down the wall that separates. I guess my point is for example, I was born a Gentile and had that lifestyle. If one is Jewish, its entirely possible that you are taught the Law, celebrated the festivals, and taught how to observe the Sabbath. Would that not be correct? So, there is a wall between us, wouldn't you say? Isn't to be circumcised part of the Law? Scripture tells us that Abraham was credited with righteousnes before he was circumcised.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Does that mean that a man is justified by faith apart from keeping the Sabbath? Apart from being circumcized? etc.
Since indeed God will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
I'm getting on a rabbit trail....anyhoww.

My heart's Desire
May 7th 2008, 05:21 AM
In this again i take into account scriptures from the OT and the NT

Exo 12:49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you."

Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. Read this in context.

Shalom,
TanjaYes. Acts 18:4 I am reading in context. On the Sabbath Paul would go into the Synagogue every Sabbath, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.
When they resisted, he shook out his clothes and said that from then on he would go to the Gentiles.
This synagogue was not the Temple but a place of meeting elsewhere, correct? Had to have been because it was in Corinth. In fact, synagogue simply mean an assembly.

Naphal
May 7th 2008, 05:24 AM
Yes. Acts 18:4 I am reading in context. On the Sabbath Paul would go into the Synagogue every Sabbath, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.
When they resisted, he shook out his clothes and said that from then on he would go to the Gentiles.
This synagogue was not the Temple but a place of meeting elsewhere, correct? Had to have been because it was in Corinth.

Yes.

If I or you went to a synagogue to preach Christ to those that didn't believe and we did that on a Saturday, does that mean we also keep the Sabbath like they do? No...it means we went to where they assembled on the day they assemble. IF Paul had gone there on a Friday there wouldn't have been as many there!.

My heart's Desire
May 7th 2008, 05:49 AM
I'm still thinking this out. Lets say, if a Jewish person broke the Law by not keeping the Sabbath on Saturday then it is sin to them, correct? But most Gentiles are not raised nor taught to observe a Saturday Sabbath for it was a commandment given to the Jewish people. So, are Gentiles who are saved by faith in Christ alone, still considered as sinning by not keeping the Sabbath on Saturday? I just don't think so.
Acts 15:19-20 The Gentiles were only required to abstain from things contaminated from idols, from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. This was decided because the believing Jews thought that the Gentiles had to be circumsised and to observe the Law of Moses. Acts 15:5

My heart's Desire
May 7th 2008, 05:52 AM
Yes.

If I or you went to a synagogue to preach Christ to those that didn't believe and we did that on a Saturday, does that mean we also keep the Sabbath like they do? No...it means we went to where they assembled on the day they assemble. IF Paul had gone there on a Friday there wouldn't have been as many there!.
Well, as you know, you and I agree on this. You're right. You go to where the people are.

I'm guessing that Tanja was trying to show me that Paul taught to the Greeks as well as to the Jews in the synagugue.

Naphal
May 7th 2008, 05:56 AM
I'm still thinking this out. Lets say, if a Jewish person broke the Law by not keeping the Sabbath on Saturday then it is sin to them, correct? But most Gentiles are not raised nor taught to observe a Saturday Sabbath for it was a commandment given to the Jewish people. So, are Gentiles who are saved by faith in Christ alone, still considered as sinning by not keeping the Sabbath on Saturday? I just don't think so.
Acts 15:19-20 The Gentiles were only required to abstain from things contaminated from idols, from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. This was decided because the believing Jews thought that the Gentiles had to be circumsised and to observe the Law of Moses. Acts 15:5

That's correct. Too much is made about the big bad Catholic church making a change of worship to Sunday but it's all hype. We all have the same bible (for the most part) and we all have the same verses. There are more than enough that prove the Saturday Sabbath was only for the Jews and definitely not for gentiles, and nor for Christians whether Jew or Gentile according to the flesh. There is just too much evidence to ignore but some feel differently and that's how we have some that keep it and an overwhelming majority that doesn't. Majority means nothing but in this case it was right.

Naphal
May 7th 2008, 05:58 AM
Well, as you know, you and I agree on this. You're right. You go to where the people are.

I'm guessing that Tanja was trying to show me that Paul taught to the Greeks as well as to the Jews in the synagugue.

The purpose that verse is quoted is to imply Paul kept the Sabbath because he went there and taught about Jesus. But all it does is show that he did that, not that he kept the Sabbath in any of the "other" ways that shows one is a Sabbath keeper. They won't quote that verse along with the ones where he says everyday is the same lol

My heart's Desire
May 7th 2008, 06:11 AM
Well, a little late to begin it, but the question has more to it I think, than we think. Really, the Sabbath probably began with God worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th. But as we think God probably didn't rest on the 7th because He was tired. It all ties in with the Sabbath rest in the book of Hebrews. In Jesus Christ, we have rested from our labors to be justified by works because we are now justified by faith in Him so therefore those who have, have entered into that Sabbath rest. That's what I think because it is obvious that other than the Sabbath commandment, if we were to steal, commit adultery, murder etc, we would have no trouble calling that sin would we. So, why is the 7th day Sabbath different? I have a feeling that if you are resting in Christ from all your labors to keep the commandments then one is truely keeping it and not sinning. Does that make sense?
Going to bed now. ;)

Studyin'2Show
May 7th 2008, 11:07 AM
I'm not misunderstanding at all. My point was that the Law even the 10 commandments was given to Israel. Yes, as you say, I suppose to also the stranger who chose to sojourn with them.
BUT...after Christ came He broke down the wall that separates. I guess my point is for example, I was born a Gentile and had that lifestyle. If one is Jewish, its entirely possible that you are taught the Law, celebrated the festivals, and taught how to observe the Sabbath. Would that not be correct? So, there is a wall between us, wouldn't you say? Isn't to be circumcised part of the Law? Scripture tells us that Abraham was credited with righteousnes before he was circumcised.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Does that mean that a man is justified by faith apart from keeping the Sabbath? Apart from being circumcized? etc.
Since indeed God will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
I'm getting on a rabbit trail....anyhoww.The response was to your misunderstanding that 'the dividing wall' was the Law of God.

Eph.2:11-12
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands
12. Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL, AND STRANGERS TO THE COVENANTS OF PROMISE, HAVING NO HOPE AND WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD

Eph. 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought NEAR by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall.

AND WHAT WAS THE DIVIDING WALL?
Eph. 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace

What does all that mean?Can you see that the Law of God was NOT what Paul was referring to when speaking of the 'wall of separation' that divided Jew and Gentile because NOTHING in the Law of God told the Jews that the Gentiles were not welcomed? Can you see the irony in the statement that now we are all the same (one new man) and then saying but that was just for you (the Jews)? If we're really all the same now, why the need to rebuild the wall that separates by saying this is for you and that is for me?

Be Blessed! :)

My heart's Desire
May 7th 2008, 10:06 PM
The response was to your misunderstanding that 'the dividing wall' was the Law of God.
Can you see that the Law of God was NOT what Paul was referring to when speaking of the 'wall of separation' that divided Jew and Gentile because NOTHING in the Law of God told the Jews that the Gentiles were not welcomed? Can you see the irony in the statement that now we are all the same (one new man) and then saying but that was just for you (the Jews)? If we're really all the same now, why the need to rebuild the wall that separates by saying this is for you and that is for me?

Be Blessed! :)
What do you think the dividing wall was?
Eph. 2:15 says it was the hostility of the Law of commandments contained in the ordinances. How else can that be said? What other Law of commandments and ordinances are there?
The wall was there before Christ was crucified not after so therefore it is not for any of us. (aside from debating works or sin).
I wasn't saying it is for the Jews after the Cross and not for Gentiles. That's just it. The Law could not save. But Israel was required to keep the Law, not the Gentiles. Paul says the Gentiles were a law unto themselves. Like they were guided by their conscience or something.

Studyin'2Show
May 8th 2008, 11:43 AM
What do you think the dividing wall was?
Eph. 2:15 says it was the hostility of the Law of commandments contained in the ordinances. How else can that be said? What other Law of commandments and ordinances are there?
The wall was there before Christ was crucified not after so therefore it is not for any of us. (aside from debating works or sin).
I wasn't saying it is for the Jews after the Cross and not for Gentiles. That's just it. The Law could not save. But Israel was required to keep the Law, not the Gentiles. Paul says the Gentiles were a law unto themselves. Like they were guided by their conscience or something.If you have never heard of Jewish 'oral law' or 'fence laws' you may mistake this for God's Law. Here's a definition of these 'additional' laws. http://www.bereanfaith.com/faiths.php?action=article&aid=69 For example, Peter spoke in Acts 10 of a law that prohibited Jews from even going into the home of someone who was not a Jew. Can you find that law anywhere in scripture? The answer is no; it was part of the 'oral law' that has been 'added'. When Paul was speaking of these laws that separated them, he was speaking of these laws. Yeshua even accused them of this:

Matthew 15:3-9
3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

You see, God's Law said that they were to lead the nations TO Him NOT keep the nations FROM Him. They had made God's commands of no effect and adopted the commandments of men to divide them. Can you see that there were no ordinances by God to keep them from going into the house of a Gentile or of keeping a Gentile who worships YHWH from entering the Temple? Yet these oral laws that divided them said just that.

Blessings to you! :)

seamus414
May 8th 2008, 07:02 PM
I did explain it, you simply did not view the chart

http://gdtr.topcities.com/life/chart.html

Ceremonial Law {the temporary law for sin offering "the ordinances) this is what was nailed to the cross

Ceremonial Law {the temporary law for sin offering "the ordinances)
1. Spoken first by Moses. Exodus 24:3 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
2. Written by Moses hand. Exodus 24:4 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Deuteronomy 31:9 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
3. Written in a book. Exodus 24:3, 7 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Deuteronomy 31:24 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
4. Handed by Moses, its writer to Levites. Deuteronomy 31:25-26 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
5. Placed by the Levites “on the outside of the ark.” Deuteronomy 31:26 (http://bibleforums.org/%201), ARV
6. Deals with ceremonial, ritual matters. (See parts of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy)
7. Prescribes offerings for sins. (See book of Leviticus)
8. No sin in breaking, for now “abolished.” Ephesians 2:15 (http://bibleforums.org/%201) (Where no law is, there is no transgression. Romans 4:15 (http://bibleforums.org/%201))
9. Apostles gave “no such commandment” to “keep the law.” Acts 15:24 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
10. We are NOT judged by it. Colossians 2:16 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
11. The Christian who keeps this law is not blessed. (See for example, Galatians 5:1-6 (http://bibleforums.org/%201))
12. The Christian who keeps this law loses his liberty. Galatians 5:1, 3 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
13. Paul called this law a “yoke of bondage.” Galatians 5:1 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Galatians 4:3, 9 (http://bibleforums.org/%201) (See Acts 15:10 (http://bibleforums.org/%201))
14. Abolished by Christ. Ephesians 2:15 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Colossians 2:14 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
15. Blotted “out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us.” Colossians 2:14 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
16. Eternal? No. Hebrews 7:12 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Galatians 3:19 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Colossians 2:14 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
17. Points to Christ. Leviticus 4:27-31 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
18. Obey Now? No. Colossians 2:14-17 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Galatians 4:9-10 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
19. Liberty? No. It was bondage. Galatians 4:9 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); 5:1 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
Note: Freedom and bondage are exact opposites.
20. Perfect? No. Hebrews 7:19 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
21. Good? No. Colossians 2:14 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Galatians 4:9 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)


Ten Commandments (Moral Law) Defines what sin is
1. First spoken by God Himself. Exodus 20:1, 22 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
2. Written by God’s finger. Exodus 31:18 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Exodus 32:16 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
3. First written on stones. Exodus 31:18 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
4. Handed by God its writer, to Moses. Exodus 31:18 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
5. Placed by Moses “inside the ark.” Deuteronomy 10:5 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
6. Deals with moral precepts. i.e. love and relationships with God and man. Exodus 20:3-17 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
7. Reveals sin. Romans 7:7 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
8. Breaking this law is “sin.” 1 John 3:4 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
9. We should “keep the whole law.” James 2:10 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
10. We “shall be judged” by this law. James 2:12 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
11. The Christian who keeps this law is “blessed in his deed.” James 1:25 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
12. “The perfect law of liberty.” James 1:25 (http://bibleforums.org/%201) (See also James 2:12 (http://bibleforums.org/%201))
13. Paul said, “I delight in the law of God.” Romans 7:22 (http://bibleforums.org/%201) (See also Romans 7:7 (http://bibleforums.org/%201))
14. Established by faith in Christ. Romans 3:31 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
15. Jesus was to “magnify the law and make it honorable.” Isaiah 42:21 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
16. Eternal? Yes. Psalms 111:7-8 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Matthew 5:18 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Luke 16:17 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
17. Points out sin. 1 John 3:4 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Romans 7:7 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
18. Obey Now? Yes. Matthew 5:19 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
19. Liberty? (freedom) Yes. James 2:12 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); James 1:25 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
20. Perfect? Yes. James 1:25 (http://bibleforums.org/%201); Psalms 19:7 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)
21. Good? Yes. Romans 7:12 (http://bibleforums.org/%201)

Minister D


According to this logic, then, Sabbath rules apply as it appears on the Ten Commandments.

valleybldr
May 8th 2008, 07:53 PM
What do you think the dividing wall was?


The soreg is the picture Paul uses for Jewish/Gentile separation.

Inscription from the soreg: "No Gentile may enter beyond the dividing wall into the court around the Holy Place;
whoever is caught will be to blame for his subsequent death."

Picture of inscription: http://www.katapi.org.uk/images/Inscriptions/TempleWarning.jpg

========================

From the Temple Institute web site:

"The soreg was a low wall surrounding the Holy Temple, which served as a boundary (http://www.templeinstitute.org/illustrated/soreg.jpg). Beyond this point, entry was permitted only to Jews who were not impure through exposure to death. The soreg featured signs, in a number of languages, that warned these unauthorized people against entering the area of the Holy Temple. During the period of the Hasmoneans, the Greek invaders made 13 breaches in the soreg in opposition of this prohibition. After the Hasmonean victory, our Sages partially repaired these damaged areas but left small fences as a remembrance to the destruction. They decreed that anyone walking past any of these rebuilt breaches should bow down (http://www.templeinstitute.org/illustrated/soreg_2.jpg) and thank G-d for His salvation. Source: (Tractate Midot 2:3). "

Naphal
May 8th 2008, 09:47 PM
If you have never heard of Jewish 'oral law' or 'fence laws' you may mistake this for God's Law. Here's a definition of these 'additional' laws.


Yes there were such laws but when scripture speaks of the law being abolished and the law of sin and death et al, it is not speaking of the man made fake laws but the various laws given by God to Moses.

Breaking mans fake laws do not result in sin since they are not laws from God but we read:


1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

This law isn't the law which did not come from God because only God's laws can define sin.


Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Therefore whenever the bible speaks of the law in the context of sin then it's not man made laws but God's laws.


Romans 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

HisGrace
May 8th 2008, 10:01 PM
After Jesus came to this earth, we must remember that things changed. The Sabbath merely means a 'day of rest,' to 'cease to do', or 'rest.'

In Biblical terms eight means new beginnings. Jesus arose on the eighth day, Sunday. Like other Jewish children, he was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. Jesus was transfigured on the eighth day after he fed the five thousand.

Thomas finally believed who Jesus was eight days after his resurrection -

John 20: 26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

Personally, since eight was such an important number in Jesus' life, I find it very respectful to celebrate my day of rest on Sunday.

valleybldr
May 8th 2008, 11:29 PM
After Jesus came to this earth, we must remember that things changed. The Sabbath merely means a 'day of rest,' to 'cease to do', or 'rest.'

In Biblical terms eight means new beginnings. Jesus arose on the eighth day, Sunday. Like other Jewish children, he was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. Jesus was transfigured on the eighth day after he fed the five thousand.

Thomas finally believed who Jesus was eight days after his resurrection -

John 20: 26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

Personally, since eight was such an important number in Jesus' life, I find it very respectful to celebrate my day of rest on Sunday. Too bad none of the Apostles saw it worthy to make the same case. todd

valleybldr
May 8th 2008, 11:30 PM
Yes there were such laws but when scripture speaks of the law being abolished and the law of sin and death et al, it is not speaking of the man made fake laws but the various laws given by God to Moses.

Breaking mans fake laws do not result in sin since they are not laws from God but we read:


1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

This law isn't the law which did not come from God because only God's laws can define sin.


Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Therefore whenever the bible speaks of the law in the context of sin then it's not man made laws but God's laws.


Romans 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Depends on which passage you are referencing. Romans 6,7 and 8 are dealing with the laws authored by God not man. todd

HisGrace
May 9th 2008, 12:43 AM
Too bad none of the Apostles saw it worthy to make the same case. todd
Jesus and his disciples respected all of the Jewish laws and ceremonies, but after he became the new blood of the Lamb, and with Pentecost, worship changed.

