PDA

View Full Version : Sunday as the Christian day of worship



Pages : [1] 2

Eaglenester
Sep 13th 2008, 03:23 PM
Christianity (in America at least) is centered around Sunday as the central day of worship - this fact is evidenced by the blue laws that many states had in place.
The removal of such laws was not done by christiandom, (rather the churches fought it) but by merchants and businesses.

Is Sunday being the day for christians to go to church and worship according to Scripture (designated and/or exampled)
or is it just a man-made tradition?

timmyb
Sep 13th 2008, 03:26 PM
man made tradition if you ask me... the issue of the Sabbath is not when, it's a stupid debate that leads to strife, contention, and religious pride...

my Sabbath just happens to be on Sunday because it just happens to be that I don't have work to do that day...

The Sabbath was made for us.. not us for the Sabbath... the early church met DAILY

threebigrocks
Sep 13th 2008, 05:08 PM
Christianity (in America at least) is centered around Sunday as the central day of worship - this fact is evidenced by the blue laws that many states had in place.
The removal of such laws was not done by christiandom, (rather the churches fought it) but by merchants and businesses.

Is Sunday being the day for christians to go to church and worship according to Scripture (designated and/or exampled)
or is it just a man-made tradition?

Blue laws? Not familiar with that. Do you mean the setting of the work week? Could you give some information on this?

RoadWarrior
Sep 13th 2008, 07:00 PM
Blue laws? Not familiar with that. Do you mean the setting of the work week? Could you give some information on this?

I grew up in blue law country! Here's a good explanation:



A blue law is a type of law in the United States and Canada designed to enforce moral standards, particularly the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and a restriction on Sunday shopping. Most have been repealed, declared unconstitutional or are simply unenforced, although prohibitions on the sale of alcoholic beverages, and occasionally almost all commerce, on Sundays are still enforced in many areas. Blue laws often prohibit an activity only during certain hours and there are usually exceptions to the prohibition of commerce, like grocery and drug stores. In some places blue laws may be enforced due to religious principles, but others are retained as a matter of tradition or out of convenience.


As a recipient of the benefits, I personally am delighted that we get a day off from having to work every week. In fact we get two, Saturday and Sunday. This is only one of the great benefits of our Judeo/Christian heritage.

BroRog
Sep 13th 2008, 07:24 PM
At times like this I am reminded of Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well. In that conversation Jesus makes a bold statement concerning worship, something about worshiping "in spirit and in truth." We need to learn what that means exactly.

Ethnikos
Sep 13th 2008, 09:01 PM
Christianity (in America at least) is centered around Sunday as the central day of worship - this fact is evidenced by the blue laws that many states had in place.
The removal of such laws was not done by christiandom, (rather the churches fought it) but by merchants and businesses.

Is Sunday being the day for christians to go to church and worship according to Scripture (designated and/or exampled)
or is it just a man-made tradition?
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=xxQNAAAAYAAJ&dq=harmon+kingsbury+Christian+sabbath&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=lmHsGUmTsd&sig=1NRL8-Dbf9qfflfp6_hU91t7VGQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
This is a PDF format copy of Legal arguments concerning blue laws. It is from 1840 and it goes through legal cases and evidence and comes up with what would stand up in court, back then, to support the claim that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.
I find it interesting in that it proves there is a such thing as a Christian Sabbath. A lot of people would like to think that the whole concept of a Sabbath is some Jewish thing and that we do not believe in it.
You can make up your own mind about what you want to believe in or follow. To deny the fact that, historically, there is a thing that has a name, Christian Sabbath, and it stands up to legal argument, is, in my opinion, not very smart.

Tanya~
Sep 13th 2008, 09:15 PM
Is Sunday being the day for christians to go to church and worship according to Scripture (designated and/or exampled)
or is it just a man-made tradition?Christians traditionally meet together on Sunday because the disciples did. Jesus rose on the first day of the week and appeared to them that evening, and then He appeared to them again the next Sunday (John 20:1-2; 19; 26). His other appearances don't specify the day of the week but because Jesus rose from the dead and chose to appear to them on Sundays, it isn't all that unreasonable that they would make a habit of getting together on that day of the week (Acts 20:7).

But Sunday didn't become the new Sabbath or replace Saturday as the Sabbath day. Many of them continued to witness in the Synagogues on the Sabbath, but they did gather together as the church on the first day of the week. Trying to make Sunday the new Sabbath, and instituting blue laws for Sunday as if it is the Sabbath was a man made tradition.

Laish
Sep 13th 2008, 09:16 PM
Hi Eaglenester
your said

Christianity (in America at least) is centered around Sunday as the central day of worship - this fact is evidenced by the blue laws that many states had in place.
The removal of such laws was not done by christiandom, (rather the churches fought it) but by merchants and businesses.

Is Sunday being the day for Christians to go to church and worship according to Scripture (designated and/or exampled)
or is it just a man-made tradition? I would say that the choice of Sunday worship in Christian churches is tradition with a Biblical backdrop . Meaning Sunday was chosen to remember that Christ did rise on Sunday and the Holy Spirit descended on a Pentecost Sunday.
The Sunday sabbath is a reminder of our deliverance from bondage to sin , similar to what is said in the O.T. concerning Israel bondage in Egypt

Deu 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
I hope this makes sense
Your brother in Christ
Bill

Mograce2U
Sep 13th 2008, 11:00 PM
(Gal 5:22-26 KJV) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, {23} Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. {24} And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. {25} If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. {26} Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Is worshipping the Lord a good fruit? A tradition that establishes doing right things on any day ought not to be considered by us as something we need to judge. Now if there is something evil about worshipping on Sunday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday... what might that be? A tradition is not a law and one is free to comply with it or not.

But as with most laws, they can prevent or subdue some activity, but have no power to bring about righteousness or even to satisfy the flesh. With or without a blue law, the drunk will pursue his course, because whether he obeys the law or not, his nature as a drunk remains unchanged.

Would a law commanding us to worship on Saturday, actually bring forth true worship from the heart? Somehow I doubt it... else all the Jews would be saved.

SIG
Sep 13th 2008, 11:15 PM
I take a broader view of what "sabbath" means; for me it is 24/7, as I have entered into His rest. I work and rest all the time--in Him.

But it is practical to set a time for the body of Christ to meet; this choice has been (in most cases) Sunday, perhaps because it was the day of Christ's resurrection. This would make it both Scripture-centered and traditional.

I would not call Sunday the Sabbath, for reasons stated above. It is rather a day set aside to meet.

BroRog
Sep 14th 2008, 01:45 AM
I'd like to worship God on more than one day, but I guess if we have to restrict it to one day, Sunday is as good as the next.

(tongue in cheek)

threebigrocks
Sep 14th 2008, 02:45 AM
Honestly, if our hope is in Christ and His resurrection that we may follow to where He is - why not come together under a day on which that happened? Seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

Should the opportunity come up on the other 6 days a week - I'm all for it. Never know for what purpose Christians will drawn together!

RoadWarrior
Sep 14th 2008, 03:53 AM
When I first read this thread, I might have been inclined to say man-made tradition. But as it has progressed, and I have thought about it, I finally voted ... supported by scripture.

Notice it doesn't say in the poll "commanded" by scripture, but supported by it.

I think there is much in scripture to support the gathering together of the early Christians on Sunday morning. Why should we not continue in that tradition, if our church services are on Sunday.

At the same time, I have absolutely no objection to any group of Christians feeling more comfortable about choosing a different day of the week for their main worship service.

Paul said we should not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, but he didn't state that it had to be on some specific day.

matthew94
Sep 14th 2008, 05:04 AM
As usual, the answer is actually somewhere in between the two options given. Sunday is especially honored by Christians because of the resurrection of Jesus (which is, of course, not the work of man). But we're not obligated to view Sunday as superior to any other day. Jesus is alive all week!

valleybldr
Sep 14th 2008, 11:44 AM
But it is practical to set a time for the body of Christ to meet; this choice has been (in most cases) Sunday, perhaps because it was the day of Christ's resurrection. This would make it both Scripture-centered and traditional. If it were "Scripture-centered" then Scripture would have to make the connection (which it does not). History well documents what happened and there is no need to project the results back into Scripture. todd

valleybldr
Sep 14th 2008, 11:46 AM
As usual, the answer is actually somewhere in between the two options given. Sunday is especially honored by Christians because of the resurrection of Jesus (which is, of course, not the work of man). But we're not obligated to view Sunday as superior to any other day. Jesus is alive all week! No one would argue otherwise but that sidesteps why Sunday was chosen over any other day of the week. todd

valleybldr
Sep 14th 2008, 11:53 AM
I'd like to worship God on more than one day, but I guess if we have to restrict it to one day, Sunday is as good as the next.

(tongue in cheek) No one is going to argue that we should not worship God 24/7.