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 12:45 AM
Jesus and his disciples respected all of the Jewish laws and ceremonies, but after he became the new blood of the Lamb, and with Pentecost, worship changed. Sure, it changed over time but who authorized the changes? todd

My heart's Desire
May 9th 2008, 01:04 AM
I seem to remember when the Curtain to the Holy of Holies was torn from top to bottom.

Studyin'2Show
May 9th 2008, 01:14 AM
I seem to remember when the Curtain to the Holy of Holies was torn from top to bottom.The curtain was what kept ALL men, Jews included, from entering into the Holy of Holies (only the high priest once a year). The wall (soreg) Todd referred to was not this curtain. It was outside the inner sanctuary and ALL Jews who were not unclean could enter into the Temple but Gentiles were forbidden! The ONLY thing a Gentile could do to be able to enter the Temple, was to become a Jew through ritual conversion. That was before the wall between the two men (Jew and Gentile) was removed. This was what Paul was referencing. ;)

Be Blessed! :)

Studyin'2Show
May 9th 2008, 01:16 AM
Yes there were such laws but when scripture speaks of the law being abolished and the law of sin and death et al, it is not speaking of the man made fake laws but the various laws given by God to Moses.Naphal, we were referring to a specific scripture from Ephesian 2. The 'wall of separation' referred to the oral law. Did you have a comment in context to that? :hmm:

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 01:26 AM
Sure, it changed over time but who authorized the changes? todd
God, of course - who were you suggesting? ;)
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17).

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:11-12 (KJV)

HisGrace
May 9th 2008, 01:37 AM
Sure, it changed over time but who authorized the changes? toddThe Bible isn't clear, but the New Testament took away all of the old legalism from the Old Testament, even though the Pharisees kept reminding Jesus of the old laws.

Paul was personally chosen by Jesus to spread the Good News, and he preached on many different days, so he may have given up the old restrictive Jewish law of keeping Saturday as the Sabbath, and changed it Sunday.

Romans 1:1This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach his Good News

OR

"The Season After Pentecost lasts from the day after Pentecost to the day before Advent. Thus it begins on 12 May 2008 and ends on 29 November 2008"
The 11th is on a Sunday, so the Day of Pentecost is on a Sunday

Acts.2:1 On the day of Pentecost all the believers were meeting together in one place. 2 Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and it filled the house where they were sitting. 3 Then, what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them. 4 And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.

-Peter preached to the crowd on that day. Maybe that is when worship day was changed to Sunday.

My heart's Desire
May 9th 2008, 01:38 AM
The curtain was what kept ALL men, Jews included, from entering into the Holy of Holies (only the high priest once a year). The wall (soreg) Todd referred to was not this curtain. It was outside the inner sanctuary and ALL Jews who were not unclean could enter into the Temple but Gentile were forbidden! The ONLY thing a Gentile could do to be able to enter the Temple, was to become a Jew through ritual conversion. That was before the wall between the two men (Jew and Gentile) was removed. This was what Paul was referencing. ;)

Be Blessed! :)
I know that. What is the significance of a mere little wall compared to the entrance to the Holy of Holies?;) Anyway, now I'm all thrown off the original point I thought I was trying to make~

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 01:51 AM
If you have never heard of Jewish 'oral law' or 'fence laws' you may mistake this for God's Law.

The truth is Christians are not under any part of the Torah today (oral, written, ceremonial, etc, etc, etc). We are under the law of Christ – we cannot be under both laws at the same time. The Torah in its entirety was nailed to cross - ie - when Jesus died on the cross so too did the Torah die with Him. God…“blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:13-14).

Studyin'2Show
May 9th 2008, 02:12 AM
God, of course - who were you suggesting? ;)
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17).

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:11-12 (KJV) Read in context, this is referring specifically to the priesthood and the law of Moses concerning priests (ceremonial law). It is NOT referring to the Ten Commandments even a bit (moral law). The whole chapter is about the priesthood.

The truth is Christians are not under any part of the Torah today (oral, written, ceremonial, etc, etc, etc). We are under the law of Christ – we cannot be under both laws at the same time. The Torah in its entirety was nailed to cross - ie - when Jesus died on the cross so too did the Torah die with Him. God…“blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:13-14).No. The scripture does not say that Torah was nailed to the cross. It doesn't even say the law was 'nailed to the cross'. It speaks of ordinances that were AGAINST us. Read Psalm 119. Is the law sin? The answer is no, yet sin IS AGAINST us.

Be Blessed! :)

My heart's Desire
May 9th 2008, 02:28 AM
The truth is Christians are not under any part of the Torah today (oral, written, ceremonial, etc, etc, etc). We are under the law of Christ – we cannot be under both laws at the same time. The Torah in its entirety was nailed to cross - ie - when Jesus died on the cross so too did the Torah die with Him. God…“blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:13-14).
LH, I'm surprised we are seeing eye to eye on something and you see the point I was trying to make. :) Regardless, I beginning to believe that we are to keep the Law of Christ and I believe that His commandment or Law is Love. To love one another as He loved us, which if we keep the 10 we will be loving as Christ loved us. All of them come down to loving someone. But....I still don't think that means Christians are to keep the 7th day Sabbath and if we don't it is not sin for us. Anyway, thank you.

Naphal
May 9th 2008, 02:32 AM
Naphal, we were referring to a specific scripture from Ephesian 2. The 'wall of separation' referred to the oral law. Did you have a comment in context to that? :hmm:

YEs I know.




This isnt about a "wall" nor about oral tradition. Its about the same law that was the subject in the verses I posted. Its the OT law of God that God gave unto Moses. Its the only law that can define sin and because it could and did do that it became "the law of sin and death".

HisGrace
May 9th 2008, 02:37 AM
No. The scripture does not say that Torah was nailed to the cross. It doesn't even say the law was 'nailed to the cross'. It speaks of ordinances that were AGAINST us. Read Psalm 119. Is the law sin? The answer is no, yet sin IS AGAINST us.
Be Blessed! :)
The Book of Galatians has plenty to say about the old laws.

Gal. 3: 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Gal. 3:13 But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”

Gal. 5: 1 So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law.

Gal 2:17 But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! 18 Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down.

19 For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God. 20 My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

21 I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 02:41 AM
LH, I'm surprised we are seeing eye to eye on something and you see the point I was trying to make. :) Regardless, I beginning to believe that we are to keep the Law of Christ and I believe that His commandment or Law is Love. To love one another as He loved us, which if we keep the 10 we will be loving as Christ loved us. All of them come down to loving someone. But....I still don't think that means Christians are to keep the 7th day Sabbath and if we don't it is not sin for us. Anyway, thank you.
Lol – if the full truth were know I think you and I would agree on many more points than those we publicly disagree about on this board. And you are quite correct – “The Greatest Of These Is Love”…thanks for helping me keep my bearing straight…God bless. :kiss:

My heart's Desire
May 9th 2008, 02:46 AM
Read in context, this is referring specifically to the priesthood and the law of Moses concerning priests (ceremonial law). It is NOT referring to the Ten Commandments even a bit (moral law). The whole chapter is about the priesthood.
No. The scripture does not say that Torah was nailed to the cross. It doesn't even say the law was 'nailed to the cross'. It speaks of ordinances that were AGAINST us. Read Psalm 119. Is the law sin? The answer is no, yet sin IS AGAINST us.

Be Blessed! :)
What are those ordinances? Are they the Old Covenant?

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 02:48 AM
Read in context, this is referring specifically to the priesthood and the law of Moses concerning priests (ceremonial law). It is NOT referring to the Ten Commandments even a bit (moral law). The whole chapter is about the priesthood.

Again - the truth of the matter is the Torah was never separated into compartments as Sabbatarians insist – it was (as a whole) given to the Jews at Sinai – it was never applicable to Gentiles or Christians and it was nailed (in its entirety) to the cross of Christ. These are the biblical facts.

My heart's Desire
May 9th 2008, 03:20 AM
The Book of Galatians has plenty to say about the old laws.

Gal. 3: 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Gal. 3:13 But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”

Gal. 5: 1 So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law.

Gal 2:17 But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! 18 Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down.

19 For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God. 20 My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

21 I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.
Exactly. So lets put this in context of the question asked, "Is not keeping the Sabbath for Christians a sin?" A Christian is one who knows that men are sinners, that sin was in the world before the law was given, but not held to their account because there was not yet any Law saying what was sinful and that the Law showed us what sin was. So, could we say that the more we tried to keep the Law and couldn't the more sinful we became? If so, then we could not become righteous before God by keeping the Law, so therefore Christ came and did for us what we could not do and it is belief in Christ that makes us righteous now and not the keeping the Law. If sin is in the world before the commandment came then it is Sin that Christ died for, not the keeping of the Law? right? Either way, I think the question should be rather this, If one claims to be a Christian, what is the real motivation for wanting to keep the Law, including the Sabbath? to obtain salvation through one's own righteousness trying to keep the 10 or by living the spirit of the Law that's written on our hearts because Christ loved us and gave His life for us so that we can love one another as He loved us? That is what I think the real question comes down to.

seamus414
May 9th 2008, 03:25 AM
Sure, it changed over time but who authorized the changes? todd

The Church - which is Christ himself as it is simultaneously Christ's very own body and bride - has authority given to it by Christ and it authorized the change.

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 03:26 AM
Exactly. So lets put this in context of the question asked, "Is not keeping the Sabbath for Christians a sin?" A Christian is one who knows that men are sinners, that sin was in the world before the law was given, but not held to their account because there was not yet any Law saying what was sinful and that the Law showed us what sin was. So, could we say that the more we tried to keep the Law and couldn't the more sinful we became? If so, then we could not become righteous before God by keeping the Law, so therefore Christ came and did for us what we could not do and it is belief in Christ that makes us righteous now and not the keeping the Law. If sin is in the world before the commandment came then it is Sin that Christ died for, not the keeping of the Law? right? Either way, I think the question should be rather this, If one claims to be a Christian, what is the real motivation for wanting to keep the Law, including the Sabbath? to obtain salvation through one's own righteousness trying to keep the 10 or by living the spirit of the Law that's written on our hearts because Christ loved us and gave His life for us so that we can love one another as He loved us? That is what I think the real question comes down to.

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17).

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 10:08 AM
The Church - which is Christ himself as it is simultaneously Christ's very own body and bride - has authority given to it by Christ and it authorized the change. Correct, but I don't believe that she had the authority. Rome took to herself power God never gave. todd

Studyin'2Show
May 9th 2008, 11:09 AM
21 I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.Exactly! Anyone who keeps the Law in order to be saved, has laid aside the grace that was a free gift. I don't believe anyone has said here that you must keep the Law TO be saved. But should we BREAK the Law to prove we are? Is the law sin? Is it sin to not murder, and not commit adultery, and not lie? Of course not!
Again - the truth of the matter is the Torah was never separated into compartments as Sabbatarians insist – it was (as a whole) given to the Jews at Sinai – it was never applicable to Gentiles or Christians and it was nailed (in its entirety) to the cross of Christ. These are the biblical facts.That's a matter of interpretation, and that's okay with me but it doesn't seem to be okay with YOU. WE disagree on the interpretation of several things but I am not judging YOU or your salvation because of it. God knows the heart and the motivation of it. I would encourage you to serve God as you are led by His Spirit. Would you give me the same encouragement?:hmm:
What are those ordinances? Are they the Old Covenant?Not in my interpretation. The Law of God is not against man (us). Sin is against us and against the Law of God. There are a couple of things later in the the chapter that are a very big clue that these ordinances are NOT about the Law God gave.

Colossians 2:20-23
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

You see, these were 'according to the commandments and doctrines OF MEN! That's not commandments or ordinances from God. :no: 'Self-imposed religion'? That's not about any of God's commands. That's about things that man has ADDED and calls 'religion'. ;)

God Bless!:)

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 12:14 PM
YEs I know.




This isnt about a "wall" nor about oral tradition. Its about the same law that was the subject in the verses I posted. Its the OT law of God that God gave unto Moses. Its the only law that can define sin and because it could and did do that it became "the law of sin and death".
Read Ephesians 2 in its historical context. The chapter is about Jew and Gentile coming together in worship and in one Body. There was a literal wall separating Gentiles from entrance into the Temple (picturing access to God). Anyone, in the ancient world, who knew the basics about the worship of Israel's God, knew exactly what picture he was creating by referencing this wall.

todd

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 12:52 PM
That's a matter of interpretation, and that's okay with me but it doesn't seem to be okay with YOU. WE disagree on the interpretation of several things but I am not judging YOU or your salvation because of it. God knows the heart and the motivation of it. I would encourage you to serve God as you are led by His Spirit. Would you give me the same encouragement?

I am led by the Spirit of God to “contend for the faith” delivered to the saints. What your personal and private understanding of the NT may be is between you and God and no concern to me – it is what you teach in public that I oppose. The NT nowhere commands Christians to keep the seventh day of the week as a commandment from God. We are warned by the inspired writers to not go back under the “yoke of bondage” found under the Old Covenant that was nailed to the cross.

Anyone (yourself included) who teaches that Christians must obey that which God has not authorized or commanded must be opposed. That is where we disagree and where I must contend for the faith. You are in error and it is my prayer that you will reconsider your position in light of what is revealed. Keep the seventh day if that is your conviction but do not teach your brothers and sisters in Christ that they are bound by God to do so – that is wrong and must be always be opposed.:)

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 01:05 PM
I am led by the Spirit of God to “contend for the faith” delivered to the saints. What your personal and private understanding of the NT may be is between you and God and no concern to me – it is what you teach in public that I oppose. The NT nowhere commands Christians to keep the seventh day of the week as a commandment from God. We are warned by the inspired writers to not go back under the “yoke of bondage” found under the Old Covenant that was nailed to the cross.

Anyone (yourself included) who teaches that Christians must obey that which God has not authorized or commanded must be opposed. That is where we disagree and where I must contend for the faith. You are in error and it is my prayer that you will reconsider your position in light of what is revealed. Keep the seventh day if that is your conviction but do not teach your brothers and sisters in Christ that they are bound by God to do so – that is wrong and must be always be opposed.:) Hmm, let's see. There are those who abide by the commandments (inc # 4 and 6) and there are those who "oppose" them. Wonder which group has a history of using bloodshed to make their point? todd

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 01:22 PM
Anyone (yourself included) who teaches that Christians must obey that which God has not authorized or commanded must be opposed. That is where we disagree and where I must contend for the faith. You are in error and it is my prayer that you will reconsider your position in light of what is revealed. Keep the seventh day if that is your conviction but do not teach your brothers and sisters in Christ that they are bound by God to do so – that is wrong and must be always be opposed.

No one here has said that you or Naphal needs to keep the Sabbath. Rather what i see here is a discussion where you show your side, while those of us who believe it should be kept show our position and understanding of the scriptures. But none of us have said: "you are lost", nor have we said: "you need to keep it". Yes, our belief is that it should be kept, but we also have repeatedly stated that this is all your choice.

Last i knew we were just debating this issue coming from opposing views, instead of telling you what to do.

Shalom,
Tanja

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 01:22 PM
Hmm, let's see. There are those who abide by the commandments (inc # 4 and 6) and there are those who "oppose" them. Wonder which group has a history of using bloodshed to make their point? todd
But #6 is reiterated under the law of Christ - #4 is intentionally missing...;)

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 01:25 PM
You see it as intentionally missing, i see it as validated and i see it as taken for granted throughout the NT because it is practiced. IMO it was simply taken for granted and therefore not reiterated.....

But there again it shows how much our views differ, as well as our reasoning out of scripture.

Shalom,
Tanja

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 01:31 PM
But #6 is reiterated under the law of Christ - #4 is intentionally missing...;) You seem to have totally missed my point. Rome and her daughters have a history of opposing/oppressing/killing each other but the commandment keepers have no such history. todd

Studyin'2Show
May 9th 2008, 01:41 PM
But #6 is reiterated under the law of Christ - #4 is intentionally missing...;)Messiah, by His very actions, endorses #4 as well. ;)

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 02:01 PM
Messiah, by His very actions, endorses #4 as well. ;) Jesus, Paul, the apostles... any of them could have instituted worship on Sunday. They did not because the change is one of ecclesiastical power apart from the practice and teaching of the biblical characters that were in authority over the infant church. todd

Vhayes
May 9th 2008, 02:08 PM
Jesus, Paul, the apostles... any of them could have instituted worship on Sunday. They did not because the change is one of ecclesiastical power apart from the practice and teaching of the biblical characters that were in authority over the infant church. todd
So let me point blank ask you - do you believe those of us who celebrate the resurrection on the first day of the week, Sunday, are somehow doing it wrong? We should still gather together on Friday sundown and do nothing (no labor) till Saturday sundown? If not, we are sinning?

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 02:12 PM
So let me point blank ask you - do you believe those of us who celebrate the resurrection on the first day of the week, Sunday, are somehow doing it wrong? We should still gather together on Friday sundown and do nothing (no labor) till Saturday sundown? If not, we are sinning? If you want to celebrate the resurrection from the tomb at the exact time IMO it should be at Saturday sunset.