A classic work that comes from an SDA snooping through the Vatican archives is "From Sabbath To Sunday" by Sam Bacchiocchi. It's basic reading for anyone who has any interest in the subject.

todd

Br. Barnabas
Sep 14th 2008, 01:06 PM
Sunday being the first day of the week was set up by Christ and the early church as the day to worship God and remember the Resurrection of our Lord. As evidenced by Acts 20:7 "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread." The breaking bread here is the Eucharist celebration and it happened on Sunday. Also look at Revelation 1:10 St. John the Divine says that he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day ie the day the Lord rose from the dead. It is clear from Scripture that there was something special about the day the Lord rose from the dead and Christians started worshiping on that day as well as on the Sabbath since most of the early Christians were Jewish and what became Christianity was part of Judaism to begin with.

But it is clear from Scripture and even before any book of the New Testament was written that Sunday held a special place in the Church and in the lives of Christians. However, the Bible does not come right out and say that "Sunday" is the day to come together and celebrate the Eucharist, it uses different language because they did not have the term "Sunday" or "Saturday" or "Tuesday" (for that matter). But the first day of the week and the Lord's day are the same thing and they are the day that Christians celebrated the Resurrection of our Lord.

Eaglenester
Sep 14th 2008, 01:30 PM
Well a few brought up Acts as an example of Scripture exampling Sunday worship.

DOES IT?

NOT - ERROR - MISTRANSLATION

I will now document why most churches are in error to say Acts 20 examples or supports Sunday being the day the early believers gathered to worship.

I will be using the NASB and Strong's numbers.



Let's first look at Acts 20:6 to set the scene.

We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.
(Act 20:6)

So Scripture shows us the time frame here, we are at The Feast of Unleavened Bread, and within 5 days Paul is at Troas.

Also seems The Feast of Unleavened bread is still relevant here, 25 years after the sacrifice of Messiah.

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.
(Act 20:7)

Looks pretty clear doesn't it - they are gathered on Sunday to break bread and Paul speak, a church service.

Or DOES it - let's look closer.

On the first G1520 day of the week G4521, when we were gathered G4863 together G4863 to break G2806 bread G740, Paul G3972 began talking G1256 to them, intending G3195 to leave G1826 the next G1887 day G1887, and he prolonged G3905 his message G3056 until G3360 midnight G3317.
(Act 20:7)

On the first G1520


G1520

heis

Thayer Definition:

1) one
Part of Speech: numeral
So first is a number that fits as 1



day of the week G4521


sabbaton

Strong's Definition:

Of Hebrew origin [H7676]; the Sabbath (that is, Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, that is, the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: - sabbath (day), week.




G4521

sabbaton

Thayer Definition:

1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work
1a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week
1b) a single sabbath, sabbath day
2) seven days, a week
Part of Speech: noun neuter
So this word is SABBATH or WEEK - the word DAY is not in the definition.
The translators put it in there.

If the writer wanted this to mean the first day of the week then they would have inserted:


G2250


hēmera

Thayer Definition:

1) the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night
1a) in the daytime
1b) metaphorically, “the day” is regarded as the time for abstaining from indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are perpetrated at night and in darkness
2) of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus including the night)
2a) Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression “three days and three nights” does not mean literally three whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other days.
3) of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom
4) used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life.
Part of Speech: noun feminine


G2250

hēmera

Strong's Definition:

Feminine (with G5610 implied) of a derivative of ἧμαι hēmai (to sit; akin to the base of G1476) meaning tame, that is, gentle; day, that is, (literally) the time space between dawn and dark, or the whole 24 hours (but several days were usually reckoned by the Jews as inclusive of the parts of both extremes); figuratively a period (always defined more or less clearly by the context): - age, + alway, (mid-) day (by day, [-ly]), + for ever, judgment, (day) time, while, years.
Between First and Week to make it say first day of the week.

The writer could also have used:


G1887

epaurion

Strong's Definition:

From G1909 and G839; occuring on the succeeding day, that is, (G2250 being implied) tomorrow: - day following, morrow, next day (after).


G1887

epaurion

Thayer Definition:

1) on the morrow, the next day
Part of Speech: adverb
Instead of FIRST so it would say:
The day after The Sabbath

But they DIDN'T

They said The first Sabbath or The first week

So they are gathered on the first Sabbath or first week

But why is FIRST there - it doesn't seem to make sense.
It DOES make sense if one has ununderstand of The Feasts of Yahweh.

What follows Passover and The Feast of Unleavened Bread?
First Fruits - which is the day following the Sabbath after Unleavened Bread.

First Fruits is when Messiah arose (NOT Easter)

What Follows First Fruits?

What is called Pentecost (from the Greek written perspective) - or from the Hebrew - The Feast of Weeks.

'You shall also count for yourselves from the day after the sabbath, from the day when you brought in the sheaf of the wave offering; there shall be seven complete sabbaths.
(Lev 23:15)

They counted 7 Sabbaths after First Fruits to get to The Feast of Weeks / Pentecost.

Does this make sense now?

So what it ACTUALLY says is:

On the first Sabbath, 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.
(Act 20:7)


Acts 20:6 said they just finished Feast of Unleavened Bread and within a week were at Troas;
and on the first Sabbath to be counted toward Pentecost, the followers of Messiah are gathered together to break bread.
Paul is there speaking, intending to leave the next day;
and he prolongs his message till midnight (MUST have been important)

So Acts 20 CAN NOT be used to justify Sunday as THE day of worship as most of christianity wrongly does.

Want some confirmation on this?

read further down in Acts:

For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.
(Act 20:16)

Paul wants to be in Jerusalem for Feast of Weeks

And some wrongly say The Feasts of Yahweh are irrelevant.
They aren't irrelevant in this case.
They weren't irrelevant to Paul.

NOWHERE in Scripture is Sunday exampled as the day to goto church.

What else is much of mainline christianity misinterpreting or understanding because of lack of knowledge of The Feasts of Yahweh and Sabbath?
__________________

RoadWarrior
Sep 14th 2008, 03:53 PM
Gentlemen, before this goes further, I strongly advise you to read the rules of this forum and of the board in general.
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=70064

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=59397

If you need to ask questions or discuss the rules, please start a thread in Chat to Moderators. http://bibleforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=84

Br. Barnabas
Sep 14th 2008, 04:28 PM
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.
(Act 20:7)

Looks pretty clear doesn't it - they are gathered on Sunday to break bread and Paul speak, a church service.

Or DOES it - let's look closer.

On the first G1520 day of the week G4521, when we were gathered G4863 together G4863 to break G2806 bread G740, Paul G3972 began talking G1256 to them, intending G3195 to leave G1826 the next G1887 day G1887, and he prolonged G3905 his message G3056 until G3360 midnight G3317.
(Act 20:7)

On the first G1520

day of the week G4521

So this word is SABBATH or WEEK - the word DAY is not in the definition.
The translators put it in there.

If the writer wanted this to mean the first day of the week then they would have inserted:

Between First and Week to make it say first day of the week.

The writer could also have used:

Instead of FIRST so it would say:
The day after The Sabbath

But they DIDN'T

They said The first Sabbath or The first week

So they are gathered on the first Sabbath or first week

But why is FIRST there - it doesn't seem to make sense.
It DOES make sense if one has ununderstand of The Feasts of Yahweh.



You may believe that the translators have mistranslated something in the Acts 20 passage but I believe that you are sorely mistaken.

The word sabbaton is actually in the genitive plural which means that it is showing possession. So of weeks would be a totally literal translation. Too bad like English Greek has some nuances that cannot be seen in literal translation. Why it is usually best to look at several different translations and other passages where the same phrase is being used. And also good to take those who have studied the language for a very long time word's for it. As the translators of the NIV which I quoted before. And have also looked at the RSV, KJV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, ASV, and the TNIV; and they all say the same thing "On the first day of the week" or something to this same understanding not "weeks" not "first weeks."

Why would all these translators be wrong? That is one thing to ask if the text is or should actually be saying something different how could all these translators whose job it is to accurately translate the manuscripts get this passage so wrong?

Well I took the liberty of looking at other places in the New Testament where this phrase comes up. Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:2, Mark 16:9, (most importantly) Luke 24:1, John 20:1, John 20:19, 1 Cor 16:2. The Luke passage is the most important because it is by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles. But in all these cases it says sabbatwn with out saying "day" and it they all mean the "day of the week" most of them even are in the context of the "first day of the week." The John passages are also very important because they speak of when the Lord rose and when he visited the disciples.

This phrase is just a nuance of Greek that needs to be understood in the correct context and have different passages compared to it.

You don't have to worship on Sunday if you don't want to but there is precedent in Holy Writ of people coming together on Sunday for fellowship and taking Holy Eucharist.

RoadWarrior
Sep 14th 2008, 04:37 PM
NOWHERE in Scripture is Sunday exampled as the day to goto church.

What else is much of mainline christianity misinterpreting or understanding because of lack of knowledge of The Feasts of Yahweh and Sabbath?
__________________


Hi Eagle,

The early Christians didn't "go to church" because they were the church. They gathered together.