Anything contrary to the law of God is sin. It is not contrary to the law of God to worship on any day but to work on a day it is prohibited would be contrary to what was intended. Personally, I don't go to worship on Sunday (other then if a day God deems "holy" falls on it) because IMO it bends the knee to Rome's authority. I don't see Sabbath breaking as any more or less sinful as a host of other sins we commit each and every day.

todd

Vhayes
May 9th 2008, 02:17 PM
Thank you for the clear answer, Todd.

Do you abide by the whole law?

Thanks -
V

Studyin'2Show
May 9th 2008, 02:19 PM
I am led by the Spirit of God to “contend for the faith” delivered to the saints. What your personal and private understanding of the NT may be is between you and God and no concern to me – it is what you teach in public that I oppose. The NT nowhere commands Christians to keep the seventh day of the week as a commandment from God. We are warned by the inspired writers to not go back under the “yoke of bondage” found under the Old Covenant that was nailed to the cross.

Anyone (yourself included) who teaches that Christians must obey that which God has not authorized or commanded must be opposed. That is where we disagree and where I must contend for the faith. You are in error and it is my prayer that you will reconsider your position in light of what is revealed. Keep the seventh day if that is your conviction but do not teach your brothers and sisters in Christ that they are bound by God to do so – that is wrong and must be always be opposed.:)Again, it's a matter of interpretation. I do not see scripture saying that it is the Ten Commandments that are somehow bondage.

As for ME commanding anyone to keep Sabbath, please point out the post where you saw that to 'contend' with. :rolleyes: Ironically, I have not heard of any time in the past when believers who keep Sabbath have organized and physically come against those who observe Sunday. Never! Yet there are historically documented cases of those who observe Sunday, physically coming against those who observe Sabbath. You can come against me 'verbally' as much as you like. I'm just glad I'm free, at this point in history, to follow scripture (not tradition) as God leads me without fear for my life, at least for now.

Be Blessed! :)

crawfish
May 9th 2008, 02:30 PM
I think Romans 14 makes it pretty clear that what day (if any) we hold as holy is a matter of personal faith.



One man thinks one day is more important than another. Another man thinks every day is the same. Every man must be sure in his own mind. The man who worships on a special day does it to honor the Lord.

If you feel like you need to honor the Sabbath, then by all means, honor the Sabbath. If you feel you do not have to, then follow your conscience. And do not judge each other on this.

Studyin'2Show
May 9th 2008, 02:36 PM
I think Romans 14 makes it pretty clear that what day (if any) we hold as holy is a matter of personal faith.

If you feel like you need to honor the Sabbath, then by all means, honor the Sabbath. If you feel you do not have to, then follow your conscience. And do not judge each other on this.Amen! Wow! We actually agree on something! :lol:

Be Blessed! :)

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 03:06 PM
Thank you for the clear answer, Todd.

Do you abide by the whole law?

Thanks -
V The more the better. It's not for salvation so don't bother making that contention. todd

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 03:09 PM
Amen! Wow! We actually agree on something! :lol:

Be Blessed! :) Does anyone take Romans 14 for what it says without making a huge jump to say it applies to days God deems "holy." Food and fast days are no way on par with the Sabbath. Don't make it sound like the passage is saying the two are the same because to say so is an opinion above and beyond what Paul is writing here. todd

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 03:11 PM
You seem to have totally missed my point. Rome and her daughters have a history of opposing/oppressing/killing each other but the commandment keepers have no such history. todd
No - I didn't miss your moot point. We are not concerned with “Rome and her daughters” on this thread we are discussing Christians and the 4th commandment. For every “sabbath-keeper” you can provide who was persecuted by “Rome and her daughters” I will provide 10,000 believers who correctly assembled with the saints on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) who were persecuted by those entities.

What we are discussing on this thread is the fact that Christians have never been obligated by God to keep the shadows of Judaism including seventh day keeping – a point you have never refuted because you can’t.;)

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 03:14 PM
No - I didn't miss your moot point. We are not concerned with “Rome and her daughters” on this thread we are discussing Christians and the 4th commandment. For every “sabbath-keeper” you can provide who was persecuted by “Rome and her daughters” I will provide 10,000 believers who correctly assembled with the saints on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) who were persecuted by those entities.

What we are discussing on this thread is the fact that Christians have never been obligated by God to keep the shadows of Judaism including seventh day keeping – a point you have never refuted because you can’t.;) I have but I understand it will make no difference to you. So be it. Shalom, todd

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 03:26 PM
Ironically, I have not heard of any time in the past when believers who keep Sabbath have organized and physically come against those who observe Sunday. Never! Yet there are historically documented cases of those who observe Sunday, physically coming against those who observe Sabbath.Yep that was the persecution of the Jews and anything that remotely smacked of Jewishness.

And those in the infant church of the days after Yeshua's crucfixion who didn't want to go through those trials and tribulation are those that were the strongest advocates of a changed doctrine and they twisted scripture to their end. These are the ones warned of here:

2Ti 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires,
2Ti 4:4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.
2Ti 4:5 As for you, always be sober, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, carry out your ministry fully.

Considering this was written at a time of the infancy of the church, one cannot suppose that this wasn't meant for those in that time.

Shalom,
Tanja

Vhayes
May 9th 2008, 03:27 PM
The more the better. It's not for salvation so don't bother making that contention. todd

Salvation was never by the law anyway, so why would I make that "contention"?

I'm just trying to understand what you call the law and how you are to live by it. If it seems right to you, then so be it. At the same time, I don't appreciate being told I bow to Rome because I celebrate the Lord's Day. Paul, Peter and others gathered on the first day of the week. They also went to synagogues on the Sabbath. It would have been pointless to preach the gospel in a synagogue on a Sunday or a Tuesday considering the fact no one would have been there.

I don't have all the answers. You don't have all the answers. Assumptions about others is just that - assumptions.

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 03:29 PM
Please give me the scriptural context of this:


Paul, Peter and others gathered on the first day of the week.

Vhayes
May 9th 2008, 03:38 PM
Please give me the scriptural context of this:

John 20:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=19&version=49&context=verse)
So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, " Peace be with you."
Acts 20:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=20&verse=7&version=49&context=verse)
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.


1 Corinthians 16:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=16&verse=2&version=49&context=verse)
On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.

seamus414
May 9th 2008, 03:42 PM
Correct, but I don't believe that she had the authority. Rome took to herself power God never gave. todd

Who's speaking about Rome?

Also, God did give his Church authority.

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 03:58 PM
This is where a lack of understanding things Jewish becomes glaringly evident:

Joh 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

They had evidently gathered for Sabbath, and were still together when the first day of the week began at sun down.
Again keep in mind that the scriptural days begin at sun down, as the old day ends.
We see this in Genesis:
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


It is customary for Jews to celebrate the ending of Sabbath with what is called Havdalah. It concluded with prayers and eating of a shared meal, celebrating the new week in coming. It is very interesting that Yeshua would appear to them exactly at that time.
It's like a picture of the hidden Manna being returned to the table. It's a small picture of the Passover having been fulfilled.

The same holds true for Acts 20:7 when they were breaking bread meaning they were sharing a meal together in celebration.

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

It goes to show again how seriously they took the command not to violate the Sabbath in any way. The collections being made on the first day of the week speak volumes on that, because on the Sabbath no business or monetary issues were to be handled.

Shalom,
Tanja

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 04:06 PM
Who's speaking about Rome?

Also, God did give his Church authority.
The Sabbath was ditched by a tradition Rome inherited and it's opposition to the Sabbath was passed on to the Protestant tradition that "came out" of the RCC. Try Sam Bacchiocchi’s classic “From Sabbath To Sunday.” Yes, the "church" has authority but it's for each to determine which church/es have that authority. todd

Vhayes
May 9th 2008, 04:10 PM
Glaringly obvious?

So, one needs to become a Jew before one can understand scripture?

Wow -

valleybldr
May 9th 2008, 04:12 PM
Salvation was never by the law anyway, so why would I make that "contention"?

I'm just trying to understand what you call the law and how you are to live by it. If it seems right to you, then so be it. At the same time, I don't appreciate being told I bow to Rome because I celebrate the Lord's Day. Paul, Peter and others gathered on the first day of the week. They also went to synagogues on the Sabbath. It would have been pointless to preach the gospel in a synagogue on a Sunday or a Tuesday considering the fact no one would have been there.

I don't have all the answers. You don't have all the answers. Assumptions about others is just that - assumptions. I spoke of how I see this as it personally applies to me. The transfer of worship happened after the Apostles and the written record of the New Testament. I never said I have all the answers. A degree and hundreds if not thousands of hours of study over a lifetime but far from "all the answers." todd

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 04:16 PM
Yeshua was a Jew, and His disciples were Jews. To understand what, how and why they did things, it would help understanding scripture if one considered the Jewish aspect, history and customs.

Make of that what you will. I however am not saying one must become Jewish as your question implies.

Shalom,
Tanja

Vhayes
May 9th 2008, 04:51 PM
Yeshua was a Jew, and His disciples were Jews. To understand what, how and why they did things, it would help understanding scripture if one considered the Jewish aspect, history and customs.

Make of that what you will. I however am not saying one must become Jewish as your question implies.

Shalom,
Tanja
Tanja - I owe you an apology. I realize you feel you have answers that make you content, otherwise you wouldn't hold them. The same goes for everyone. We all study, we all learn.

I attributed something to you that I "saw" and it may not (probably isn't) there - a sense of superiority in your "Jewish-ness". By calling Jesus Yeshua and saying Shalom, I felt you were implying you are more spiritual than the rest of us who call Jesus, Jesus.

I will leave this discussion now. If I lose my temper at something like this, I need to reevaluate, get my heart back to where it belongs - focused on Jesus and not on man.

So, I extend my apology to you in all sincerety. I was in the wrong for being confrontational.

Peace to you -
V

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 05:47 PM
Vhayes,

I could PM you this, but i figured i might as well put this on the open board to explain something to all:

First off, i accept your apology. Your reply showed me that i still had a tiny struggle with retorting in kind. So no worries, i fully understand.


I attributed something to you that I "saw" and it may not (probably isn't) there - a sense of superiority in your "Jewish-ness". By calling Jesus Yeshua and saying Shalom, I felt you were implying you are more spiritual than the rest of us who call Jesus, Jesus.There was a time where that could have applied to an extend, but it hasn't been that way for about a year now.
I call Jesus Yeshua, because that's His name in His own Language. It's something i prefer out of respect. It's out of a personal thing i have experienced with my own name being from Germany. My name is pronounced Tonya, but due to my spelling i often get pronounced like the first part of a tangerine. Tange.... you know it irks me a smidgen, and it's worse when i spell my name for people, and upon hearing my name they just write it differently.
When i got my social security card they had utterly mangled my name, and i have to say i sometimes get a bit tired of that.
Seems like people assume i don't know how to spell my own name.

The Shalom is in biggest part, cause of my views and the Jews. It may make them feel more welcome, or inclined to listen. It's like when you visit a country, and you familiarize yourself with their customs, it gives you understanding and insight, as well as a connection to the people. There are Jews who come by here and read from time to time as i understand it.
I have however at times wrote Peace instead of Shalom, so as not to offend or bewilder a brother or sister.

I'm in no way superior to anyone here. There are a ton of people i look up to, including to a number of people on this board who don't exactly see things the same as i do, who don't necessarily agree with (all of) my views.
But i can tell they have the Spirit in them, and it manifests outwardly.

Then i also have other friends who share the understanding i have on scriptures, and they are very loving and caring people.

I'm in training for the world to come, and under construction as is anyone else. This is a common goal, and no one is at the same level as another.
I once didn't see things any differently than you do, and it took years before i sat down and asked God for truth, because i felt something was lacking in my life and in the churches i've gone to.

Now i have direction and guidance through the Holy Spirit who writes the Law onto my heart, and it is my prayer that i will remain willing and soft and supple and that God will see fit to create me into something beautiful with lots of light to shine.


I realize you feel you have answers that make you content, otherwise you wouldn't hold them. Very much so, i'm content and very happy to know the scriptures the way i do. I praise God for letting me see the light, and teaching me constantly.
I'm however still hungry for knowledge, and wisdom, and have a huge desire for perfection in Him.

I look at myself and see a lot of room for improvement and learning. The scriptures and the Holy Spirit point that out to me all the time.

Peace to you, and know that your apology means a lot to me, and that you are forgiven.

:hug:

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 06:47 PM
The Sabbath was ditched by a tradition Rome inherited and it's opposition to the Sabbath was passed on to the Protestant tradition that "came out" of the RCC. Try Sam Bacchiocchi’s classic “From Sabbath To Sunday.” Yes, the "church" has authority but it's for each to determine which church/es have that authority. todd

You can always tell when Sabbatarians can’t defend their non-biblical argument – they inevitably bring up the RCC whom they claim “changed” the Sabbath to Sunday which does not hold water when compared to both the NT and history. The Lord’s church meet on the Lord’s Day in apostolic times and into the early second century - this is born out by reading any legitimate historian – much earlier that the origin of the RCC.

Btw - Sam Bacchiocchi is a SDA hack who is passed off by the SDA sect as a legitimate historian but the truth is he simply follows SDA dogma.

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 06:55 PM
You can always tell when Sabbatarians can’t defend their non-biblical argument – they inevitably bring up the RCC whom they claim “changed” the Sabbath to Sunday which does not hold water when compared to both the NT and history. The Lord’s church meet on the Lord’s Day in apostolic times and into the early second century - this is born out by reading any legitimate historian – much earlier that the origin of the RCC.

Not true, therefore i would like to refer back to my previous post:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1633083&postcount=118

Check it out!



Shalom,
Tanja

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 07:39 PM
Not true, therefore i would like to refer back to my previous post:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1633083&postcount=118

Check it out!



Shalom,
Tanja
The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. ~ Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church
Acts 20:7, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

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

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 07:47 PM
Ignatius especially is one who had severe antisemitic remarks and twisted scripture into supporting the doing away with the Sabbath and celebrating Jewish feasts which were commanded to be observed by God.

One only has to read the letter he wrote to the Magnesians.

Justin Matyr wasn't so innocent either. And neither was Trypho. I suppose again, this is a matter of differing perspective between you and i, but i see it for what it is.

And i see absolutley nothing in the apostolic scriptures indicating the first day of the week was the new day to celebrate. In fact, if you look carefully at the account of Yeshua's crucifixion, you will realize that he rose on the weekly Sabbath.

You need to take into consideration that the Jews in that week celebrated Passover (Pesach) and this was called a Sabbath day also (high holy day), because no work was to be done on it.

Reading the scriptures carefully in context will reveal this to anyone looking for truth of the actual day Yeshua rose from the grave. HINT: it wasn't Sunday, but it was Saturday

So oh lala, the apostles really would have had a good reason to change it to Sunday?

What you need to realize Losthorizon, is that none of us are condemning anyone who worships on a Sunday.... that is not against the rules of God, however, what some of us are trying to point out, is that the Sabbath was not moved, nor was it changed, or abolished.

Shalom,
Tanja

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 08:08 PM
What you need to realize Losthorizon, is that none of us are condemning anyone who worships on a Sunday.... that is not against the rules of God, however, what some of us are trying to point out, is that the Sabbath was not moved, nor was it changed, or abolished.

Shalom,
Tanja
That’s not quite true, Tonja – there are those among us following the teachings of an unnamed sect who do believe those of us who worship according to the NT pattern are those who receive the “mark of the beast” and you know where those folks who receive that mark go. The Sabbath was fulfilled by the Lord and was nailed to His cross. Christians have never been obliged to God to keep that day. Those who teach otherwise are in error.

Btw – Trypho was a Jew and he kept the sabbath – see “Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew”.

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 08:13 PM
For those who would like a detailed breakdown of scripture regarding the day Yeshua rose from the grave take a look at this site. And i promise, it's not too long either:

http://therefinersfire.org/resurrection.htm

Shalom,
Tanja

crawfish
May 9th 2008, 08:17 PM
Does anyone take Romans 14 for what it says without making a huge jump to say it applies to days God deems "holy." Food and fast days are no way on par with the Sabbath. Don't make it sound like the passage is saying the two are the same because to say so is an opinion above and beyond what Paul is writing here. todd

It's no jump. Romans deals with a growing dissension between Jews and Gentiles; how grace is here because the law was insufficient. Paul is constructing a diatribe, building arguments to support his overall theme of Christian unity between both groups.

Paul is essentially pointing to two issues: the Gentiles, used to associating some foods with pagan rituals, would choose to abstain from that food. The Jews, used to honoring the Sabbath and other holy days, insisted that being right with God was dependent on continuing to honor those days. Paul in no uncertain terms criticizes each for judging the other side for not holding to their terms of faith, delegating both to "personal faith" - things that we expect of ourselves, but should not expect of others.

The bigger jump is limiting the scope of Paul's words here. Including the Sabbath in the argument is wholly within the context of the book.

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 08:24 PM
That’s not quite true, Tonja – the SDA among us following the teachings of Ellen White do believe those of us who worship according to the NT pattern are those who receive the “mark of the beast” and you know where those folks who receive that mark go. Well i'm not a respresentative of the SDA, nor am i a member of their church.


The Sabbath was fulfilled by the Lord and was nailed to His cross. Christians have never been obliged to God to keep that day. Those who teach otherwise are in error.Well we can discuss that when we stand before God someday. I believe you to be in error about it having been nailed to the cross as much as you believe me to be in error. So i guess we're on equal terms :)



Btw – Trypho was a Jew and he kept the sabbath – see “Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew”.Yeah, he was a Jew, and i made the mistake to name them separately, it was a dialogue, which is full of scathing anti semitic remarks....

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01/Page_194.html

It's several pages long.

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
May 9th 2008, 08:48 PM
Correct, but I don't believe that she had the authority. Rome took to herself power God never gave. todd

Rome only made official what the Christian church already was practicing for hundreds of years. God abolished the law so there was no law concerning what day had to be "kept" so it was up to Christians to decide if they wanted such a day, and if they wanted to start meeting on a certain day more so than others and Sunday was the best choice because it was the Lord's day.

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 08:48 PM
I find it interesting that all the earliest writings (some of which are ambiguous or controversial) regarding the first day of the week being the Lord's Day are all dated between the two Jewish revolts or shortly after the second revolt. During that time when the Gentiles were pushed into leadership and the animosity between the synagogue and the church was reaching a boiling point, the writings against Torah practices amongst believers explodes on the scene.

History in understanding these things is equally important.

Shalom,
Tanja

Naphal
May 9th 2008, 08:52 PM
Read Ephesians 2 in its historical context. The chapter is about Jew and Gentile coming together in worship and in one Body. There was a literal wall separating Gentiles from entrance into the Temple (picturing access to God). Anyone, in the ancient world, who knew the basics about the worship of Israel's God, knew exactly what picture he was creating by referencing this wall.

todd

That's fine but it isn't what we read in this verse:


Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

This isn't a wall or man made laws. This is the law of commandments that God gave to Moses. This is the same law Paul constantly speaks of elsewhere.

Naphal
May 9th 2008, 08:58 PM
You seem to have totally missed my point. Rome and her daughters have a history of opposing/oppressing/killing each other but the commandment keepers have no such history. todd

It's misleading to suggest one side keeps God's commandments and the other does not. One side knows what the NT commandments are as opposed to the OT commandments. Both sides actually keep the Sabbath and remember it but one remembers the old Sabbath and one remembers the new.

There has been bloodshed and it is wrong but if the sides and power was reversed there would have been equal bloodshed.

Naphal
May 9th 2008, 09:00 PM
Messiah, by His very actions, endorses #4 as well. ;)

I disagree...he taught keeping the Spirit of the Saturday Sabbath rather than the letter of the Sabbath law.

Naphal
May 9th 2008, 09:13 PM
This is where a lack of understanding things Jewish becomes glaringly evident:

Joh 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

They had evidently gathered for Sabbath, and were still together when the first day of the week began at sun down.


Please prove that. I see no evidence that they gathered together for the Sabbath.




It is customary for Jews to celebrate the ending of Sabbath with what is called Havdalah. It concluded with prayers and eating of a shared meal, celebrating the new week in coming.

Yes but it is already clear by the scripture referring to the others as Jews that these Christians were not "Jews" in the religious sense anymore. On the flip side, I highly doubt the Jews were gathering together in one place on Sunday like the Christians were.

losthorizon
May 9th 2008, 10:20 PM
I find it interesting that all the earliest writings (some of which are ambiguous or controversial) regarding the first day of the week being the Lord's Day are all dated between the two Jewish revolts or shortly after the second revolt. During that time when the Gentiles were pushed into leadership and the animosity between the synagogue and the church was reaching a boiling point, the writings against Torah practices amongst believers explodes on the scene.

History in understanding these things is equally important.

Shalom,
Tanja
What is even more interesting is the leadership of the Lord’s church at its very inception on the day of Pentecost was exclusively Jewish - ie - all the apostles including Paul at his meeting with the Messiah on the road to Damascus were all Jews and not one of them commanded even one Christian to keep the seventh day. They did (from the beginning) assemble on the Lord’s Day for there public worship setting our example today. In point of fact – the day of Pentecost was on the same Lord’s Day – Sunday.

These facts alone do great damage to the false notion that Christians are obligated by God to keep the seventh day as the Jews under the OT were required to do. Those same Jewish-Christian leaders tell us today that because Jesus died for our sins on the cross there was a change in the priesthood and this being true there was of necessity a change also of the old Mosaic law – it was nailed to His cross. Because of this change Christians are plainly told not to revert back to the bondage of that old law including the notion of observing the Jewish sabbath days, and months, and years.

It is interested to note that these “Hebrews of the Hebrews” understood what Gentile believers today fail to understand – the sabbath was for Jews only and had nothing to do with those who are now under the Law of Christ. The question that goes begging – why do Gentile believers today have such a desire to circumvent the teachings of the Jewish-Christian leaders of the apostolic church by submitting to the weak and beggarly elements of the old shadows of Judaism? :hmm:
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:11-12 (KJV)


But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. Galatians 4:9-11 (KJV)

Jesusinmyheart
May 9th 2008, 11:31 PM
Losthorizon,



What is even more interesting is the leadership of the Lord’s church at its very inception on the day of Pentecost was exclusively Jewish - ie - all the apostles including Paul at his meeting with the Messiah on the road to Damascus were all Jews and not one of them commanded even one Christian to keep the seventh day. They did (from the beginning) assemble on the Lord’s Day for there public worship setting our example today. In point of fact – the day of Pentecost was on the same Lord’s Day – Sunday.


It says when the day of Pentecost arrived...... It doesn't say what day that was for that matter.

Act 2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.

As to the people at Pentecost being exclusively Jewish:

No Jew would ever stop practicing the Sabbath. And none of the apostles did teach that the Sabbath was now gone. Nowhere in scripture do i see support of the Sabbath being for Jews only, that is something that was handed down since the forefathers changed everything in order to avoid persecution.

Recall something to the effect of: to the Jew first, then to the Gentiles...?

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

And that for a good reason. The Jews knew the scriptures well.


As for the change in priesthood constituting a change in the law, it only refers to the change in priesthood necessitating a change only in the Law of who could be a priest, which beforehand up until Yeshua came was only one from the tribe of Levi. And as we all know Yeshua is from the tribe of Judah.

The Law is not a weak and beggarly element if it's written in the heart of a believer. However, someone who wants to be circumcised for the sole purpose of thinking that makes him partaker of the covenant promise, that is one who returns to weak and beggarly elements, a word or law written on stone. That's what's weak and beggarly.

I don't follow a Law written on stone, but rather i follow what the Holy Spirit wrote onto/into my heart. I follow what has lasting glory.

Shalom,
Tanja

losthorizon
May 10th 2008, 12:32 AM
Losthorizon,




It says when the day of Pentecost arrived...... It doesn't say what day that was for that matter.

Act 2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.




Tonja - Pentecost always took place “on the morrow after the Sabbath” (Sunday) and it commemorated the “firstfruits of the harvest" – an OT shadow of the NT Reality – Jesus the Christ -
“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Cor.15:20).
The first day of the week – the Lord’s Day - and the day the Lord’s church was born – the Day of Pentecost – both took place on Sunday. This is not coincidental – this was designed and executed by the Eternal for His own purpose.


Nowhere in scripture do i see support of the Sabbath being for Jews only, that is something that was handed down since the forefathers changed everything in order to avoid persecution.
Then the onus is on you to show me from the Bible where any Gentile or any Christian was commanded to keep the sabbath – it was only given to the Hebrew nation - those who were slaves in the land of Egypt...
And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. Deuteronomy 5:15 (KJV)

As for the change in priesthood constituting a change in the law, it only refers to the change in priesthood necessitating a change only in the Law of who could be a priest, which beforehand up until Yeshua came was only one from the tribe of Levi. And as we all know Yeshua is from the tribe of Judah.
The law that regulated the Levitical priesthood was the Law of Moses – the Torah – and that law is the law that was changed – it was nailed to the cross never to been needed again – we are under the Law of Christ – the 4th commandment was part of the Mosaic Law that became obsolete the day Christ died.


The Law is not a weak and beggarly element if it's written in the heart of a believer. However, someone who wants to be circumcised for the sole purpose of thinking that
The entire Torah is referred to as the weak and beggarly element and we are warned not to go back under its bondage – we are free in Christ from the burden of the Torah.
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galatians 5:1 (KJV)

valleybldr
May 10th 2008, 01:05 AM
The entire Torah is referred to as the weak and beggarly element and we are warned not to go back under its bondage – we are free in Christ from the burden of the Torah. One mans blessing is another man's "bondage." Wonder why David (a man who saw Torah as a way of freedom and joy) rules the Messianic Kingdom under Christ. Guess we will have a "whole lotta [bondage] going on." Sigh, todd

valleybldr
May 10th 2008, 01:17 AM
There has been bloodshed and it is wrong but if the sides and power was reversed there would have been equal bloodshed. Not true. A commandment keeper isn't going to kill someone else over their faith. todd

Naphal
May 10th 2008, 01:34 AM
Not true. A commandment keeper isn't going to kill someone else over their faith. todd

All Christians are "commandment keepers", ie: NT commandments.

You can only speak for yourself. I know of some militant types that would kill to enforce the old commandments, especially the 4th. If they had their way it would be just like the days of the Pharisees and religious leaders and don't think they didn't rule with an iron rod and killed those that wouldn't follow the OT Sabbath rules.

Jesusinmyheart
May 10th 2008, 01:37 AM
Lost horizon,

I think it is pointless to debate this wioth you, as you will pull scriptures to prove your point though i understand and see the scriptures saying different things than you do especially when taken in context.

Just because pentecost was on the first day of the week, does not make it the Lord's day now.

As for the Law of the Sabbath being only for the Jews, then i suppose the law to not murder or comitt adultery was for the jews only also, cause it all was given together as the ten Commandments.

There is a line that reads: One law shall be for the Native as for the stranger.... how much more clear can this get?


The entire Torah is referred to as the weak and beggarly element and we are warned not to go back under its bondage – we are free in Christ from the burden of the Torah.

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galatians 5:1 (KJV)





It doesn't mention the Torah.....

And how can something that is called weak and beggarly be called good and holy?

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.


Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
May 10th 2008, 01:40 AM
You can only speak for yourself. I know of some militant types that would kill to enforce the old commandments, especially the 4th. If they had their way it would be just like the days of the Pharisees and religious leaders and don't think they didn't rule with an iron rod and killed those that wouldn't follow the OT Sabbath rules.

Gee what childish fingerpointing ....
I personally have not seen or met the militant type of this belief, and i don't know of anyone like that.

Most messianics i know would rather die because of their beliefs rather than killing anyone else.

With that said, i'm bowing out of this unfruitful discussion.

Shalom,
Tanja

losthorizon
May 10th 2008, 01:46 AM
One mans blessing is another man's "bondage." Wonder why David (a man who saw Torah as a way of freedom and joy) rules the Messianic Kingdom under Christ. Guess we will have a "whole lotta [bondage] going on." Sigh, todd
Watch out for those whips...your eschatology is as flawed as your “day-keeping” notion but not to be surprised. Christ reigns today in His kingdom. Those who have been redeemed by His blood have been delivered from the “power of darkness” and “translated” into the kingdom of Messiah where Christ reigns at the right hand of the Father today.
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Colossians 1:12-13 (KJV)

valleybldr
May 10th 2008, 01:51 AM
Watch out for those whips...your eschatology is as flawed as your “day-keeping” notion but not to be surprised. Christ reigns today in His kingdom. Those who have been redeemed by His blood have been delivered from the “power of darkness” and “translated” into the kingdom of Messiah where Christ reigns at the right hand of the Father today.

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Colossians 1:12-13 (KJV)
Sure He does and I never said He does not. There is still yet an earthly Kingdom yet to come. That was what I was clearly talking about. todd

losthorizon
May 10th 2008, 02:03 AM
There is still yet an earthly Kingdom yet to come. That was what I was clearly talking about. todd
And herein lies your continuing confusion – the earthly kingdom is here today, Todd – now – that is what those saved have been translated into – the kingdom of Messiah. There are not two kingdoms – only one and it is here and has been here for 2000 years. The kingdom will be delivered up to the Father at His second coming…at the end…
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:24 (KJV)

valleybldr
May 10th 2008, 02:07 AM
And herein lies your continuing confusion – the earthly kingdom is here today, Todd – now – that is what those saved have been translated into – the kingdom of Messiah. There are not two kingdoms – only one and it is here and has been here for 2000 years. The kingdom will be delivered up to the Father at His second coming…at the end…

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:24 (KJV)
Forget your dripping condensation, what is Zech 14 talking about? todd

Naphal
May 10th 2008, 02:09 AM
I personally have not seen or met the militant type of this belief, and i don't know of anyone like that.

I am glad that you haven't. I have, and I do not like the militant on either side of this issue. I take the position that Paul preaches, that any day we want to esteem is our choice and we shouldn't judge someone for esteeming a different day. That means neither Saturday nor Sunday have any commanded significance in the NT.

losthorizon
May 10th 2008, 02:11 AM
Forget your dripping condensation, what is Zech 14 talking about? todd

Do you deny the Messiah’s kingdom is on earth today? Have you been translated in the kingdom of his dear Son?;)

valleybldr
May 10th 2008, 02:16 AM
Do you deny the Messiah’s kingdom is on earth today? Have you been translated in the kingdom of his dear Son?;) For the second time, that's not the aspect of the kingdom I'm talking about. What is Zech 14 about? The future earthly rule of our Messiah after His return. The Torah is the law of the land ....Sabbath, Succot, Passover even sacrifices are found in this Kingdom. A new world unspeakable "bondage" by your definition. todd

Naphal
May 10th 2008, 02:17 AM
Forget your dripping condensation, what is Zech 14 talking about? todd


I think you mean "condescension" although condensation can drip I suppose.

Either way, you have enough of that in your posts as well. The both of you might consider toning things down a bit. It will help the discussion run smoother. Lets stick to the issues...no name calling, no jabs, and certainly no bashing positions.

valleybldr
May 10th 2008, 02:19 AM
I think you mean "condescension" although condensation can drip I suppose.

Either way, you have enough of that in your posts as well. The both of you might consider toning things down a bit. It will help the discussion run smoother. Lets stick to the issues...no name calling, no jabs, and certainly no bashing positions.
Thanks, off to bed. This discussion is "over and out" for me. todd

Naphal
May 10th 2008, 02:20 AM
Thanks, off to bed. This discussion is "over and out" for me. todd

Enjoy the Sabbath!

Brother Mark
May 10th 2008, 02:21 AM
OK guys, y'all settle down. Enough is enough.

Naphal
May 10th 2008, 02:33 AM
OK guys, y'all settle down. Enough is enough.

My comment was in all sincerity.

losthorizon
May 10th 2008, 02:45 AM
For the second time, that's not the aspect of the kingdom I'm talking about. What is Zech 14 about? The future earthly rule of our Messiah after His return. The Torah is the law of the land ....Sabbath, Succot, Passover even sacrifices are found in this Kingdom. A new world unspeakable "bondage" by your definition. todd
There is no need for another kingdom – His kingdom is here today. There will be no reason for a revived Levitical priesthood – He is our Great High Priest forever, There will be no need for revived animal sacrifices for sin after His once for all time perfect sacrifice. Why do you want to bring back the weak and beggarly elements when the Reality is here today? The Torah has come and it is now gone forever.

Jordannes
May 10th 2008, 08:03 AM
Sabbath / Lord’s Day / Saturday / Sunday

For us who live in the Lao PDR, this becomes a rather moot point on a functional level, but on a personal basis it may have significance for a Christian living in areas where there are few or no believers.

Here denominational demarcations become rather weak, since there are so few who do profess a belief in Christ. Yes, from time to time there encounters with the Sabbatarians (SDAs), but the fact remains that in a non-Christian society this issue seems trivial!

Does this make the Saturday Sabbath worshiper wrong? No! The danger with making the Sabbath or the Lord’s Day inaccessible to the outsiders is that we who hold the ‘notion’ of being on the inside have defined parameters as the true outsiders.

This is not an attempt to be antinomian, but rather a pondering of what has already been written.

valleybldr
May 10th 2008, 12:03 PM
There is no need for another kingdom – His kingdom is here today. There will be no reason for a revived Levitical priesthood – He is our Great High Priest forever, There will be no need for revived animal sacrifices for sin after His once for all time perfect sacrifice. Why do you want to bring back the weak and beggarly elements when the Reality is here today? The Torah has come and it is now gone forever. Wow, that's a rather huge chunck of Scripture to tear out. I'm interested in God's nature, His mind and His ways. His word details the ways of peace and prosperity. Who am I to argue? todd

valleybldr
May 10th 2008, 12:12 PM
Sabbath / Lord’s Day / Saturday / Sunday

For us who live in the Lao PDR, this becomes a rather moot point on a functional level, but on a personal basis it may have significance for a Christian living in areas where there are few or no believers.