Is it possible for you to discuss what we might be missing in a way that would benefit all of us? As the rules of this forum stand, we are to encourage one another and bear the fruits of the Spirit. How might you express your position in a way that encourages the rest of us who attend a variety of different churches and worship on varying days of the week?

Thanks for considering this.

BroRog
Sep 14th 2008, 05:03 PM
Hi Eagle,

The early Christians didn't "go to church" because they were the church. They gathered together.

Is it possible for you to discuss what we might be missing in a way that would benefit all of us? As the rules of this forum stand, we are to encourage one another and bear the fruits of the Spirit. How might you express your position in a way that encourages the rest of us who attend a variety of different churches and worship on varying days of the week?

Thanks for considering this.

My tongue-in-cheek comment was an attempt to point out that, as Christians, we should worship everyday. The word worship comes from the idea of "bend the knee" and I believe we should "bend the knee" to God and Jesus everyday, not merely one day a week. That's why I was so encouraged by threebigrocks comment about picking a day to meet, which is the point of it anyway. Arguing over the day of the week seems pointless.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 14th 2008, 05:19 PM
Blue laws? Not familiar with that. Do you mean the setting of the work week? Could you give some information on this?Hey TBR! Blue laws are laws that would restrict activity on Sunday for moral reason. Most have been repealed but you still have counties here and there where they restrict things like the sale of alcoholic beverages. I don't know if Fort Lauderdale still has this law but I know that as few as 10 years ago you could not buy alcohol in a store before 1pm. You could go to a bar. When we visited South Carolina and Georgia during the Olympics in 1996 we were with a friend that had a big beer appetite (this was before we were saved). We found out that Sunday when we went to get beer that SC had a blue law that prohibited sales all day Sunday. So, our friend asked my dad if we could drive to NC or GA but was told that they had the same law. Can you believe he actually wanted us to drive to FL for a case of beer? :o :lol:

Here's some Wiki info on blue laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

God Bless!

threebigrocks
Sep 14th 2008, 05:46 PM
Gotcha on the blue law thing, thanks RW and S2S. :) Here in Minnesota, no liquor stores are open, but the bars are. Stores are open, but no car dealerships can be. Never understood the stores/car dealerships thing, but that's the way it is. :hmm:

Studyin'2Show
Sep 14th 2008, 06:24 PM
Gotcha on the blue law thing, thanks RW and S2S. :) Here in Minnesota, no liquor stores are open, but the bars are. Stores are open, but no car dealerships can be. Never understood the stores/car dealerships thing, but that's the way it is. :hmm:Wow! I've never heard about a car dealership blue law. :)That's a new one for me. One thing I've always thought odd is that though you can't buy liquor in the stores, you can still buy it in the bars. :rolleyes: So, it's like, you can still get drunk you just have to pay more to do it. :lol:

Emanate
Sep 15th 2008, 02:01 AM
As evidenced by Acts 20:7 "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread." The breaking bread here is the Eucharist celebration and it happened on Sunday.

No, actually "breaking bread" there refers to eating together. A very intimate thing in the first century was sharing your home for eating and fellowship.

Br. Barnabas
Sep 15th 2008, 02:10 AM
No, actually "breaking bread" there refers to eating together. A very intimate thing in the first century was sharing your home for eating and fellowship.

You are entitled to your opinion but I believe from my study of Scripture and the 1st century history and practices of the early church; that when people came together on the first day of the week to break bread they are taking part in Holy Eucharist. If you want to believe that it was just to eat a meal that is fine. I believe that they were eating a meal but also most importantly taking the Eucharist and worshiping God.

Emanate
Sep 15th 2008, 02:21 AM
You are entitled to your opinion but I believe from my study of Scripture and the 1st century history and practices of the early church; that when people came together on the first day of the week to break bread they are taking part in Holy Eucharist. If you want to believe that it was just to eat a meal that is fine. I believe that they were eating a meal but also most importantly taking the Eucharist and worshiping God.


Interesting because what we call Euachrist was foreign to the first century, well, unless you look into Paganism.

SIG
Sep 15th 2008, 03:13 AM
(I wonder what spirit it is that wants to discuss or argue Saturday vs. Sunday?

God has clearly allowed that most of the Christian world is gathering together on Sundays to worship. Is that worship "wrong" or in error?

How would it be if we shifted our focus from the calendar to worship?)

Studyin'2Show
Sep 15th 2008, 10:08 AM
I wonder what spirit it is that wants to discuss or argue Saturday vs. Sunday?Discussion is not a bad thing. Conflict is. I say worship every day, fellowship any day! :ppNow as for the Sabbath, I believe it is the spirit of truth that wants the children of God to benefit from the Sabbath He has given to man. :) And keep in mind that there is NO biblical mandate to gather on the Sabbath. ;)

God Bless!

valleybldr
Sep 15th 2008, 11:43 AM
(I wonder what spirit it is that wants to discuss or argue Saturday vs. Sunday?

God has clearly allowed that most of the Christian world is gathering together on Sundays to worship. Is that worship "wrong" or in error?

How would it be if we shifted our focus from the calendar to worship?)
If done in the right spirit, godly discussion can yield a blessing to all.

What "most" people do has little bearing on defining truth and our "focus" can be on more then one thing at a time. It's OK to "break out" a specific area for disscussion without trumping it with a larger concern.

todd

seamus414
Sep 15th 2008, 12:27 PM
No, actually "breaking bread" there refers to eating together. A very intimate thing in the first century was sharing your home for eating and fellowship.

"Breaking Bread" is universally understood in Scripture to be a term to describe or signify the celebration of Communion.

seamus414
Sep 15th 2008, 12:28 PM
Interesting because what we call Euachrist was foreign to the first century, well, unless you look into Paganism.


By "Eucharist" are you referring to the practice of breaking bread and sharing wine as a commemoration of the Last Supper and promises of Christ? If so, this would be accurate and I fail to see how this is "paganism"; especially given that it is commanded by Christ.

seamus414
Sep 15th 2008, 12:46 PM
As far as I can tell, the Apostles gathered on the First Day of the Week (Sunday) to commemorate Christ's resurrection (which also occured on a Sunday) and it appears that these Hebrew Christians also maintained Sabbath observance and Sunday commemoration. As Christians are no longer under the Law, Christians are no longer bound to the Sabbath and as more gentiles entered the Church, the less recognition the Hebrew Sabbath received until, at some point within the first three generations of Christians, observance of the Hebrew Sabbath disappeared virtually for good when Hebrew Christians died out and/or became an extreme minority (obvioulsy, there are some Christian-history-revisionists who want to revive the Hebrew Sabbath for Christians, but they are very few and far between).

So, I guess my answer would be that Sunday observance has biblical roots. I would also say that the establishment of Sunday as the normative day for Christian worship, while based upon the biblical witness/roots, was established by the Church via her authority to bind and loose granted to her by Christ.

Therefore, I suppose a one sentence answer is this: Sunday was established as the normative day of Christian worship by the authority vested in the Church based upon the Bible's witness to the Apostles' practice.

Br. Barnabas
Sep 15th 2008, 01:10 PM
Interesting because what we call Euachrist was foreign to the first century, well, unless you look into Paganism.

Again I disagree with you on this point. We have Jesus setting up the Eucharist at the last supper. The Apostles took this and made it into a weekly remembrance. Of course it was not called the Eucharist until later on, but the same practice was being performed in the 1st century and we have evidence of churches in the early 2nd century taking part in it and calling it Eucharist.

The letter of St Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, martyred around 108 to 116, writing to the church in Ephesus. "Try to gather together more frequently to celebrate God's Eucharist and to praise him. For when you meet with frequency, Satan's powers are overthrown and his destructiveness is undone by the unanimity of your faith. There is nothing better than peace, by which all strife in heaven and earth is done away" (chapter 13). Now Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle. If he is talking about the Eucharist on this way to his death, than it must have been a very important thing to him and that he performed it before this time.

The Didache, an early book of Christian teachings and a guide for church practice. Most put it's date of origin somewhere between 60 and not much after 100. This work also speaks to the Eucharist. "Now about the Eucharist: This is how to give thanks: First in connection with the cup: 'We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever.' Then in connection with the piece [broken off the loaf]: 'We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever. As this piece [of bread] was scattered over the hills and then was brought together and made one, so let your Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into your Kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.'
You must no let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the Lord's name. For in reference to this the Lord said, "Do not give what it sacred to dogs.'
After you have finished your meal, say grace in this way: 'We thank you, holy Father, for your sacred name which you have lodged in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever. Almighty Master, "you have created everything" for the sake of your name, and have given men food and drink to enjoy that they may thank you. But to us you have given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Jesus, your child.
Above all, we thank you that you are mighty. To you be glory forever.
Remember, Lord, your Church, to save it from all evil and to make it perfect by your love. Make it holy, "and gather" it "together from the four winds" into your Kingdom which you have made ready for it. For yours is the power and the glory forever.'
'Let grace come and let this world pas away.'
'Hosanna to the God of David!'
'If anyone is holy, let him come. If not, let him repent.'
'Our Lord, come!'
'Amen.'" (Chapters 9 and 10)

It also says, "On every Lord's Day-his special day-come together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. Anyone at variance with his neighbor must not join you, until they are reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled. For it was of this sacrifice that the Lord said, 'Always and everywhere offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is marveled at by the nations.'" (Chapter 14)

I could go on quoting Pliny the Younger, St Justin Martyr, and St Ireneaus of Lyons but some of these get a little too far out of the 1st century so I will not. Besides that I think I have made my point that the Eucharist has been around since the beginning of the Christian movement and that it was not taken from pagan practices.