Here denominational demarcations become rather weak, since there are so few who do profess a belief in Christ. Yes, from time to time there encounters with the Sabbatarians (SDAs), but the fact remains that in a non-Christian society this issue seems trivial!

Does this make the Saturday Sabbath worshiper wrong? No! The danger with making the Sabbath or the Lord’s Day inaccessible to the outsiders is that we who hold the ‘notion’ of being on the inside have defined parameters as the true outsiders.

This is not an attempt to be antinomian, but rather a pondering of what has already been written. Of all the countries I've traveled Thailand is my favorite. I've never been in Lao. There is a (non-SDA) ministry to the Sabbatarian/Holy Day observant that serves Thailand and Burma. My brother will be going there for ministry during Succot again this year. The event is sponsored by the Legacy Institute and they meet in Chiang Mai. http://www.legacyinstitute.org/

todd

valleybldr
May 10th 2008, 12:15 PM
Enjoy the Sabbath!
Thanks. Services, a picnic and then havdalah service. Should be a real joy. todd

diffangle
May 10th 2008, 01:23 PM
There is no need for another kingdom – His kingdom is here today. There will be no reason for a revived Levitical priesthood – He is our Great High Priest forever, There will be no need for revived animal sacrifices for sin after His once for all time perfect sacrifice. Why do you want to bring back the weak and beggarly elements when the Reality is here today? The Torah has come and it is now gone forever.
What do you make of the unfulfilled prophecies in the OT(ie. Zech 14)? Should they be considered false and removed from our Scriptures?

losthorizon
May 10th 2008, 02:26 PM
What do you make of the unfulfilled prophecies in the OT(ie. Zech 14)? Should they be considered false and removed from our Scriptures?
This is a subject that has been discussed in detail in the End Time forum but to answer your question with a brief response Zechariah 14 is not a reference to some future millennial reign of Christ upon the earth. His kingdom is here today – those who are “in Christ Jesus” have been translated from Satan’s domain of darkness into the light of the kingdom of His dear son. There is not a time yet future when the old Mosaic system will be revived with it Levitical priesthood, continual burn-offerings, etc, etc. Those who worship God today worship Him in “spirit and in truth”. God has no need for a future temple “made with hands” in physical Jerusalem where Jew and Gentile will once again be separated by the “wall that divides”. There will never be a need for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals over a 1000 year period for sin offerings after the perfect one-time sacrifice of the Messiah on our behalf. :)
Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:20-24 (KJV)

diffangle
May 10th 2008, 02:31 PM
This is a subject that has been discussed in detail in the End Time forum but to answer your question with a brief response Zechariah 14 is not a reference to some future millennial reign of Christ upon the earth. His kingdom is here today – those who are “in Christ Jesus” have been translated from Satan’s domain of darkness into the light of the kingdom of His dear son. There is not a time yet future when the old Mosaic system will be revived with it Levitical priesthood, continual burn-offerings, etc, etc. Those who worship God today worship Him in “spirit and in truth”. God has no need for a future temple “made with hands” in physical Jerusalem where Jew and Gentile will once again be separated by the “wall that divides”. :)

Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:20-24 (KJV)

So what's it a reference to?

losthorizon
May 10th 2008, 03:08 PM
So what's it a reference to?
This is the wrong thread to discuss the reference/meaning (off topic) – you can research the End Time archive, start a new thread or PM me - I would only add that Zechariah 14 is figurative in nature having to do with "spiritual Jerusalem” – the Lord’s church.

Jesusinmyheart
May 10th 2008, 03:09 PM
This is the wrong thread to discuss the reference/meaning (off topic) – you can research the End Time archive, start a new thread or PM me - I would only add that Zechariah 14 is figurative in nature having to do with "spiritual Jerusalem” – the Lord’s church.Sounds like a hasty retreat all of a sudden! Can't refute that one now can you?

(yeah i said i would bow out, but i could't resist that remark after seeing the last development. Anyway, i'm going to stay put now.)

Shalom,
Tanja

losthorizon
May 10th 2008, 03:29 PM
Sounds like a hasty retreat all of a sudden! Can't refute that one now can you?

(yeah i said i would bow out, but i could't resist that remark after seeing the last development. Anyway, i'm going to stay put now.)

Shalom,
Tanja
No retreat, Tanja – you can review my many posts on eschatology in the End Time forum – I have presented my understanding in great detail and my rejection of Dispensational dogma is extensive. The old saying applies here – “There is a time and place for everything” – and this thread on the Sabbath question is not the time or the place to discuss the many errors of Dispensationalism – it would not be fair to the OP.

Btw - I hope you reconsider your choice not to participate in this thread – you have much to offer on this important subject.

Naphal
May 10th 2008, 08:39 PM
This is a subject that has been discussed in detail in the End Time forum but to answer your question with a brief response Zechariah 14 is not a reference to some future millennial reign of Christ upon the earth. His kingdom is here today – those who are “in Christ Jesus” have been translated from Satan’s domain of darkness into the light of the kingdom of His dear son. There is not a time yet future when the old Mosaic system will be revived with it Levitical priesthood, continual burn-offerings, etc, etc. Those who worship God today worship Him in “spirit and in truth”. God has no need for a future temple “made with hands” in physical Jerusalem where Jew and Gentile will once again be separated by the “wall that divides”. There will never be a need for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals over a 1000 year period for sin offerings after the perfect one-time sacrifice of the Messiah on our behalf. :)

Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:20-24 (KJV)


Absolutely. Most of such a concept erroneousless comes from misunderstanding what the latter Ezekiel chapters were speaking of.

Naphal
May 10th 2008, 08:41 PM
Sounds like a hasty retreat all of a sudden! Can't refute that one now can you?

Come on now, lets be nice. He didn't say he wouldn't address it (he already said a lot mind you) but start a new thread on it and invite him rather than verbally jab and shame him.

Studyin'2Show
May 10th 2008, 08:50 PM
Yeah, I know this isn't the End Times Chat forum, and not to derail too much :D but ironically, much of the prophecy concerning Messiah's first coming was misunderstood as only symbolic. One in particular is that a 'virgin' was going to have a child. How could that be? ;) Whether we understand why there would be a rebuilt temple and sacrifices, that what the simple reason of the text says, just like that virgin thing! :D Anyway, that's my take on it.

Blessings! :)

losthorizon
May 10th 2008, 09:06 PM
Yeah, I know this isn't the End Times Chat forum, and not to derail too much :D but ironically, much of the prophecy concerning Messiah's first coming was misunderstood as only symbolic. One in particular is that a 'virgin' was going to have a child. How could that be? ;) Whether we understand why there would be a rebuilt temple and sacrifices, that what the simple reason of the text says, just like that virgin thing! :D Anyway, that's my take on it.

Blessings! :)
Of course the major misunderstanding the Jews had regarding the coming Messiah was to think He was coming to set up a physical kingdom in Jerusalem that would physically defeat the enemies of Israel (Rome, et al). But Christ plainly told them His kingdom was not of this world. Dispensationalists today make the same error – they believe a physical kingdom with a physical temple with restored animal sacrifices is yet to come – but they are incorrect. The kingdom is here among us today.
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. John 18:36 (KJV)

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20-21 (KJV)

Studyin'2Show
May 10th 2008, 10:33 PM
Of course the major misunderstanding the Jews had regarding the coming Messiah was to think He was coming to set up a physical kingdom in Jerusalem that would physically defeat the enemies of Israel (Rome, et al). But Christ plainly told them His kingdom was not of this world. Dispensationalists today make the same error – they believe a physical kingdom with a physical temple with restored animal sacrifices is yet to come – but they are incorrect. The kingdom is here among us today.
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. John 18:36 (KJV)

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20-21 (KJV)Certainly His Kingdom has been established. In fact, scripture tells us that we are with Him, seated in heavenly places. And there is no doubt that we worship Him in spirit and in truth. That fact is not in question. A simple reading and understanding of Zechariah is the issue.

Zechariah 14:11-12
11 The people shall dwell in it;
And no longer shall there be utter destruction,
But Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

12 And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem:

Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet,
Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets,
And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.

Jerusalem is not safely inhabited; destruction abounds. And this plague, has not yet occurred. If one reads the entire chapter in context with the rest of the book of Zachariah, it is speaking of a literal time to come. Even after this time, man will still have free will and there will still be sin. We've talked much about the spiritual and the physical, with me believing that they are not at enmity with one another. Ironically, I don't know that there will have to be a new Temple to fulfill the prophecy in Zechariah 14. It doesn't mention that here. Also, the 'sacrifice' that it mentions is not explained. What it does speak of is pots in which they will 'cook' their sacrifices. That could simply mean that that an animal will have to have its life sacrificed, to fill or pots for the feasts.

Zechariah 14:21 - Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

With all that said, Zechariah seems to be still within the category of prophecy yet to be fulfilled. Now, the book of the Revelation of John, chapter 20, is what speaks of the 1000 years (millennial kingdom). Is it your position that Satan has already been bound? :hmm:

Be Blessed! :)

losthorizon
May 10th 2008, 11:57 PM
With all that said, Zechariah seems to be still within the category of prophecy yet to be fulfilled. Now, the book of the Revelation of John, chapter 20, is what speaks of the 1000 years (millennial kingdom). Is it your position that Satan has already been bound? :hmm:

Any interpretation of any passage in the Bible that forces a “materialistic” view of the reign of Christ on earth in a literal temple made with hands should be rejected as a misinterpretation. The Messianic Kingdom is on earth today and it has been for 2000 years. The Apocalypse employs highly figurative language and chapter 20 is no exception to that rule - it does not mention a literal "1000 years" nor does it mention a "reign on earth" – Christ reigns on the throne of David at the Father’s right hand today. And yes Satan is “bound” in the sense that the power he once help over mankind has been limited by the power of the gospel of Christ and the indwelling influence of the Holy Spirit.

Is it your notion that the old Mosaic worship system will be resurrected along with the sin offerings and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals during a literal “1000 year reign” of Messiah on this physical earth? Why do we need sin offerings by the blood of bulls and of goats after the Perfect Sacrifice of the Lamb of God on the cross?
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Hebrews 9:12-14 (KJV)

diffangle
May 11th 2008, 12:00 AM
Why do we need sin offerings by the blood of bulls and of goats after the Perfect Sacrifice of the Lamb of God on the cross?

Who said it will be sacrifices for sin? There are sacrifices for things other than sin.

Naphal
May 11th 2008, 12:14 AM
Who said it will be sacrifices for sin? There are sacrifices for things other than sin.

The so called Millennial chapters of Ezekiel mention sacrifices for sin.

losthorizon
May 11th 2008, 12:16 AM
Who said it will be sacrifices for sin? There are sacrifices for things other than sin.
Because it specifically states “sin offering” if it is yet future as Dispensationalists insist. Why do we need sin offerings after the once for all sacrifice of Christ? What do you think, Diff why slaughter thousands of animals for any purpose after His perfect sacrifice?
And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering. Ezekiel 43:19 (KJV)

Naphal
May 11th 2008, 12:20 AM
Hebrews 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

One says "never" and one says "for ever".

My heart's Desire
May 11th 2008, 01:02 AM
What is even more interesting is the leadership of the Lord’s church at its very inception on the day of Pentecost was exclusively Jewish - ie - all the apostles including Paul at his meeting with the Messiah on the road to Damascus were all Jews and not one of them commanded even one Christian to keep the seventh day. They did (from the beginning) assemble on the Lord’s Day for there public worship setting our example today. In point of fact – the day of Pentecost was on the same Lord’s Day – Sunday.

These facts alone do great damage to the false notion that Christians are obligated by God to keep the seventh day as the Jews under the OT were required to do.
And...you know what? I almost believe they met together almost every day. I don't have proof but think about it. They most certainly were on the wrong side of the Jewish Leaders thinking and who knows if they didn't huddle together for safety quite often as a group? We have to remember the New Testament wasn't written yet. They didn't have all the wisdom and Paul's writings yet, as we do because he hadn't written it yet. All they knew was that they were joining a new thing by believing in Jesus Christ, going against the Jewish leaders.
Don't forget where they sold their stuff and then gave it out to each one as they had need.
I think if I lived during that time, and I became a part of a new group with a common belief and people were out to get me, I'd certainly spend alot of time with those who believe as I do, even better to have Paul or an Apostle in the midst too! Anyway, that's my opinion FWIW.

Studyin'2Show
May 11th 2008, 01:11 AM
Any interpretation of any passage in the Bible that forces a “materialistic” view of the reign of Christ on earth in a literal temple made with hands should be rejected as a misinterpretation. The Messianic Kingdom is on earth today and it has been for 2000 years. The Apocalypse employs highly figurative language and chapter 20 is no exception to that rule - it does not mention a literal "1000 years" nor does it mention a "reign on earth" – Christ reigns on the throne of David at the Father’s right hand today. And yes Satan is “bound” in the sense that the power he once help over mankind has been limited by the power of the gospel of Christ and the indwelling influence of the Holy Spirit.

Is it your notion that the old Mosaic worship system will be resurrected along with the sin offerings and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals during a literal “1000 year reign” of Messiah on this physical earth? Why do we need sin offerings by the blood of bulls and of goats after the Perfect Sacrifice of the Lamb of God on the cross?
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Hebrews 9:12-14 (KJV)It's obvious that you did not read my post and must be responding to what you THINK I might say rather than what I ACTUALLY said. :rolleyes: This dialog should NOT simply be about throwing perceived doctrine back and forth. But should be about a group of believers with grace and respect discussing ideas. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case here. Too bad. :(

My heart's Desire
May 11th 2008, 01:13 AM
Then the onus is on you to show me from the Bible where any Gentile or any Christian was commanded to keep the sabbath – it was only given to the Hebrew nation - those who were slaves in the land of Egypt...



I'm not Tanja, but if I remember Israel is God's chosen Nation and the giving of the Law, the Law itself and everything else is what made them stand out, be different to all the other Nations. Therefore, it was only for them at the time.

losthorizon
May 11th 2008, 01:27 AM
And...you know what? I almost believe they met together almost every day. I don't have proof but think about it. They most certainly were on the wrong side of the Jewish Leaders thinking and who knows if they didn't huddle together for safety quite often as a group? We have to remember the New Testament wasn't written yet. They didn't have all the wisdom and Paul's writings yet, as we do because he hadn't written it yet. All they knew was that they were joining a new thing by believing in Jesus Christ, going against the Jewish leaders.
Don't forget where they sold their stuff and then gave it out to each one as they had need.
I think if I lived during that time, and I became a part of a new group with a common belief and people were out to get me, I'd certainly spend alot of time with those who believe as I do, even better to have Paul or an Apostle in the midst too! Anyway, that's my opinion FWIW.
I think you are correct - in the beginning of the Christian era they meet daily – there were many Jewish believers who had traveled from other parts of the Roman world and were in need of communal support. I would also mention the apostles had the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was to instruct them in all truth. Also the fact they specifically meet on Sunday coupled with the fact that Pentecost was always on Sunday and became the day for the public birth of the Lord’s church were done for reasons specific to God’s purpose – He could have chosen the seventh day but did not. I feel this is significant and is one more of the Jewish shadows - fulfilled by the Christ on the Lord’s Day - the same day of the week He arose from the grave...Amen!
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. Matthew 28:1-6 (KJV)

losthorizon
May 11th 2008, 01:41 AM
It's obvious that you did not read my post and must be responding to what you THINK I might say rather than what I ACTUALLY said. :rolleyes: This dialog should NOT simply be about throwing perceived doctrine back and forth. But should be about a group of believers with grace and respect discussing ideas. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case here. Too bad. :(
Well I think I responded to what you actually posted but if I missed your intent or purpose, please point out my oversight and I will be more than happy to try again. :)

losthorizon
May 11th 2008, 01:45 AM
I'm not Tanja, but if I remember Israel is God's chosen Nation and the giving of the Law, the Law itself and everything else is what made them stand out, be different to all the other Nations. Therefore, it was only for them at the time.
[/INDENT]
You are correct -the Law of Moses including the Sabbath commanment was only given to that nation delivered from "the land of Egypt..." It was never given to any other people - ever...
And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. Deuteronomy 5:15 (KJV)

Studyin'2Show
May 11th 2008, 10:55 AM
Well I think I responded to what you actually posted but if I missed your intent or purpose, please point out my oversight and I will be more than happy to try again. :)That's okay. I usually don't get into 'end times' discussion too much because everyone seems to be sure they have everything all figured out when the fact is that God is the only One who does. I believe that's one of the ways the Jews got it wrong was in thinking they had God's plan figured out. Then SURPRISE! :D Anything we say is speculation. I believe this is one of those things that are on a 'need to know' basis and I am certain that when we 'need to know', we will! Until then I will continue to be a watchman on the wall. ;)

Blessings to you! :)

losthorizon
May 11th 2008, 12:04 PM
That's okay. I usually don't get into 'end times' discussion too much because everyone seems to be sure they have everything all figured out when the fact is that God is the only One who does. I believe that's one of the ways the Jews got it wrong was in thinking they had God's plan figured out. Then SURPRISE! :D Anything we say is speculation. I believe this is one of those things that are on a 'need to know' basis and I am certain that when we 'need to know', we will! Until then I will continue to be a watchman on the wall. ;)

Blessings to you! :)
I would agree that eschatology has more speculation than any other biblical subject and it is a difficult subject to “know everything there is to know”. I do however think enough has been revealed that any interpretation that forces a “materialistic” view of the reign of Christ on earth in a literal temple made with hands should be rejected as a misinterpretation – this is the same error the Jews made 2000 years ago. And any interpretation that has a resurrected Mosaic worship system with the sin offerings of hundreds of thousands of animals after the Perfect Sacrifice of the Lamb of God should also be rejected out of hand as contrary to everything taught in the NT concerning salvation through His blood alone. God bless.

Studyin'2Show
May 11th 2008, 02:54 PM
I would agree that eschatology has more speculation than any other biblical subject and it is a difficult subject to “know everything there is to know”. I do however think enough has been revealed that any interpretation that forces a “materialistic” view of the reign of Christ on earth in a literal temple made with hands should be rejected as a misinterpretation – this is the same error the Jews made 2000 years ago. And any interpretation that has a resurrected Mosaic worship system with the sin offerings of hundreds of thousands of animals after the Perfect Sacrifice of the Lamb of God should also be rejected out of hand as contrary to everything taught in the NT concerning salvation through His blood alone. God bless.Prophecy is best understood in hindsight. When we try to put prophecy into a little box and feel it has to happen a certain way, then we err as the Jews did and run the risk of 'missing it'. I like to leave room for God to be God so I will eventually be able to look back and see prophecy fulfilled. There is still much that is to be fulfilled. That much I can see. So, I watch the signs of the times. ;)

losthorizon
May 11th 2008, 03:13 PM
Prophecy is best understood in hindsight. When we try to put prophecy into a little box and feel it has to happen a certain way, then we err as the Jews did and run the risk of 'missing it'. I like to leave room for God to be God so I will eventually be able to look back and see prophecy fulfilled. There is still much that is to be fulfilled. That much I can see. So, I watch the signs of the times. ;)
Of course “all scripture (including prophecy) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” I don’t think we are to ignore what God foretells until after the fact – He just expects us to use good horse sense as we contemplate on what is revealed and what is to come... ;)

Studyin'2Show
May 11th 2008, 04:32 PM
Of course “all scripture (including prophecy) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” I don’t think we are to ignore what God foretells until after the fact – He just expects us to use good horse sense as we contemplate on what is revealed and what is to come... ;)I speculate, but I remember who it is that regulates. :D Thanks for the dialog! I this thread's a goner too! :)

Be Blessed!

rush4hire
May 11th 2008, 08:58 PM
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

This has nothing to do with the Sabbath of the 10 Commandments. It's talking about man-made holidays such as Christmas, Quanza, Hanukkah, Easter, Thanksgiving, 4th of July, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day, May Day, April Fool's Day, George Washington's Birthday, National Secretaries Day.

Some of these holidays don't even apply to everyone. And obviously every country has it's own Independence day.

Notice this verse is in Romans. In Rome there where a lot of different cultures present, each bringing their own holidays from their homeland.

We see evidence that even the Jews where adding holidays to their calender:

Esther 9:19 "Therefore the Jews of the villages, that dwelt in the unwalled towns, made the fourteenth day of the month Adar [a day of] gladness and feasting, and a good day, and of sending portions one to another."

We are under no obligation to observe that.

Also certain Jews had set aside 2 days a week for fasting.

Luke 18:11 ..I thank thee, that I am not as other men..
v 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Does this give a more clear perspective on this verse?

I know that those who despise the unpopular tradition of Sabbath-keeping will never see that this verse has does not apply to the Sabbath.



Likewise this verse:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an Holiday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:
v 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

This is not talking about the weekly Sabbath given at creation to Adam and Eve in Gen 2:1-3. THE Sabbath was given before sin, therefore it was not a shadow of something to come, but the memorial of God's power to create a world in six days and a proclaim that we believe He did.

These "things to come", came because of sin; Christ being crucified, the day of judgment, such things as the yearly Sabbaths for-shadowed.

To find a list of all of the Sabbaths go to Leviticus 23.

Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day [is] the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work [therein]: it [is] the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

Then it lists all the yearly Sabbaths:

Lev 23:4 These [are] the feasts of the LORD, [even] holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
v 5 In the fourteenth [day] of the first month at even [is] the LORD's passover.

Those where never a burden either, but they required sacrifices. Now we can't sacrifice animals, lest we deny the blood of Christ.


Now after Jesus was Crucified, they began the embalming process by preparing the spices, but then they ran out of time.

Luke 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

They needed to finish their work well before sunset. That's when the Sabbath starts.

The disciples wouldn't even finish embalming our Lord during the sacred Sabbath hours! :o

Likewise Jesus died before the 24 hour period of the Sabbath began and rose after that 24 hour period ended. Jesus spent the entire Sabbath resting; sleeping in death.

If the Sabbath begins at sunset on the 6th day, then first day of the week begins at sunset on the Sabbath.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Notice "there were many lights in the upper chamber", (Acts 20:8)

So they where keeping the Sabbath together and then it got dark. Now it's the first day. Paul preached all night and when the sun rose, he set off on his journey.

Acts 20:11 .. and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

He departed on his trip. He spent all day Sunday traveling. He certainly wasn't a very good Sunday keeper! :o

And that's the verse used to teach that the disciples kept Sunday? :confused

The only thing significant about the first day in the bible is it's the start of a new week and the day after the Sabbath.

Now imagine 2000 years in the future, (never mind the second coming; this is hypothetical). What if some archaeologist digs up coffee cups with Garfield complaining: "Oh, it must be a Monday". And they find the song: "Just another manic Monday. Oooohooh.!", etc.

Would they assume that Monday was kept sacred? They could use that information if they did have an agenda say Monday was special. But we know it's not. The only significant thing about Monday is it's the beginning of a new work week.


Now the Sabbath was not a hot topic for the disciples. It was just a part of every day life and just common sense that you need to keep the Sabbath holy and meet together for church.

But lest there be any questions, we are left with one absolutely direct testimony:

Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
v 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.
v 4 And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

The word "rest" is "sab-bat-is-mos'", which mean

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Sabbatism


Sabbatism
Sab"ba*tism\, n. [L. sabbatismus, Gr. ?, fr. ? to keep the Sabbath: cf. F. sabbatisme. See Sabbath (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sabbath).] Intermission of labor, as upon the Sabbath; rest. --Dr. H. More. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
There is no other interpretation for this but has this meaning: "The people of God still keep the Sabbath"

There's only one Sabbath left. The others where shadows and temporary.

Also we gather from Hebrews 3 and 4 that the Sabbath represents the rest we find in Christ as well as a memorial of Creation.


Well there is tons of discussion on this topic. Lots of information. Lots of history.

One of the reasons Sabbath keeping is not popular is because over 50 million Sabbath-keeping Christians where murdered during those centuries. And Sunday is popular because it was enforced by Rome and other governments that where in bed with the Roman Catholic Church.

In the Council of Laodicea, (364 A.D), it was ruled and made a state law: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day"

losthorizon
May 11th 2008, 09:36 PM
One of the reasons Sabbath keeping is not popular is because over 50 million Sabbath-keeping Christians where murdered during those centuries. And Sunday is popular because it was enforced by Rome and other governments that where in bed with the Roman Catholic Church.

Lol – 50 million?? Can you please provide historical fact to support this non-historical notion? The reason “Sabbath-keeping” is not popular in the Christian church is because it is not part of the Law of Christ. Christians have never been commanded to “keep” that day – it was only commanded to Jews – never Gentiles and not once to even one Chrisitan.

And here we go again with the oft defeated and worn out fairytale propagated by the unnamed Sabbatarian sect that goes by the initials SDA who falsely attack the poor RCC for changing the Sabbath to Sunday. The Sabbath is still the seventh day and Sunday has always been the first day of the week – the day Christ arose from the grave. The Sabbath wasn't changed it was fulfilled by the Christ. The Lord’s church from its inception assembled on the first day of the week to celebrate the “good news” that “He has Risen!!” and she did this centuries before there was a RCC.
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7 (KJV)

"We assemble in common on Sunday [the Lord's day], because this is the first day, on which God created the world and the light, and because Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples." ~ Justin Martyr (A.D. 140)

The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lord’s Day of the Lord”… Dionysius of Corinth mentions Sunday incidentally in a letter to the church of Rome, A.D., 170: "To-day we kept the Lord’s Day holy, in which we read your letter”… Tertullian, at the close of the second…"We have nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals, much less with those of the heathen. We have our own solemnities, the Lord’s Day…"Sunday we give to joy.” We see then that the ante-Nicene church clearly distinguished the Christian Sunday from the Jewish Sabbath, and put it on independent Christian ground.” ~ Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church

losthorizon
May 11th 2008, 09:38 PM
I speculate, but I remember who it is that regulates. :D Thanks for the dialog! I this thread's a goner too! :)

Be Blessed!
It appears it is not a dead issue yet...watch that speculation...;)

Naphal
May 11th 2008, 09:57 PM
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

This has nothing to do with the Sabbath of the 10 Commandments.


Of course it does. You esteem Saturdays above the others days, some esteem Sundays, some esteem none and some esteem them all. You do your own position harm to make ridiculous claims like this. Confirm to the authority of Paul and stop persecuting those that esteem different days than you.

HisGrace
May 11th 2008, 10:25 PM
1 Cor. 16:2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

Does this mean that they took their tithes to church on Sunday?

Naphal
May 11th 2008, 10:53 PM
1 Cor. 16:2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

Does this mean that they took their tithes to church on Sunday?


Not exactly but it is one of the earliest examples of a collection being taken up on a Sunday which is why we have it now in churches on Sundays.

HisGrace
May 12th 2008, 12:53 AM
Not exactly but it is one of the earliest examples of a collection being taken up on a Sunday which is why we have it now in churches on Sundays.That's what I mean. They must have had church on Sunday.

Naphal
May 12th 2008, 12:56 AM
That's what I mean. They must have had church on Sunday.

An early form of it, yes. It would have been similar to OT synagogue but with many new changes. It would have been more informal and at first it was on any day they wanted but eventually Sunday was the most favored day.

rush4hire
May 12th 2008, 07:05 AM
An early form of it, yes. It would have been similar to OT synagogue but with many new changes. It would have been more informal and at first it was on any day they wanted but eventually Sunday was the most favored day.

A little more history.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Follis-Constantine-lyons_RIC_VI_309.jpg

On Constantine's coin it said:

SOL INVICTO COMITI

That means: "COMITTED TO THE INVINCIBLE SUN GOD"
(like on our bills it says "In God We Trust")

Obviously Constantine was a sun worshiper

[remainder edited out by mods]

Jesusinmyheart
May 12th 2008, 09:17 AM
CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
Council of Laodicea 363-364 A.D.

"but must work on that day" is what really stands out. It goes directly against what God said!





Originally Posted by Naphal View Post
Not exactly but it is one of the earliest examples of a collection being taken up on a Sunday which is why we have it now in churches on Sundays.
That's what I mean. They must have had church on Sunday.

As previously mentioned, this was done out of respect FOR the Sabbath, because no monetary business was to be conducted on the Sabbath.

Shalom
Tanja

Naphal
May 12th 2008, 09:43 AM
"but must work on that day" is what really stands out. It goes directly against what God said!

To be fair for the other side of the issue, God did not say one must rest on a Saturday in the NT, under the new covenant or in anything within the law of Christ. Resting on a Saturday was an old covenant command only and that covenant was replaced and that specific command was not a part of the new.

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 11:41 AM
To be fair for the other side of the issue, God did not say one must rest on a Saturday in the NT, under the new covenant or in anything within the law of Christ. Resting on a Saturday was an old covenant command only and that covenant was replaced and that specific command was not a part of the new.How was it 'fair" for the organized church to basically 'force' believers to NOT keep Sabbath? When have Sabbath keepers ever corporately forced believers to keep Sabbath? That's like forcing someone to eat pork or something (which has also happened in history :rolleyes:) Is that what Yeshua would do? Force people not to keep the 4th commandment?

God Bless!:)

valleybldr
May 12th 2008, 11:52 AM
How was it 'fair" for the organized church to basically 'force' believers to NOT keep Sabbath? When have Sabbath keepers ever corporately forced believers to keep Sabbath? That's like forcing someone to eat pork or something (which has also happened in history :rolleyes:) Is that what Yeshua would do? Force people not to keep the 4th commandment?

God Bless!:)
When seeking truth, faiths are going to be judged on their tendency for intolerance and violence. Long ago, I read way to much history to defend or embrace any faith traditions/systems after the cross that are steeped in blood. todd

losthorizon
May 12th 2008, 12:37 PM
A little more history.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Follis-Constantine-lyons_RIC_VI_309.jpg

On Constantine's coin it said:

SOL INVICTO COMITI

That means: "COMITTED TO THE INVINCIBLE SUN GOD"
(like on our bills it says "In God We Trust")

Obviously Constantine was a sun worshiper


And your point is what, exactly? Saturday is named after Saturn the Roman god of agriculture and harvest – do all Sabbatarians worship that mythological entity or just some? ;)

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 12:41 PM
And your point is what, exactly? Saturday is named after Saturn the Roman god of agriculture and harvest – do all Sabbatarians worship that mythological entity or just some? ;)I think the comment is merely pointing out that Constantine's motivation may not have been for Christianity but rather to dupe Christians. BTW, I call it Sabbath or Shabbat which is what God named it. :D

Blessings to you! :)

ohlurdy
May 12th 2008, 12:49 PM
Open to anyone who wishes to speak up :)

Is it a sin for a Christian to break the Saturday Sabbath?

I have a hard time getting a clear answer on this for some reason.

My answer is no.

Your answer?
When you say break, I'm guessing you mean refuse to remember it, keep it holy, or acknowledge it in any way at all-right?
For Christians to do that would be a form of disobedience and rebellion against God's Word. Therefore making it a sin
for them not to remember and keep it holy.

I've been attending Sunday church lately out of love, but I know and I acknowledge what God
says in His Word concerning His Sabbath on the seventh day of the week.

losthorizon
May 12th 2008, 12:58 PM
I think the comment is merely pointing out that Constantine's motivation may not have been for Christianity but rather to dupe Christians. BTW, I call it Sabbath or Shabbat which is what God named it. :D

Blessings to you! :)
Of course none of us should claim to know the hearts of men – right? I think that is God’s domain. And I prefer to call it the Lord’s Day – the day Messiah rose from the grave and the day Christians in the apostolic church assembled to celebrate that fact. :)

ohlurdy
May 12th 2008, 01:01 PM
Ten Commandments {Moral Law} and Ceremonial Law {the temporary law for sin offering "the ordinances)

The Ten commandment have never been called the ordinances,

Click here to learn the differences
http://gdtr.topcities.com/life/chart.html


I also gave a sermon on this topic found here
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the_living_word_mission_life_Church/2008/01/19/Law-vs-the-Ordinances


What is it that defines Sin? What are we to repent of?

If the 10 Commandment's are done away with, {which you hear preached from behind the pulpit and we are told they were nailed to the cross} then there is no sin!

If there is no sin, what are we to repent of?

There only remains {1} answer!

Sense the 10 Commandments are done away with, then it is man's tradition that defines sin, THUS, no need for God, for man has declared himself above God.

People do not even know what they are to repent from!

They have no Idea what defines sin!

These people are not going to repent, they are listening to the lying preachers in the pulpits every Sunday morning, saying God's Commandments are nailed to the cross, they are done away with, NO they are NOT, It is the death penalty for breaking God's Commandments is what is nailed to the cross!

How does the Bible define Sin? 1 John 3:4 says that, “Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law.”
So what defines Sin? God's Royal Law {His 10 Commandments} tells us what defines sin.

Minister D :saint:
That was very good. Why keep some of the 10 Commandments and not all of them? Why have only one God and
none other, but refuse to keep and remember the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week?

Christians always say they will keep the first three commandments, but not the fourth one.

If the 10 Commandment's are done away with, {which you hear preached from behind the pulpit and we are told they were nailed to the cross} then there is no sin!
If there is no sin, what are we to repent of?
If there are no 10 Commandments...and no sin....then God has absoultely no reason to open any books to judge
anyone from according to Revelation because our defense would be that God never let us know what laws we would
be violating. Judges only enforce laws that are already in the books.

Do good on the Sabbath.