Emanate
Sep 15th 2008, 01:13 PM
"Breaking Bread" is universally understood in Scripture to be a term to describe or signify the celebration of Communion.


Not in all cases. You are confusing Church docctrine based upon interpretation of Scripture with actual Scripture.

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Acts 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

Emanate
Sep 15th 2008, 01:17 PM
Again I disagree with you on this point. We have Jesus setting up the Eucharist at the last supper. The Apostles took this and made it into a weekly remembrance. Of course it was not called the Eucharist until later on, but the same practice was being performed in the 1st century and we have evidence of churches in the early 2nd century taking part in it and calling it Eucharist.

The letter of St Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, martyred around 108 to 116, writing to the church in Ephesus. "Try to gather together more frequently to celebrate God's Eucharist and to praise him. For when you meet with frequency, Satan's powers are overthrown and his destructiveness is undone by the unanimity of your faith. There is nothing better than peace, by which all strife in heaven and earth is done away" (chapter 13). Now Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle. If he is talking about the Eucharist on this way to his death, than it must have been a very important thing to him and that he performed it before this time.

The Didache, an early book of Christian teachings and a guide for church practice. Most put it's date of origin somewhere between 60 and not much after 100. This work also speaks to the Eucharist. "Now about the Eucharist: This is how to give thanks: First in connection with the cup: 'We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever.' Then in connection with the piece [broken off the loaf]: 'We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever. As this piece [of bread] was scattered over the hills and then was brought together and made one, so let your Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into your Kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.'
You must no let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the Lord's name. For in reference to this the Lord said, "Do not give what it sacred to dogs.'
After you have finished your meal, say grace in this way: 'We thank you, holy Father, for your sacred name which you have lodged in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever. Almighty Master, "you have created everything" for the sake of your name, and have given men food and drink to enjoy that they may thank you. But to us you have given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Jesus, your child.
Above all, we thank you that you are mighty. To you be glory forever.
Remember, Lord, your Church, to save it from all evil and to make it perfect by your love. Make it holy, "and gather" it "together from the four winds" into your Kingdom which you have made ready for it. For yours is the power and the glory forever.'
'Let grace come and let this world pas away.'
'Hosanna to the God of David!'
'If anyone is holy, let him come. If not, let him repent.'
'Our Lord, come!'
'Amen.'" (Chapters 9 and 10)

It also says, "On every Lord's Day-his special day-come together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. Anyone at variance with his neighbor must not join you, until they are reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled. For it was of this sacrifice that the Lord said, 'Always and everywhere offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is marveled at by the nations.'" (Chapter 14)

I could go on quoting Pliny the Younger, St Justin Martyr, and St Ireneaus of Lyons but some of these get a little too far out of the 1st century so I will not. Besides that I think I have made my point that the Eucharist has been around since the beginning of the Christian movement and that it was not taken from pagan practices.


Jesus did not set up the euachrist, he fulfilled Passover. It was during a Passover meal that he said "do this in remembrance of me." It was regaring Passover that Saul said "keep the feast."

If a Church "father" said it, it does not make it correct.

Emanate
Sep 15th 2008, 01:19 PM
Sabbath disappeared virtually for good when Hebrew Christians died out and/or became an extreme minority


I will agree with this statement. Sabbath did disappear when those "entrusted with the oracles of God" died out and/or became an extreme minority.

valleybldr
Sep 15th 2008, 01:20 PM
I would also say that the establishment of Sunday as the normative day for Christian worship, while based upon the biblical witness/roots, was established by the Church via her authority to bind and loose granted to her by Christ.

Therefore, I suppose a one sentence answer is this: Sunday was established as the normative day of Christian worship by the authority vested in the Church based upon the Bible's witness to the Apostles' practice.
That's the Catholic position and while I don't acknowledge their authority I do think it has merit when compared to your contention that the change has any Scriptural basis. todd

seamus414
Sep 15th 2008, 01:41 PM
Not in all cases. You are confusing Church docctrine based upon interpretation of Scripture with actual Scripture.

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Acts 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

Church doctrine based upon the interpretation of Scripture tells me what the Scripture means.

Neither of these verses you cite oppose the fact that "Breaking Bread" signifies the Communion.

threebigrocks
Sep 15th 2008, 01:44 PM
You are entitled to your opinion but I believe from my study of Scripture and the 1st century history and practices of the early church; that when people came together on the first day of the week to break bread they are taking part in Holy Eucharist. If you want to believe that it was just to eat a meal that is fine. I believe that they were eating a meal but also most importantly taking the Eucharist and worshiping God.

To support your understanding:

1 Corinthians 11

28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
33So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.
Taking a meal together was not the same as sharing in communion. Eating and drinking in remembrance of the Lord was not a meal, and many came with the intent to fill themselves while others would show up hungry. Not only did this cause them to come to the Lord's supper with wrong motive but also brought condemnation upon themselves. Those who want to dive in ought to wait, and those that show up hungry should not but eat a meal before they get there.

Nothing saying they couldn't join together for a meal at each others homes, but the Lord's supper was in remembrance of Him - not a meal. They were to be seen and handled as two separate things.

seamus414
Sep 15th 2008, 01:48 PM
Jesus did not set up the euachrist, he fulfilled Passover. It was during a Passover meal that he said "do this in remembrance of me." It was regaring Passover that Saul said "keep the feast."

If a Church "father" said it, it does not make it correct.

Jesus commanded that his Supper be celebrated in perpetuity until his coming again at that fateful Last Support. What else do you think they are doing "in remembrance of me" but celebrating the Eucharist?

The Church fathers give us a window as to how Christians practiced and understood what the Apostles taught. Those quoted by Uriel actually knew and learned from the Apostles. For my money, someone who knew and learned from a Biblical writer is FAR more trustworthy to tell me what that Biblical writer mean than someone many centuries later or, worse yet, in the modern era.

threebigrocks
Sep 15th 2008, 01:51 PM
Church doctrine based upon the interpretation of Scripture tells me what the Scripture means.

Neither of these verses you cite oppose the fact that "Breaking Bread" signifies the Communion.

It signifies community and unity in Christ of the people. They ate meat, and had breaking of bread in their homes, worshiped daily, and lived the faith with all they were.

To me, these scripture as Emanate shared them makes me see that they ate and gathered in the temple areas and broke bread, or shared in the Lord's supper, in their homes.

threebigrocks
Sep 15th 2008, 01:53 PM
Jesus commanded that his Supper be celebrated in perpetuity until his coming again at that fateful Last Support. What else do you think they are doing "in remembrance of me" but celebrating the Eucharist?

The Church fathers give us a window as to how Christians practiced and understood what the Apostles taught. Those quoted by Uriel actually knew and learned from the Apostles. For my money, someone who knew and learned from a Biblical writer is FAR more trustworthy to tell me what that Biblical writer mean than someone many centuries later or, worse yet, in the modern era.

It's confirmation with history. There is also confirmation we can deem as we continue in scripture with that knowledge. If Ignatius said and did as he said, then it gives us insight that yeah, we can take much more of scripture for what it says because it continued on.

My only quandry with that - we don't need history to do that for us. The Word can be rightly divided through the scriptures as the Holy Spirit gives us understanding.

seamus414
Sep 15th 2008, 02:01 PM
That's the Catholic position and while I don't acknowledge their authority I do think it has merit when compared to your contention that the change has any Scriptural basis. todd

This position is shared by other denominations as well.

I would also note that there was no "change" as Sunday worship is in no way supposed to be a "Christian Sabbath" as somehow similar to the Hebrew Sabbath. Sunday has merely become the normative day for Christian worship as that is the day Jesus resurrected.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 15th 2008, 02:09 PM
This position is shared by other denominations as well.

I would also note that there was no "change" as Sunday worship is in no way supposed to be a "Christian Sabbath" as somehow similar to the Hebrew Sabbath. Sunday has merely become the normative day for Christian worship as that is the day Jesus resurrected.There are many who DO believe that there has been a change in Sabbath. :hmm:

seamus414
Sep 15th 2008, 02:19 PM
There are many who DO believe that there has been a change in Sabbath. :hmm:

I would disagree with the idea that Sunday is somehow the "new" Sabbath. Off the top of my head, I think Hebrews 4 (or so) tells us what became of the Sabbath as it relates to Christians.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 15th 2008, 02:26 PM
I would disagree with the idea that Sunday is somehow the "new" Sabbath. Off the top of my head, I think Hebrews 4 (or so) tells us what became of the Sabbath as it relates to Christians.
I didn't say you did, I said many do. ;)

valleybldr
Sep 15th 2008, 02:29 PM
Sunday has merely become the normative day for Christian worship as that is the day Jesus resurrected. Why are the two equated? Why not the day he was born, baptised, crucified, etc. IMO, if we wanted to meet and celebrate when he rose from the dead we would be meeting Saturday night. I don't equate the two because Scripture describes when we are to celebrate the "appointed times." todd

seamus414
Sep 15th 2008, 02:33 PM
Why are the two equated? Why not the day he was born, baptised, crucified, etc. IMO, if we wanted to meet and celebrate when he rose from the dead we would be meeting Saturday night. I don't equate the two because Scripture describes when we are to celebrate the "appointed times." todd


The two (by "the two" I presume you mean Sundays and the day of Christ's resurrection) are equated because the BIble indicates that the first of the week (Sunday) is when the Apostles gathered to worship and celebrate the Eucharist to commemorate the Resurrection. Indeed, Jesus was resurrected on the First Day of the Week (i.e.: Sunday) So, if you do not like the fact that the two are equated, take it up with the Apostles:spin:!

Emanate
Sep 15th 2008, 03:08 PM
Church doctrine based upon the interpretation of Scripture tells me what the Scripture means.

Neither of these verses you cite oppose the fact that "Breaking Bread" signifies the Communion.


Well, to me that is the problem. I believe we should let the Scripture interpret itself, not Church doctrine. That is why we disagree on some things.

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 03:15 PM
Hi Eagle,


Is it possible for you to discuss what we might be missing in a way that would benefit all of us? As the rules of this forum stand, we are to encourage one another and bear the fruits of the Spirit. How might you express your position in a way that encourages the rest of us who attend a variety of different churches and worship on varying days of the week?

Thanks for considering this.

His post benefited me greatly. The originial Scriptures are infallibaly and God-breathed. Any time mis-translations can be cleared and human bias in the translation remonved, it is of great benefit to all who cherish the truth of God.

Sometimes the truth can be very painful, especially when they reveal the error of men's traditions.

Thank you Eaglenester for your analysis. It fits perfectly with what God set up.

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 03:21 PM
There are many who DO believe that there has been a change in Sabbath. :hmm:

Lots of Pharisees also beleived men's traditions took precidence over God's Law. Jesus rebuked them.

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 03:23 PM
The two (by "the two" I presume you mean Sundays and the day of Christ's resurrection) are equated because the BIble indicates that the first of the week (Sunday) is when the Apostles gathered to worship and celebrate the Eucharist to commemorate the Resurrection. Indeed, Jesus was resurrected on the First Day of the Week (i.e.: Sunday) So, if you do not like the fact that the two are equated, take it up with the Apostles:spin:!

I think that verse's translation in ACT's has already been debunked as an inaccurate interpretation. Furthermore, as far as Paul is concerned, Sunday beginis at sundown on Shabbat.

seamus414
Sep 15th 2008, 03:31 PM
Well, to me that is the problem. I believe we should let the Scripture interpret itself, not Church doctrine. That is why we disagree on some things.

Church doctrine is informed by Scripture. Scripture is the primary (or for some, only) source for Church doctrine. A Sunday Worship does not contradict Scripture.

seamus414
Sep 15th 2008, 03:37 PM
I think that verse's translation in ACT's has already been debunked as an inaccurate interpretation. Furthermore, as far as Paul is concerned, Sunday beginis at sundown on Shabbat.

I am not sure what you are talking about. That Sunday begins at sundown on Saturday really affects nothing.

Regardless, Jesus was resurrected on the FIrst Day of the Week: Matthew 28:1 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=Matthew%20&verse=28:1&src=KJV), Mark 16:2 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Mark&verse=16:2&src=KJV), Luke 24:1 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Luke&verse=24:1&src=KJV), John 20:1 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20John&verse=20:1&src=KJV)

This day was celebrated as such: (Acts 20:7 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Acts&verse=20:7&src=KJV), 1 Corinthians 16:2 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=1%20Corinthians&verse=16:2&src=KJV))

valleybldr
Sep 15th 2008, 03:41 PM
So, if you do not like the fact that the two are equated, take it up with the Apostles:spin:! They were never equated. That is a Protestant teaching (not the Apostles) attempt to project something into the text that is not there. todd

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 03:49 PM
I am not sure what you are talking about. That Sunday begins at sundown on Saturday really affects nothing.

Regardless, Jesus was resurrected on the FIrst Day of the Week: Matthew 28:1 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=Matthew%20&verse=28:1&src=KJV), Mark 16:2 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Mark&verse=16:2&src=KJV), Luke 24:1 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Luke&verse=24:1&src=KJV), John 20:1 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20John&verse=20:1&src=KJV)

This day was celebrated as such: (Acts 20:7 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Acts&verse=20:7&src=KJV), 1 Corinthians 16:2 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=1%20Corinthians&verse=16:2&src=KJV))

Acts 20:7 is a mistranslation. Read the original Greek please.

That said, I just want to clarify that I go to a church on Sunday, praise and worship, listen to the sermon and spend 2 hours afterward in bible study. Absolutely there is noting wrong with any activity that exaults Y'shua on any day.

That doesn't change the truth though. Sunday as a day-keeping time to congregate is a man-made tradition and intended to replace the day God set apart as Holy in Genesisbased upon anti-semitism and previous pagan day-keeping traditions.

If you celebrate the resurrection of Y'shua, and therefore the promise of life, why do you symbolize the day with the instrument of His death?

Mograce2U
Sep 15th 2008, 03:52 PM
Lots of Pharisees also beleived men's traditions took precidence over God's Law. Jesus rebuked them.Yet those traditions negated the law. How does Sunday worship overturn the law of the Sabbath? Jesus clearly showed that doing good on the Sabbath was what the Pharisees failed to consider in their "zeal" for the law. Seems that doing good on Sunday is certainly not against the law either.

threebigrocks
Sep 15th 2008, 03:54 PM
IMO, if we wanted to meet and celebrate when he rose from the dead we would be meeting Saturday night. I don't equate the two because Scripture describes when we are to celebrate the "appointed times." todd


Is our hope not in the resurrection of Christ, so that we too may be resurrected when the time comes? Our hope is not in death, but in the hope of eternal life.

As far as appointed times go, we had best not stick to that.

Galatians 4


9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.


Those days, times and seasons mean nothing for us except being in bondage to what is not of value. It is vain if we rely on them because of ritual practice thinking we gain by them in that purpose. We no longer rely on times and seasons and special days. Today is the day the Lord has made - let us be glad and rejoice!

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 03:57 PM
TBR - Can I use your teaching when I ignore my wife's birthday and our anniversary? Afterall, they are just 'shadows' of our marriage.

Mograce2U
Sep 15th 2008, 04:02 PM
TBR - Can I use your teaching when I ignore my wife's birthday and our anniversary? Afterall, they are just 'shadows' of our marriage.What concerns this world is one thing. A shadow of the hope in a heavenly city and country is another. I would hope you do celebrate your earthly marriage and birth into this world. But would you do the same to celebrate your new birth and marriage to the Lord? The sign of our sanctification is not found in the Sabbath nor circumcision, but in the Spirit we have received from the Lord. Baptism thus signifies our death to this life, and our rest is now 24/7 in Him. How will you celebrate that in your flesh?

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 04:15 PM
What concerns this world is one thing. A shadow of the hope in a heavenly city and country is another. I would hope you do celebrate your earthly marriage and birth into this world. But would you do the same to celebrate your new birth and marriage to the Lord? The sign of our sanctification is not found in the Sabbath nor circumcision, but in the Spirit we have received from the Lord. Baptism thus signifies our death to this life, and our rest is now 24/7 in Him. How will you celebrate that in your flesh?

Please provide Scripture to support your statements. I believe you are spiritualizing physical reality, using Platoism which is rooted in Greek mythology, not God's teachings. Go to your concordence and look up 'shadow' occurances in the bible, then let me know how 'shadow' is used in all of Scripture. I think you'll be amazed.

God works very much in our world. If you haven't noticed I can cite at least 10,000 examples.

Marriage is God-breathed, therefore sacred. There was a thread here eariler and most people see marriage as a reflection of a relationship with God. Surely you don't count your relationship with your spouse above that of your relationship with God?

Br. Barnabas
Sep 15th 2008, 05:17 PM
His post benefited me greatly. The originial Scriptures are infallibaly and God-breathed. Any time mis-translations can be cleared and human bias in the translation remonved, it is of great benefit to all who cherish the truth of God.