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 01:10 PM
Of course none of us should claim to know the hearts of men – right? I think that is God’s domain. And I prefer to call it the Lord’s Day – the day Messiah rose from the grave and the day Christians in the apostolic church assembled to celebrate that fact. :)True! Though I don't think it a point of knowing his heart but rather questioning his motives. There are reports that seem to show that Constantine was not "exclusively" Christian, but that's something I guess we'll find out for sure on Judgment Day. :dunno: Anyway, I follow the example of Messiah; not Constantine or any other leader. And He kept Sabbath. ;)

God Bless! :)

Vhayes
May 12th 2008, 01:18 PM
Jesus also said the following:
Matthew 15

24 - But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
25 - But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" 26 - And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

Jesus was the Jewish Messiah - His mission was to the Jews. They rejected Him in large part which opened the door for the world to know Him.

Jesus fulfilled the Law. But that which has been fulfilled is no longer effective. When I fulfill my obligation to the bank and my mortgage is paid off, I no longer need to send the bank money every month. The obligation has been fulfilled.

Make sense?

Eaglenester
May 12th 2008, 01:21 PM
the day Christians in the apostolic church assembled to celebrate that fact. :)

Scripture does not support this.

And by our present means of reckoning days - He arose on Saturday evening, which to the Hebrews would have been the dawning of Sunday.

So if you want to assemble the day Messiah arose according to present reckoning of days - that is Saturday.

The body of Messiah, up until Constantine, delighted in Shabbat.

losthorizon
May 12th 2008, 01:22 PM
True! Though I don't think it a point of knowing his heart but rather questioning his motives. There are reports that seem to show that Constantine was not "exclusively" Christian, but that's something I guess we'll find out for sure on Judgment Day. :dunno: Anyway, I follow the example of Messiah; not Constantine or any other leader. And He kept Sabbath. ;)

God Bless! :)
But Jesus lived and died under the OT - He is the testator of the NT which does not include the "keeping" of Saturday. Under the Law of Christ Christians are not obligated to "keep" any day holy. Christ is our rest...

VerticalReality
May 12th 2008, 01:37 PM
Jesus also said the following:
Matthew 15

24 - But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
25 - But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" 26 - And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

Jesus was the Jewish Messiah - His mission was to the Jews. They rejected Him in large part which opened the door for the world to know Him.

Jesus fulfilled the Law. But that which has been fulfilled is no longer effective. When I fulfill my obligation to the bank and my mortgage is paid off, I no longer need to send the bank money every month. The obligation has been fulfilled.

Make sense?

Just want to clarify that it has only been fulfilled for those who believe. Those who do not believe and walk in the flesh and still under law.

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 01:38 PM
But Jesus lived and died under the OT - He is the testator of the NT which does not include the "keeping" of Saturday. Under the Law of Christ Christians are not obligated to "keep" any day holy. Christ is our rest...He said to follow Him. He is my example; my plumbline on ALL things! ;) I can't see how me doing ANY of the things He did would be a problem. :dunno: Yet the Council of Laodicea saw fit to decree that if someone did just that, they would not be part of the church. :o That BTW was another of those 'doctrines of men'. I'll stick with that which I know came from God any day of the week! :yes:

Blessings! :)

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 01:44 PM
Just want to clarify that it has only been fulfilled for those who believe. Those who do not believe and walk in the flesh and still under law.

Oh yea, the law still stands and it's purpose is to lead us to Christ. Those not in Christ are still under the entire Law and it's curses.

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 01:49 PM
Jesus also said the following:
Matthew 15

24 - But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
25 - But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" 26 - And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

Jesus was the Jewish Messiah - His mission was to the Jews. They rejected Him in large part which opened the door for the world to know Him.

Jesus fulfilled the Law. But that which has been fulfilled is no longer effective. When I fulfill my obligation to the bank and my mortgage is paid off, I no longer need to send the bank money every month. The obligation has been fulfilled.

Make sense?I've said many times that I do not keep Sabbath as some sort of an obligation so I believe you misunderstand my motivation. ;) The Law of God has been written in my heart as Jeremiah prophesied. Now, it is my desire to not murder, and not lie, and not commit adultery, and yes, even to remember the Sabbath. You see, you can pay off your mortgage at the bank so that you are no longer UNDER any obligation to give them money. Yet you can still choose to keep as many accounts at the bank that you CHOOSE, so you can continue to give them money. Those accounts (savings, checking, IRA etc.) would not be based on any 'obligation' like your mortgage was now would they?

Make sense?

BTW, Yeshua was my Messiah (Savior) as well and I'm not Jewish! :D

Be Blessed! :)

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 01:53 PM
I've said many times that I do not keep Sabbath as some sort of an obligation so I believe you misunderstand my motivation. ;) The Law of God has been written in my heart as Jeremiah prophesied. Now, it is my desire to not murder, and not lie, and not commit adultery, and yes, even to remember the Sabbath. You see, you can pay off your mortgage at the bank so that you are no longer UNDER any obligation to give them money. Yet you can still choose to keep as many accounts at the bank that you CHOOSE. Those accounts (savings, checking, IRA etc.) would not be based on any 'obligation' like your mortgage was now would they?

Make sense?

Be Blessed! :)

When one gets saved, we immediately start getting convicted about lying, murder, adultery, idols, etc. Those are things that are written into our hearts. Also, we are convicted about doing our own labors instead of his. Yet, we know nothing of Saturday without direction from scriptures. My position is that Saturday is not written into our hearts but the Sabbath, i.e. rest in Christ, is.

Most new believers make immediate progress in all the 10, except for keeping Saturday (though they do start resting in Him immediately). Now, if it is in our hearts to please him (and for those of us that are saved, it is) and we think keeping Saturday pleases him, then we will begin doing that as soon as we learn about it.

VerticalReality
May 12th 2008, 01:58 PM
When one gets saved, we immediately start getting convicted about lying, murder, adultery, idols, etc. Those are things that are written into our hearts. Also, we are convicted about doing our own labors instead of his. Yet, we know nothing of Saturday without direction from scriptures. My position is that Saturday is not written into our hearts but the Sabbath, i.e. rest in Christ, is.

Most new believers make immediate progress in all the 10, except for keeping Saturday (though they do start resting in Him immediately). Now, if it is in our hearts to please him (and for those of us that are saved, it is) and we think keeping Saturday pleases him, then we will begin doing that as soon as we learn about.

That's an excellent point, Mark, and I agree with you. Why do folks need to be taught that they need to keep the Saturday Sabbath when they need not be taught any other command? All new born again believers know that they should not steal, lie or murder. However, it takes the teachings of others to inform them that they need to keep a Saturday Sabbath.

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 02:03 PM
That's an excellent point, Mark, and I agree with you. Why do folks need to be taught that they need to keep the Saturday Sabbath when they need not be taught any other command? All new born again believers know that they should not steal, lie or murder. However, it takes the teachings of others to inform them that they need to keep a Saturday Sabbath.

Or they may come upon that belief through the reading of scriptures. I am making a distinction between God's ways and his laws. His ways are not written into our heart, but his Law is. But if one thinks that a thing pleases God, then one will do that because the Law "No other God's before me" is in their heart. That includes our own will. Whether we learn it from God or from men, or from the scriptures, we still obey. But his law, I do not think we have to learn so much. For it is written in us.

I really don't think Saturday keeping is written into our hearts as a day. Though I can certainly understand why folks keep it.

Friend of Jesus
May 12th 2008, 02:25 PM
When it gets right down to it- We should keep EVERY day Holy and dedicated to God, not just one day.

At least we should try...

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 02:51 PM
When one gets saved, we immediately start getting convicted about lying, murder, adultery, idols, etc. Those are things that are written into our hearts. Also, we are convicted about doing our own labors instead of his. Yet, we know nothing of Saturday without direction from scriptures. My position is that Saturday is not written into our hearts but the Sabbath, i.e. rest in Christ, is.

Most new believers make immediate progress in all the 10, except for keeping Saturday (though they do start resting in Him immediately). Now, if it is in our hearts to please him (and for those of us that are saved, it is) and we think keeping Saturday pleases him, then we will begin doing that as soon as we learn about it.I'd have to disagree that one does not need that perfect Law of God to help imprint His Law upon our hearts. I think Paul says it best with this verse.

Romans 7:7 - What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.

That desire to 'not covet' does not come the instant we accept Messiah. In order to even have a concept of covetousness, we need to have some knowledge of "thou shalt not covet". Coveting is very different from stealing or even somewhat different from being envious. Fornication is another issue that many 'believers' today are completely comfortable with. They say if two people are committed to each other and love each other, there is no sin. The Sabbath command is the same way as these other examples. Knowledge of the commandment does not come by osmosis. Faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God. ;)

Be Blessed! :)

Ta-An
May 12th 2008, 02:56 PM
When the Roman Catholic Church changed it to be so..... :D

The RC church also changed the celebration of Passover to Easter after Ishtar


Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people of Ninevah, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments is Ishtar.
Ever notice how your birthday falls on different days of the week, from one year to the next? One year it might be on a Monday and the next on a Wednesday. Such is the case with Passover. That being true, then why is the resurrection day always celebrated on a Sunday? Each year, if you were to follow the Bible, it should fall on a different day of the week and only occasionally on a Sunday. In the early church this issue caused quite a controversy-from :Biblelight . net)
:hmm: :eek:

If we do not support RC doctrine why do we support their calender for Biblical feasts and for the Sabbath??
__________________

losthorizon
May 12th 2008, 03:10 PM
Scripture does not support this.

And by our present means of reckoning days - He arose on Saturday evening, which to the Hebrews would have been the dawning of Sunday.

So if you want to assemble the day Messiah arose according to present reckoning of days - that is Saturday.

The body of Messiah, up until Constantine, delighted in Shabbat.
Of course neither the NT record or history is on your side - your fairytale is incorrect...
"The celebration of the Lord's Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lord's Day of the Lord." ~ historian Phillip Schaff

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 03:16 PM
I'd have to disagree that one does not need that perfect Law of God to help imprint His Law upon our hearts. I think Paul says it best with this verse.

Romans 7:7 - What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.

That desire to 'not covet' does not come the instant we accept Messiah. In order to even have a concept of covetousness, we need to have some knowledge of "thou shalt not covet". Coveting is very different from stealing or even somewhat different from being envious. Fornication is another issue that many 'believers' today are completely comfortable with. They say if two people are committed to each other and love each other, there is no sin. The Sabbath command is the same way as these other examples. Knowledge of the commandment does not come by osmosis. Faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God. ;)

Be Blessed! :)

I hear what you are saying and i partially agree with you. But even in coveting, we know that to be wrong. Paul learned it was wrong through the law and it strengthened the sin in him. But when he got saved, it (the law) was imprinted upon his heart and he died to sin.

The basics are written in us, not through study, but when the Lord Jesus is placed in our hearts. Through study, we learn more and more and our heart goes "a-ha!" when the revelation comes.

And faith does come by hearing, and that is the spoken word of God. If it came through study, then the Pharisees would have all been saved, for they studied much, but they didn't hear God and therefor, had no faith. When one hears God and receives Christ, the Law is written into our hearts. But his ways are not written into our hearts. We learn more of him and about him through study and listening to Him.

HisGrace
May 12th 2008, 03:17 PM
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the laws of Moses, but to fulfill them. The laws of Moses were done with condemnation, but Jesus came to hone the blueprint into to laws of love. In three chapters he taught about revenge, loving your enemies, giving to the needy, praying and fasting, etc.

Legalism was unbound, so why wouldn't the law of the Sabbath be unbound. It's all about the cross. Eight means new beginnings. Jesus arose on the eighth day and was transfigured on the eighth day, Sabbath merely means day of rest, so why wouldn't it make sense to turn our full attention and respect to Jesus and make The Lord's day of rest on the eighth day, Sunday, which is also the day in which we are told to bring our offerings to the temple.

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 03:28 PM
I hear what you are saying and i partially agree with you. But even in coveting, we know that to be wrong. Paul learned it was wrong through the law and it strengthened the sin in him. But when he got saved, it (the law) was imprinted upon his heart and he died to sin.

The basics are written in us, not through study, but when the Lord Jesus is placed in our hearts. Through study, we learn more and more and our heart goes "a-ha!" when the revelation comes.

And faith does come by hearing, and that is the spoken word of God. If it came through study, then the Pharisees would have all been saved, for they studied much, but they didn't hear God and therefor, had no faith. When one hears God and receives Christ, the Law is written into our hearts. But his ways are not written into our hearts. We learn more of him and about him through study and listening to Him.I think this may just need to be a point where we agree to disagree. ;) I did not know covetousness (and mind you I'm not Jewish) until I came to the knowledge of the commandment that 'thou shalt not covet'. Fornication is the same way for one who has no knowledge of the Law but has come to the decision to follow Messiah. There are many people, even on this very board that have no knowledge of the 'sin' of that activity because they choose to not respect the commandments of God. What do you tell them to get them to see the truth? Do you tell them to listen to their hearts? Do you tell them to follow what they 'believe' they are hearing verbally from God? Or do you tell them to study to shew themselves approved, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth? I believe you will quote to them the 'written' word of God for them to stand on, since we all know that God does not contradict Himself. :) So, yeah, I think we're just going to have to disagree on this.

God Bless!

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 03:37 PM
I think this may just need to be a point where we agree to disagree. ;) I did not know covetousness (and mind you I'm not Jewish) until I came to the knowledge of the commandment that 'thou shalt not covet'. Fornication is the same way for one who has no knowledge of the Law but has come to the decision to follow Messiah.

I know of many people that got saved, and immediately stopped fornicating without ever reading scripture or hearing it preached against. They KNEW it was wrong. Why? It was written in their heart. Rarely does one stop eating pork when they get saved. But they stop doing drugs, or sleeping around, or cursing God and others, etc. Of course, it is entirely possible those were the sins God was convicting them about to begin with. But rarely do we see him convicting folks of eating pork, or resting on Saturday, etc. I have never witnessed one person that said "God saved me and immediately set me free from eating pork." ;)


There are many people, even on this very board that have no knowledge of the 'sin' of that activity because they choose to not respect the commandments of God. What do you tell them to get them to see the truth? Do you tell them to listen to their hearts? Do you tell them to follow what they 'believe' they are hearing verbally from God? Or do you tell them to study to shew themselves approved, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth? I believe you will quote to them the 'written' word of God for them to stand on, since we all know that God does not contradict Himself.Well, if God's law isn't written in someone's heart, that would be a HUGE warning sign, wouldn't it. ;) We should always back up our convictions with scripture. Our heart is not trustworthy at all. Yet, his law is there when he moves in. We can see that in folks that never have scripture, yet do what is right. Paul also talked about that too.



:) So, yeah, I think we're just going to have to disagree on this.

God Bless!Yea, we very well may have to do that. :hug:

VerticalReality
May 12th 2008, 03:41 PM
I know of many people that got saved, and immediately stopped fornicating without ever reading scripture or hearing it preached against. They KNEW it was wrong. Why? It was written in their heart.



Well, if God's law isn't written in someone's heart, that would be a HUGE warning sign, wouldn't it. ;) We should always back up our convictions with scripture. Our heart is not trustworthy at all. Yet, his law is there when he moves in. We can see that in folks that never have scripture, yet do what is right. Paul also talked about that too.




Yea, we very well may have to do that. :hug:

These are some truths that many Christians today just cannot relate to because we all have bibles so readily available to us. How were the early church disciples supposed to know that fornication was wrong since they did not have a bible of their own instructing them of such a thing? Were they supposed to just continue in this sin until they just so happened to make it to a church or someplace where they could hear the Scriptures being read before they knew what they were doing was sin? No. They knew this was sin because it was indeed written in their hearts.

Vhayes
May 12th 2008, 03:54 PM
I've said many times that I do not keep Sabbath as some sort of an obligation so I believe you misunderstand my motivation. ;) The Law of God has been written in my heart as Jeremiah prophesied. Now, it is my desire to not murder, and not lie, and not commit adultery, and yes, even to remember the Sabbath. You see, you can pay off your mortgage at the bank so that you are no longer UNDER any obligation to give them money. Yet you can still choose to keep as many accounts at the bank that you CHOOSE, so you can continue to give them money. Those accounts (savings, checking, IRA etc.) would not be based on any 'obligation' like your mortgage was now would they?

Make sense?

BTW, Yeshua was my Messiah (Savior) as well and I'm not Jewish! :D

Be Blessed! :)
Thank you for responding to me, Studyin - I really do appeciate it.

Yes, one could certainly still use the same bank. But the obligation for the mortgage is no longer there; that account has been closed. Any other account you maintain is totally discretionary and no longer an obligation.

Please understand, I have no problem with anyone who wishes to celebrate the Lords conquest of death and sin on ANY day of the week. To me, it SHOULD be celebrated each moment of each and EVERY day of the week. That's what Sabbath means - a cessation from labor. We no longer labor, Christ has done the work. The day we celebrate that victory is, at least in my mind, inconsequential. But I have had discussions with others over the years who observe the Sabbath and when I point blank ask them if they think I’m going to hell for attending church on Sunday they do a dance and tell me no, but knowing something one should do and not doing it is a sin. In other words, what they are saying is God likes them more than he likes me. And that’s utter nonsense. Besides the fact that the way they “observe” the Sabbath bears little to no resemblance of the way the Hebrew people observed the Sabbath.