Sometimes the truth can be very painful, especially when they reveal the error of men's traditions.


Ok so did you just ignore the post that I wrote where I showed various examples of where the Acts 20:7 passage had the same language as other passages that talk about the day that Jesus rose from the dead. In other words other passages speak about the first day of the week as being the day that Jesus rose ie Sunday. And the Acts passage has the same language even the same language that Luke used to say that Christ rose on the first day of the week. Luke uses the same language in Acts. The other writers of the New Testament use the same phrase to speak of Sunday not what Eaglenester thought the Greek was saying. I have studied Greek for several years now and know that there are sometimes when there are nuances to the language. The literal translation is not always the best especially when one just looks at or uses a concordance which does not take declination or conjugation into account. These things happen to be a huge part of the language and it needs to be taken into account. Also as I pointed out before several English translations translate the passage this way. And these people have dedicated their lives and career to the study of the Bible and Greek and Hebrew and trying to find what the text is actually showing. They are not trying to keep with the tradition of worshiping on Sunday, they are trying to find what the text says and record that correctly. If there was any kind of disagreement then they would have recorded it and there would be various translations in different versions of the Bible; but that is not the case. As I showed several different translations all translate it the same way.

Thus, I believe that Eaglenester has mistranslated the text not the people who have helped with the various translations of Bibles.

Mograce2U
Sep 15th 2008, 05:23 PM
Please provide Scripture to support your statements. I believe you are spiritualizing physical reality, using Platoism which is rooted in Greek mythology, not God's teachings. Go to your concordence and look up 'shadow' occurances in the bible, then let me know how 'shadow' is used in all of Scripture. I think you'll be amazed.

God works very much in our world. If you haven't noticed I can cite at least 10,000 examples.

Marriage is God-breathed, therefore sacred. There was a thread here eariler and most people see marriage as a reflection of a relationship with God. Surely you don't count your relationship with your spouse above that of your relationship with God?I found this one:

The Kingdom of Righteousness
(Isa 32:1-7 KJV) Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. {2} And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. {3} And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. {4} The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. {5} The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. {6} For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. {7} The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.

As for comparing celebrating birthdays and anniversaries on a particular day to keeping Sabbath as Saturday as being shadows - you would have to expand on that idea a bit more for me to answer. Are you saying these things are our refuge in this world?

Studyin'2Show
Sep 15th 2008, 05:48 PM
As for comparing celebrating birthdays and anniversaries on a particular day to keeping Sabbath as Saturday as being shadows - you would have to expand on that idea a bit more for me to answer. Are you saying these things are our refuge in this world?I've actually used a similar example when talk of shadows comes up. The existence of what causes a shadow does not take away from the fact that that the shadow exist. Of course, if I see my hubby's shadow I know he is coming. And then when I see him I would hug him and give him the attention, but I would not deny that his shadow still exist. The posters point with regard to marriage and birth is similar. Of course the 'actual' marriage and birth are what is of greater importance but us celebrating the remembrance does not take away from what is really important.

Also, my daughter graduated last year and we bought her senior pictures. Those photos are merely a 'shadow' of my daughter and that day that we celebrated her high school completion. If there was a fire in my house I would not run to get the photos before I run to get my daughter. I know she is what is of much greater value. And yet, I do enjoy the photos because they bring me into remembrance of both my daughter and that special day. The photos do not lose their value because my daughter may be in the room with them. In the same way, the moedim (Feast of YHWH) do not now take away from our glorious Messiah Yeshua. In fact, they bring me and all of His disciples who celebrate them, into remembrance of Him and His fulfillment. :)

The shadow need not 'overshadow' but they need not disappear! ;)

God Bless!

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 06:51 PM
I found this one:

The Kingdom of Righteousness
(Isa 32:1-7 KJV) Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. {2} And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. {3} And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. {4} The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. {5} The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. {6} For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. {7} The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.

As for comparing celebrating birthdays and anniversaries on a particular day to keeping Sabbath as Saturday as being shadows - you would have to expand on that idea a bit more for me to answer. Are you saying these things are our refuge in this world?

Thank you. If you read the original Hebrew text, you'll find the Hebrew word and context of 'shadow' changed in most English translations. The closest we have to God's Word is the orginal words and context as it was written in Hebrew on scrolls. A study of the origninal language quickly reveals the missing information:

Hebrews 8:4-5 For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to Torah; who serve the copy and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For he said "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.

Hebrews 10:1 For Torah, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

I need to diverge into Theistic Platoism to set up the dichotomy. In the early 4th Century BCE, Plato, a Greek philosopher, gave us the Cave Analogy in his work "Republic". Essentially, the Cave Analogy is that man in his current state is confined in a cave, where higher reality is casting shadows on the back wall of the cave. Man is limited to knowing reality by what is dimly projected by those shadows. Plato's view was that truth cannot be known by looking at shadows, but rather by perceiving the forms that cast the shadows. Plato was wrong, and Scripture proves it.

However, instead of shying away from Plato, early Christian philosophers adapted Plato's views on reality into thier interpretations of Scripture. Justin Matyr, Origen and Augustine were all Platoists. Below is an example on how a translation of Scripture is laced with Platoism. Note how easily the translators injected (added) ONE word to change the meaning:

Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food and drink or in respect to a festival or New Moon or a Sabbath (day) - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

You can look until the sun stops rising - nowhere in the Greek is "mere". See how easily the injected "mere" puts this verse into Plato Cave Analogy?

The word "shadow" is in Greek "skia". In the Septuagint, "skia" points to the Hebrew word "tzel". It comes from the Hebrew root Tzalal, which donates "hovering over"

Look in your Bibles and Concordances and see what 'tzel' does:

Gen 19:8 "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter (tzel) of my roof."

Job 8:8 "Please inquire of past generations, And consider the things searched out by their fathers.
Job 8:9 "For we are only of yesterday and know nothing, Because our days on earth are as a shadow (tzel).
Job 8:10 "Will they not teach you and tell you, And bring forth words from their minds?

Psa 36:5 Your lovingkindness, O LORD, extends to the heavens, Your faithfulness reaches to the skies.
Psa 36:6 Your righteousness is like the mountains of God; Your judgments are like a great deep. O LORD, You preserve man and beast.
Psa 36:7 How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow (tzel) of Your wings.

Isa 4:5 then the LORD will create over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, even smoke, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory will be a canopy (tzel).

Isa 4:6 There will be a shelter to give shade (tzel) from the heat by day, and refuge and protection from the storm and the rain.

Isa 49:2 He has made My mouth like a sharp sword, In the shadow (tzel) of His hand He has concealed Me; And He has also made Me a select arrow, He has hidden Me in His quiver.
Isa 49:3 He said to Me, "You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory."

Is 'shadow' always a 'bad' thing? I suppose it depends. Read:

The ___________ is a ferocious creature. Extremely sharp teeth make it a very deadly predator. It is able to eat mroe than it's own body weight. This mammal is known for it's voracious appetite and vicious nature.

Now fix a picture of that creature in your mind. Would your mental picture change if someone showed you an outline of a shrew? A picture makes a big difference to any description, or at least is helpful.

What tells you if a shadow is a good thing or a bad thing is not that it is a shadow, but what the shape is pointing to, or outlining. What makes the difference is the substance, or the shadow caster. Seeing the pocture, outline, or shadow reveals the substance. The shadow reveals the shadow caster.

Below is a reference to "tzel" (shadow) in the Hevrew Scriptures:

But I am the LORD your God,
Who divided the dea whose waves roared-
The LORD of hosts is His Name.
And I have put My words in your mouth;
I have covered you with the shadow of My hand,
That I may plant the heavens,
Lay the foundations of the earth
And say to Zion. "You are My people" - Isaiah 51:15-16

What would this shadow look like? What shape would it take?

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Compare the relationship between these verses in Romans with Isaiah 51:15-16.

When reading these references in the Apostalic Scriptures to the Greel equivalent of "tzel" a pattern begins to emerge. That is our translators are steeped in Platoism - they can not imagine a 'shadow' as being a good thing - and that the reference to shadow is a Hebrew reference to the PHYSICAL WORLD. They cannot imagine that in oour preent bodily state, the only way we can see the piritual is to see the shadows.

Since the translators fiddled with God's word with impunity, a returned favor would be to make these verses reflect their true intent:

"Sp let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance of Christ" - Col 2:16-17 NKJV

becomes...

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of Who is coming, and the shadow caster is Messiah."
.
The writer is giving us insight into the nature of reality. Reality is not defined as only spiritual, as the Plato schooled suggest. Reality is both physical and spiritual, they work together in God's Universe. The physical world is not in conflict with the spiritual world. While the spiritual is the higher plane, both the physical and the spiritual comprise a single whole - reality. God created reality. He created it to reveal Himself.

Plato would have us think that since the 'shadows' are not reality, we should ignore them and cast them off in our pursuit of understanding the forms of what is real. In fact, Platoists have used Replacement Theology and Dispensationalism to explain away teh first 3/4 of our Bibles - to discard the 'shadows'. Hopefully through study and the Holy Spirit, we learn that the shadows, patterns and copies are here to reveal the reality of that which is not visible - to reveal God Himself.

Mograce2U
Sep 15th 2008, 07:43 PM
Kech553,
So you have shadows being where the light is? Light is what reveals what was hidden in the shadows. Yet shadows is where you want to go to find that light? And those who embrace these shadows as they were originally given, fail to see what is clearly seen in the light of Christ - that is, that they have been fulfilled. You can blame Plato I suppose, or you can blame failing to remove completely the veil that is upon the OT scripture. I think the latter is more likely the case!

keck553
Sep 15th 2008, 09:11 PM
Kech553,
So you have shadows being where the light is? Light is what reveals what was hidden in the shadows. Yet shadows is where you want to go to find that light? And those who embrace these shadows as they were originally given, fail to see what is clearly seen in the light of Christ - that is, that they have been fulfilled. You can blame Plato I suppose, or you can blame failing to remove completely the veil that is upon the OT scripture. I think the latter is more likely the case!

Nothing in my post about shadows is in context of what you just posted. I have to assume you didn't read/study it.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 15th 2008, 10:25 PM
Kech553,
So you have shadows being where the light is? Light is what reveals what was hidden in the shadows. Yet shadows is where you want to go to find that light? And those who embrace these shadows as they were originally given, fail to see what is clearly seen in the light of Christ - that is, that they have been fulfilled. You can blame Plato I suppose, or you can blame failing to remove completely the veil that is upon the OT scripture. I think the latter is more likely the case!In all fairness, celebrating the feasts that God tells His people to celebrate forever, in no way equates to failing to have the veil removed. As I stated previously, knowing that my daughter is more valuable than her photo doesn't mean that I can't still see the value in looking at her photo. ;)

Mograce2U
Sep 16th 2008, 03:05 AM
Nothing in my post about shadows is in context of what you just posted. I have to assume you didn't read/study it.Except that H6738 tzel is not the only word that means shadow. There is also H6757 tsalmaveth where shadow and death are joined. The Greek word translated shadow G4639 skia incorporates both meanings. Therefore context must be what decides.

(Col 2:17 KJV) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Shadow here does not have the protective covering connotation that being in the shadow of His wings does. Instead this shadow in the feasts is predictive of what it prefigures. I do think there is much we can glean from the types the OT establishes for us. Israel was very much a nation who walked by sight. The Jews require a sign, afterall. But the sign is not the thing it images for us, whereas the cross IS.

Do I need to slay a lamb to see the Lord crucified? I would if He hadn't actually come yet and that hadn't already happened.

Edit: Which is where my contention with emphasizing the shadow lies. Because those who look to the feasts to get their understanding do not see where they have all been fulfilled as equally as Passover has in Christ.

For Denise:
This is where the analogy of the picture of your daughter doesn't equate to the same thing. The photo you carry of her is an exact representation of what she looks like. While a sacrificial lamb is only metaphorical, which means it must be explained for the meaning to be understood. We see the substitutionary atonement that the sacrifices depicted because of the light of the cross. But the Jew today does not. All that practice for nothing...

Marc B
Sep 16th 2008, 03:21 AM
Christians traditionally meet together on Sunday because the disciples did. Jesus rose on the first day of the week and appeared to them that evening, and then He appeared to them again the next Sunday (John 20:1-2; 19; 26). His other appearances don't specify the day of the week but because Jesus rose from the dead and chose to appear to them on Sundays, it isn't all that unreasonable that they would make a habit of getting together on that day of the week (Acts 20:7).

But Sunday didn't become the new Sabbath or replace Saturday as the Sabbath day. Many of them continued to witness in the Synagogues on the Sabbath, but they did gather together as the church on the first day of the week. Trying to make Sunday the new Sabbath, and instituting blue laws for Sunday as if it is the Sabbath was a man made tradition.


Jesus rose on a Sunday true, but how does that translate into worshiping on that day instead of the Sabbath as He and his apostles did? As for Acts 20:7 breaking bread means eating a meal, nothing more. They ate every day just as we do. If Jesus preached the gospel on the Sabbath then isn't it more reasonable to expect His apostles to do the same? You can preach the gospel on the Sabbath and still break bread with your friends and family on Sunday and talk about God. :bounce:

Marc B
Sep 16th 2008, 03:52 AM
Galatians make a very good point about living under the law vs living by faith through Christ. If read from start to finish it shows that keeping the law without Christ is futile and a curse like it was to the Jews, because it is impossible to live by the law all the time, if it was then Jesus wouldn't have had to die for us. It says nothing about ignoring them. If it did then Jesus would have told us so instead of what He said in Matthew 5:17-20.
In a nutshell by faith in Christ we are reconciled with God and receive salvation but our works is what earns us a higher standing in God's Kingdom. That's why the bible clearly states the person who doesn't keep the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in His Kingdom. :bounce:

pastor_john
Sep 16th 2008, 08:49 AM
Christianity (in America at least) is centered around Sunday as the central day of worship - this fact is evidenced by the blue laws that many states had in place.

The removal of such laws was not done by christiandom, (rather the churches fought it) but by merchants and businesses.



Is Sunday being the day for christians to go to church and worship according to Scripture (designated and/or exampled)

or is it just a man-made tradition?



Rev13:3-4 say: the whole earth followed the beast in amazement. King Babylon was a beast (Dan4:28-34). Babylon is the land of the Chaldeans (Eze12:13), and the Chaldeans refer to the language and literature made up with human wisdom, knowledge and insight (Dan1:4). That is to say, he who uses the word of men is a beast before GOD (Isa56:9-11).



Emperor Constantine, after he was converted, changed the sacred seasons and the law (Dan7:25), like the day of worshiping the sun in the Roman Empire, that is, Sun-day, into the day of worshiping GOD. And the doctrines of men also began with Emperor Constantine--to interpret the Bible with the word of men. Now, both believers and non-believers worship or rest on Sun-day. This happens to fulfill the scripture: the whole earth follows the beast in amazement!

valleybldr
Sep 16th 2008, 09:09 AM
Edit: Which is where my contention with emphasizing the shadow lies. Because those who look to the feasts to get their understanding do not see where they have all been fulfilled as equally as Passover has in Christ.

What?!?!:eek:

Believers who celebrate God's "appointed times" do so because they do, in countless ways, point to our Messiah.

todd

Studyin'2Show
Sep 16th 2008, 10:47 AM
For Denise:
This is where the analogy of the picture of your daughter doesn't equate to the same thing. The photo you carry of her is an exact representation of what she looks like. While a sacrificial lamb is only metaphorical, which means it must be explained for the meaning to be understood. We see the substitutionary atonement that the sacrifices depicted because of the light of the cross. But the Jew today does not. All that practice for nothing...I have to strongly disagree. The photo is a representation of her that we received months before the day of her graduation as a shadow of what was to come. Just as the Jews received the Law long before Messiah was to actually come. Once the fulfillment of that photo came to pass, it did not negate the value of the photo. What was once a foreshadowing is now a remembrance. :) If you choose not to look at the snapshot of Messiah (the Feasts and Sabbath), I do not believe that affects your salvation. However, for you to imply that those who do see value in that snapshot, are somehow doing so at the expensive of not treasuring Messiah Himself, is just completely unfounded and a gross misunderstanding of what it means for a disciple of Yeshua (not an unbelieving Jew) to celebrate the feasts and remember the Sabbath. You see, that's where I believe the disconnect comes in. I am not an unbelieving Jew so it is incorrect to assume I keep Sabbath or observe the feasts as an unbelieving Jew. There is a very big difference.

God Bless!

Emanate
Sep 16th 2008, 03:19 PM
Jesus commanded that his Supper be celebrated in perpetuity until his coming again at that fateful Last Support. What else do you think they are doing "in remembrance of me" but celebrating the Eucharist?

In one word: Passover

keck553
Sep 16th 2008, 03:23 PM
(Col 2:17 KJV) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Shadow here does not have the protective covering connotation that being in the shadow of His wings does. Instead this shadow in the feasts is predictive of what it prefigures. I do think there is much we can glean from the types the OT establishes for us. Israel was very much a nation who walked by sight. The Jews require a sign, afterall. But the sign is not the thing it images for us, whereas the cross IS.

Yes it does. It points to the Shadow-Caster, Yeshua.


Col 2:17 KJV) Do I need to slay a lamb to see the Lord crucified? I would if He hadn't actually come yet and that hadn't already happened.

Actually the priests did the slaying. And yes, if He hadn't come, and if you're a Gentile, you would be slaying something to appease Zeus.


Edit: Which is where my contention with emphasizing the shadow lies. Because those who look to the feasts to get their understanding do not see where they have all been fulfilled as equally as Passover has in Christ.