As far as calling Jesus Yeshua or Yehoshua and saying shalom instead of peace, I still don’t see the reason or reasons why. If it makes you feel closer to God then, ok, but why stop there? Why not call Paul, Sha'ul, or Moses, Moshe or quote scripture in Greek instead of English? Or Spanish if you are a Spanish speaker? Or German if you are a German speaker? Calling Paul, Sha'ul doesn’t make him any more or any less the person he was. Calling Jesus Yeshua or The Alpha and the Omega doesn’t make Him any more or any less than Who He is.

I’m really not trying to be argumentative, I’m just trying to get a handle on what people believe and the reasons WHY they believe it as well as explaining why I believe what I believe.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my earlier post!
Blessings to you –
V

Eaglenester
May 12th 2008, 05:34 PM
Of course neither the NT record or history is on your side - your fairytale is incorrect...
"The celebration of the Lord's Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lord's Day of the Lord." ~ historian Phillip Schaff

It is not a "fairytale" that believers still observed Shabbat and Constantine banned it - under punishment of death.

History DOES record so.

Jesusinmyheart
May 12th 2008, 07:06 PM
It is not a "fairytale" that believers still observed Shabbat and Constantine banned it - under punishment of death.

History DOES record so.There are many who shut their eyes and ears on history, and it simply amazes me that some would dismiss this so easily.

Shalom,
Tanja

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 07:21 PM
As far as calling Jesus Yeshua or Yehoshua and saying shalom instead of peace, I still don’t see the reason or reasons why. If it makes you feel closer to God then, ok, but why stop there? Why not call Paul, Sha'ul, or Moses, Moshe or quote scripture in Greek instead of English? Or Spanish if you are a Spanish speaker? Or German if you are a German speaker? Calling Paul, Sha'ul doesn’t make him any more or any less the person he was. Calling Jesus Yeshua or The Alpha and the Omega doesn’t make Him any more or any less than Who He is. Oh no! I don't use the name Yeshua to somehow elevate myself. :lol: No, nothing so pompous. :P I just want to call Him by the name His friends called Him. I am His friend. My father's name was John. Someone who is Spanish and has difficulty pronouncing 'John' might refer to Him as Juan but his name was still John. When I learned how His name was 'actually' pronounced, I found that I had no difficulty pronouncing it. I guess the same applies to Sha'ul, and Shimon, and Miriam, and Yosef, and many others in scripture. I guess if these names were difficult to pronounce I would better understand why they were Romanized, but what I've found through study is that there was a very dark period where all things Hebrew became despised, including our Savior's name. I figure, if I can say it right, why not! :dunno: BTW, I also call Him Savior, Messiah, Mighty God, Lord of Lord, King of Kings, Jesus and more names that apply to Him. Anyway, that's my motivation. I was not 'brought up' in the Bible. I was not saved until age 31 so I did not come in with lots of tradition and such.

God Bless! :)

losthorizon
May 12th 2008, 07:45 PM
It is not a "fairytale" that believers still observed Shabbat and Constantine banned it - under punishment of death.

History DOES record so.
The fairytale involves those who believe the Lord's church observed the Sabbath as a binding requirement from God until Constantine "changed" the Sabbath to Sunday. The truth of the matter is the Sabbath is still the seventh day of the week and Sunday has always been the first day of the week - the Lord's Day. Christians live under the NT (the law of Christ) which does not require "day-keeping" of any kind including "keeping" the seventh day. Day-keeping is part and parcel to the old law given only to the Jews. Anyone today who attempts to bind the yoke of day-keeping on Christians does so outside of and contrary to God's divine authority and we are plainly warned that to go back to the shadows of Judaism for justification before God is equivalent to "falling from grace". This is really not a hard concept to get one's head around.

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 07:56 PM
The fairytale involves those who believe the Lord's church observed the Sabbath as a binding requirement from God until Constantine "changed" the Sabbath to Sunday. The truth of the matter is the Sabbath is still the seventh day of the week and Sunday has always been the first day of the week - the Lord's Day. Christians live under the NT (the law of Christ) which does not require "day-keeping" of any kind including "keeping" the seventh day. Day-keeping is part and parcel to the old law given only to the Jews. Anyone today who attempts to bind the yoke of day-keeping on Christians does so outside of and contrary to God's divine authority and we are plainly warned that to go back to the shadows of Judaism for justification before God is equivalent to "falling from grace". This is really not a hard concept to get one's head around.Just a simple question. If everyone observed Sunday, WHY would the Council of Laodicea need to make a point of saying 'don't observe Sabbath'? There must have been many who were observing Sabbath. If not, why would it have been an issue for the council to address? :hmm:

Vhayes
May 12th 2008, 08:11 PM
This is from wiki:
"Lord's Day" is the English translation of the ancient Greek kyriake hemera, a term that first appears in Christian literature in the latter half of the first century. Within a few decades, however, the term kyriake hemera became ubiquitous in Christianity, so that hemera was ellided. Thus, when a Christian writer referred to the kyriake, his readers understood that Sunday was meant.
The first appearance of the term kyriake hemera is in the New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament), in the Book of Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation), which was written in the latter decades of the first century. In Rev. 1:10, the author writes, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day." Most Christian commentators interpret Rev. 1:10 as a reference to Sunday, but some argue that because Revelation contains numerous eschatological visions, kyriake hemera in this passage should be taken as a reference to the end of the world or Judgment Day, which Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament) prophets often called the Day of the Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Lord). However, in the Septuagint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, as well as in the original Greek texts of the New Testament, the eschatological judgment day is called hemera tou kyriou, never kyriake hemera. It is possible that when Christians began to call Sunday "the Lord's Day," they opted for kyriake hemera because hemera tou kyriou already had acquired its own connotation or meaning due to the Septuagint rendering.
Some seventh-day Sabbatarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Sabbatarian) writers have argued that because Jesus identified himself as "Lord even of the Sabbath day" (cf. Matt. 12:8), kyriake hemera in Rev. 1:10 should be interpreted as a reference to the Saturday Sabbath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Seventh-day_Adventism). However, in almost every other instance where kyriake hemera or kyriake is used, the unambiguous meaning is Sunday, but there are no early witnesses to the use of kyriake hemera as a name for Saturday, nor do modern seventh-day Sabbatarians customarily use "the Lord's Day" as an alternate name for Saturday.

In other words, people were celebrating Sunday long before the council of Laodecia or before Constantine's birth, for that matter.

History is history. The early church fathers wrote that Christians gathered on Sunday. They wrote that long before the Roman Catholic church was even though of.

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 08:17 PM
This is from wiki:
"Lord's Day" is the English translation of the ancient Greek kyriake hemera, a term that first appears in Christian literature in the latter half of the first century. Within a few decades, however, the term kyriake hemera became ubiquitous in Christianity, so that hemera was ellided. Thus, when a Christian writer referred to the kyriake, his readers understood that Sunday was meant.
The first appearance of the term kyriake hemera is in the New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament), in the Book of Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation), which was written in the latter decades of the first century. In Rev. 1:10, the author writes, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day." Most Christian commentators interpret Rev. 1:10 as a reference to Sunday, but some argue that because Revelation contains numerous eschatological visions, kyriake hemera in this passage should be taken as a reference to the end of the world or Judgment Day, which Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament) prophets often called the Day of the Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Lord). However, in the Septuagint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, as well as in the original Greek texts of the New Testament, the eschatological judgment day is called hemera tou kyriou, never kyriake hemera. It is possible that when Christians began to call Sunday "the Lord's Day," they opted for kyriake hemera because hemera tou kyriou already had acquired its own connotation or meaning due to the Septuagint rendering.
Some seventh-day Sabbatarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Sabbatarian) writers have argued that because Jesus identified himself as "Lord even of the Sabbath day" (cf. Matt. 12:8), kyriake hemera in Rev. 1:10 should be interpreted as a reference to the Saturday Sabbath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Seventh-day_Adventism). However, in almost every other instance where kyriake hemera or kyriake is used, the unambiguous meaning is Sunday, but there are no early witnesses to the use of kyriake hemera as a name for Saturday, nor do modern seventh-day Sabbatarians customarily use "the Lord's Day" as an alternate name for Saturday.

In other words, people were celebrating Sunday long before the council of Laodecia or before Constantine's birth, for that matter.

History is history. The early church fathers wrote that Christians gathered on Sunday. They wrote that long before the Roman Catholic church was even though of.No comment on why the issue was even addressed if it was a non-issue?

Vhayes
May 12th 2008, 08:23 PM
Oh no! I don't use the name Yeshua to somehow elevate myself. :lol: No, nothing so pompous. :P I just want to call Him by the name His friends called Him. I am His friend. My father's name was John. Someone who is Spanish and has difficulty pronouncing 'John' might refer to Him as Juan but his name was still John. When I learned how His name was 'actually' pronounced, I found that I had no difficulty pronouncing it. I guess the same applies to Sha'ul, and Shimon, and Miriam, and Yosef, and many others in scripture. I guess if these names were difficult to pronounce I would better understand why they were Romanized, but what I've found through study is that there was a very dark period where all things Hebrew became despised, including our Savior's name. I figure, if I can say it right, why not! :dunno: BTW, I also call Him Savior, Messiah, Mighty God, Lord of Lord, King of Kings, Jesus and more names that apply to Him. Anyway, that's my motivation. I was not 'brought up' in the Bible. I was not saved until age 31 so I did not come in with lots of tradition and such.

God Bless! :)
Thank you for the explanation, Studyin' .

I think there was much antisemitism in not just the early church but right up through and including parts of the Reformation. It certainly isn't something I wouldn't even try to excuse. Wrong is just wrong...

Thanks again!
V

Vhayes
May 12th 2008, 08:25 PM
No comment on why the issue was even addressed if it was a non-issue?
I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your question.
V

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 08:33 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your question.
VIn the fourth century, the Council of Laodicea, made this statement:

CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
Council of Laodicea 363-364 A.D.

Anathema (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anathema) pretty much means loathed, despised, excommunicated. Why would they have made this statement if there were not many who were keeping Sabbath? Why excommunicate people who keep Sabbath? It seems like it was not the Sabbath keepers that held the power.

losthorizon
May 12th 2008, 08:36 PM
Just a simple question. If everyone observed Sunday, WHY would the Council of Laodicea need to make a point of saying 'don't observe Sabbath'? There must have been many who were observing Sabbath. If not, why would it have been an issue for the council to address? :hmm:
I do not recognize the Council of Laodicea as a binding authority for Christians so I can't address their motives. I can say from the historical evidence that the church of God assembled for public worship on the Lord's Day prior to, during and after that council assembled just as she does today and this is the same pattern found in the NT. That there were aberrant sects within Christendom in 364 A.D who "kept" the Sabbath would also be born out by history. But because there were aberrant sects who held to the shadows of Judaism in 4th century does not make it acceptable then or now.:)

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 08:41 PM
I do not recognize the Council of Laodicea as a binding authority for Christians so I can't address their motives. I can say from the historical evidence that the church of God assembled for public worship on the Lord's Day prior to, during and after that council assembled just as she does today and this is the same pattern found in the NT. That there were aberrant sects within Christendom in 364 A.D who "kept" the Sabbath would also be born out by history. But because there were aberrant sects who held to the shadows of Judaism in 4th century does not make it acceptable then or now.:)So choosing to keep Sabbath is aberrant? :hmm: What qualifications do you have to make such judgment against fellow believers who like you have accepted Messiah as Lord and Savior? I seem to remember Paul saying not to judge people based on such things. Does that only flow one direction for you?

losthorizon
May 12th 2008, 10:36 PM
So choosing to keep Sabbath is aberrant?
I have posted on this thread and others that you and I have participated in that there is to my knowledge no commandment in the NT to “keep” any day - Saturday, Sunday or any other day as a means of justification before God. For this reason anyone (yourself included) who teach that the 4th commandment is binding on Christians today are those who are teaching aberrant doctrine. My authority to make such as judgment comes from the Lord… “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

The Torah, given by Moses (including the 4th commandment) is a matter of “law-works” – the Law of Christ inaugurated by the Lord with His death on the cross is a matter of “grace-faith”. The two are mutually exclusive and were never meant to be mixed together as those legalistic-Sabbatarian sects attempt to accomplish. The law-works Torah was only binding on Jews until Messiah came (it was a tutor). Messiah has come therefore the Torah was "nailed to the cross" never to be binding on God’s people again. Those who teach that Christians must “keep” a specific day teach error and their dogma should be rejected. :)

Naphal
May 12th 2008, 10:41 PM
How was it 'fair" for the organized church to basically 'force' believers to NOT keep Sabbath?

Both sides of the issue need to be presented for fairness.

Naphal
May 12th 2008, 10:56 PM
Please understand, I have no problem with anyone who wishes to celebrate the Lords conquest of death and sin on ANY day of the week. To me, it SHOULD be celebrated each moment of each and EVERY day of the week. That's what Sabbath means - a cessation from labor. We no longer labor, Christ has done the work. The day we celebrate that victory is, at least in my mind, inconsequential. But I have had discussions with others over the years who observe the Sabbath and when I point blank ask them if they think I’m going to hell for attending church on Sunday they do a dance and tell me no, but knowing something one should do and not doing it is a sin. In other words, what they are saying is God likes them more than he likes me. And that’s utter nonsense. Besides the fact that the way they “observe” the Sabbath bears little to no resemblance of the way the Hebrew people observed the Sabbath.

Couldn't agree more.






As far as calling Jesus Yeshua or Yehoshua and saying shalom instead of peace, I still don’t see the reason or reasons why. If it makes you feel closer to God then, ok, but why stop there? Why not call Paul, Sha'ul, or Moses, Moshe or quote scripture in Greek instead of English? Or Spanish if you are a Spanish speaker? Or German if you are a German speaker? Calling Paul, Sha'ul doesn’t make him any more or any less the person he was. Calling Jesus Yeshua or The Alpha and the Omega doesn’t make Him any more or any less than Who He is.

Absolutely!

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 10:59 PM
I have posted on this thread and others that you and I have participated in that there is to my knowledge no commandment in the NT to “keep” any day - Saturday, Sunday or any other day as a means of justification before God. For this reason anyone (yourself included) who teach that the 4th commandment is binding on Christians today are those who are teaching aberrant doctrine. My authority to make such as judgment comes from the Lord… “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24).Righteous judgment would judge that which is good, right? Paul says this:

Romans 7:12 - Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Who are you to say that which God calls good and holy and just, is not. Should I listen to you or should I listen to and follow God? Nothing Yeshua did was sin and He kept Sabbath. We are to be being transformed into the very image of Yeshua. Why does it seem vile to you to do what He did? He bids me follow Him and that, my friend, I WILL do! God knows my heart and He knows my motives. Anyway, it is Him that I serve, not man; and it will be Him that I answer to. ;)

Be Blessed! :)

Naphal
May 12th 2008, 11:01 PM
Oh no! I don't use the name Yeshua to somehow elevate myself. :lol: No, nothing so pompous. :P I just want to call Him by the name His friends called Him. I am His friend. My father's name was John. Someone who is Spanish and has difficulty pronouncing 'John' might refer to Him as Juan but his name was still John. When I learned how His name was 'actually' pronounced, I found that I had no difficulty pronouncing it.


If you are interested in the proper spelling and pronunciation then it's pronounced yeh-ho-shoo'-ah and spelled Yehowshu'a.

Naphal
May 12th 2008, 11:05 PM
Who are you to say that which God calls good and holy and just, is not. Should I listen to you or should I listen to and follow God? Nothing Yeshua did was sin and He kept Sabbath.


He did not keep the Sabbath per se'. He kept the Spirit of it, but not the letter in teaching by example how the letter was inferior to the Spirit.

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 11:08 PM
He did not keep the Sabbath per se'. He kept the Spirit of it, but not the letter in teaching by example how the letter was inferior to the Spirit.Whatever way you 'feel' He kept it, the bottom line is that He kept it, and without sin. He would not have any problem with me teaching anyone to walk as He walked. ;)

Naphal
May 12th 2008, 11:12 PM
Whatever way you 'feel' He kept it, the bottom line is that He kept it, and without sin. He would not have any problem with me teaching anyone to walk as He walked. ;)

As long as you don't teach the letter, then I agree. The letter is bondage, even the letter of the law concerning the Sabbath rules.

Vhayes
May 12th 2008, 11:20 PM
In the fourth century, the Council of Laodicea, made this statement:

CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
Council of Laodicea 363-364 A.D.

Anathema (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anathema) pretty much means loathed, despised, excommunicated. Why would they have made this statement if there were not many who were keeping Sabbath? Why excommunicate people who keep Sabbath? It seems like it was not the Sabbath keepers that held the power.

Ah, I see. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

I was trying to give what I think is historical fact. I have read others posts (and have dealt with people in "real" life) who say Christians did not gather on Sunday UNTIL the councils. That is fallacy.

Thanks again -
V