You are in error. The feasts point to Messiah in more ways than I can count. I'm sorry you don't see your Messiah in the feasts. You're missing an awesome blessing and a beautiful way to celebrate the entirety of God's redemptive plan.

Mograce2U
Sep 16th 2008, 04:39 PM
You are in error. The feasts point to Messiah in more ways than I can count. I'm sorry you don't see your Messiah in the feasts. You're missing an awesome blessing and a beautiful way to celebrate the entirety of God's redemptive plan.What did I say that would make you think I don't see Messiah in the feasts?

But why would I play with a toy Corvette, if I have a real one sitting in my driveway?

Emanate
Sep 16th 2008, 04:46 PM
What did I say that would make you think I don't see Messiah in the feasts?

But why would I play with a toy Corvette, if I have a real one sitting in my driveway?


The feasts bring understanding to Messiah. Every year I learn sometihng new from each of the feasts.

Mograce2U
Sep 16th 2008, 04:50 PM
I have to strongly disagree. The photo is a representation of her that we received months before the day of her graduation as a shadow of what was to come. Just as the Jews received the Law long before Messiah was to actually come. Once the fulfillment of that photo came to pass, it did not negate the value of the photo. What was once a foreshadowing is now a remembrance. :) If you choose not to look at the snapshot of Messiah (the Feasts and Sabbath), I do not believe that affects your salvation. However, for you to imply that those who do see value in that snapshot, are somehow doing so at the expensive of not treasuring Messiah Himself, is just completely unfounded and a gross misunderstanding of what it means for a disciple of Yeshua (not an unbelieving Jew) to celebrate the feasts and remember the Sabbath. You see, that's where I believe the disconnect comes in. I am not an unbelieving Jew so it is incorrect to assume I keep Sabbath or observe the feasts as an unbelieving Jew. There is a very big difference.

God Bless!My point in the part you bolded was that the unbelieving Jew has completely lost his understanding of why the lamb was ever sacrificed for him. To the point that he no longer even thinks this is or was necessary.

And my point about the photo was why do you need a picture of your daughter if she is always at your side? Why look at the past when the present is where we live? The things that have passed, passed for a reason. Because we have a better thing now. And while we can learn much of value from those types, we needn't make them our practice.

So perhaps I am misunderstanding how it is you would celebrate these feasts. Surely you don't construct booths in your backyard...?

Emanate
Sep 16th 2008, 04:52 PM
So perhaps I am misunderstanding how it is you would celebrate these feasts. Surely don't construct booths in your backyard...?


I cannot speak for others, but I do construct a booth in my backyard. I even sleep in it weather permitting.

Mograce2U
Sep 16th 2008, 06:05 PM
I cannot speak for others, but I do construct a booth in my backyard. I even sleep in it weather permitting.Would you be willing to explain to me why?

keck553
Sep 16th 2008, 06:09 PM
But why would I play with a toy Corvette, if I have a real one sitting in my driveway?

I'm alarmed that you would consider the Word of God an unworthy toy in your closet, and that you can discard 3/4ths of His Character in trade for your personal comfort.

keck553
Sep 16th 2008, 06:11 PM
My point in the part you bolded was that the unbelieving Jew has completely lost his understanding of why the lamb was ever sacrificed for him. To the point that he no longer even thinks this is or was necessary.

And my point about the photo was why do you need a picture of your daughter if she is always at your side? Why look at the past when the present is where we live? The things that have passed, passed for a reason. Because we have a better thing now. And while we can learn much of value from those types, we needn't make them our practice.

So perhaps I am misunderstanding how it is you would celebrate these feasts. Surely you don't construct booths in your backyard...?

Why bother celebrating your wedding annivesary if your wife's at your side? I mean, it's just a snapshot of your lifetime vows, so why bother? Why bother celebrating the 4th of July when America has clearly fulfilled it's separation from British rule? Why bother celebrating the pagen holiday of Ishtar? Do you still think appeasing the god of fertility will beget you more children?

Emanate
Sep 16th 2008, 06:12 PM
Would you be willing to explain to me why?


It is an appointed time. It is great family time. It is reflection about the moving out of Egypt, physically and spiritually. It teaches about following the Spirit (cloud by day pillar of fire by night.) Plus, it is just downright fun.

Mograce2U
Sep 16th 2008, 06:33 PM
It is an appointed time. It is great family time. It is reflection about the moving out of Egypt, physically and spiritually. It teaches about following the Spirit (cloud by day pillar of fire by night.) Plus, it is just downright fun.
(Lev 23:41-43 KJV) And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month. {42} Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: {43} That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

I can see how Israel would find this significant as a memorial of the day that the Lord delivered them from bondage and led them Himself in the wilderness for forty years.

But how does the light we have in Christ make this significant for you?

Emanate
Sep 16th 2008, 08:34 PM
(Lev 23:41-43 KJV) And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month. {42} Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: {43} That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

I can see how Israel would find this significant as a memorial of the day that the Lord delivered them from bondage and led them Himself in the wilderness for forty years.

But how does the light we have in Christ make this significant for you?


My family and I are set free from the bondage of sin and death by the Messiah of Israel.

keck553
Sep 16th 2008, 09:05 PM
My family and I are set free from the bondage of sin and death by the Messiah of Israel.

It seems to me more beleivers fear the yoke of Messiah than the bondage of the adversary.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 16th 2008, 10:24 PM
(Lev 23:41-43 KJV) And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month. {42} Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: {43} That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

I can see how Israel would find this significant as a memorial of the day that the Lord delivered them from bondage and led them Himself in the wilderness for forty years.

But how does the light we have in Christ make this significant for you?Egypt is a symbol of sin. We who have accepted Messiah have been freed from the bondage we were once in to sin (Egypt) and death. Just as the Israelites went through the waters of the Red Sea to escape from their pursuing oppressors, so I have come through the baptismal waters. Every action they took was a foreshadowing of our journey. And just as they saw it as a memorial/remembrance of their deliverance from bondage, so I see it as a remembrance of my deliverance. Why would that be a problem? :hmm:

Mograce2U
Sep 16th 2008, 11:49 PM
Egypt is a symbol of sin. We who have accepted Messiah have been freed from the bondage we were once in to sin (Egypt) and death. Just as the Israelites went through the waters of the Red Sea to escape from their pursuing oppressors, so I have come through the baptismal waters. Every action they took was a foreshadowing of our journey. And just as they saw it as a memorial/remembrance of their deliverance from bondage, so I see it as a remembrance of my deliverance. Why would that be a problem? :hmm:I guess the first problem is where does the NT direct you to take this change in understanding? We do have Jesus give a new meaning for the Passover, but where are these other feasts reinterpreted for us? Even an OT scripture would be acceptable! Otherwise we have no right to change what scripture explains for us.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 17th 2008, 01:28 AM
I guess the first problem is where does the NT direct you to take this change in understanding? We do have Jesus give a new meaning for the Passover, but where are these other feasts reinterpreted for us? Even an OT scripture would be acceptable! Otherwise we have no right to change what scripture explains for us.There is no change in understanding. :hmm: It flows congruently with the rest of scripture. But how about this one. Yeshua tells us that the Sabbath was made for man. Yet you seem to say it was not made for man, it was made for the Jews. Do you have the right to change the understanding of the Sabbath being made FOR us? Why would you or anyone else assume that somehow the Sabbath is AGAINST those who observe it? It is a blessing that my Savior says was made for me, and thus I will receive that blessing. :)

God Bless!

Mograce2U
Sep 17th 2008, 03:34 AM
There is no change in understanding. :hmm: It flows congruently with the rest of scripture. But how about this one. Yeshua tells us that the Sabbath was made for man. Yet you seem to say it was not made for man, it was made for the Jews. Do you have the right to change the understanding of the Sabbath being made FOR us? Why would you or anyone else assume that somehow the Sabbath is AGAINST those who observe it? It is a blessing that my Savior says was made for me, and thus I will receive that blessing. :)

God Bless!We weren't talking about my views of the Sabbath, which by the way I never said the Sabbath wasn't made for us, only that observing a particular day was not necessary (to sum it up), because we have the rest it promised.

Back to Tabernacles though, is there a scripture which can Christianize it for us? Or should we celebrate the wilderness journey? Or is it ok to just change it altogether and make it mean something other than what scripture says it was for? So far it seems like to me that there may be justification here for taking the nativity story and turning it into Christmas...

Studyin'2Show
Sep 17th 2008, 10:17 AM
Back to Tabernacles though, is there a scripture which can Christianize it for us? Or should we celebrate the wilderness journey? Or is it ok to just change it altogether and make it mean something other than what scripture says it was for? So far it seems like to me that there may be justification here for taking the nativity story and turning it into Christmas...Why is there a separation? Christians quite willingly accept all the promises contained in the pages of Hebrew scriptures. Why would we disconnect from what God calls HIS feast forever? They are HIS and I am HIS! If He calls them His feasts, why would I reject what is His? By the way, 'tabernacle' means to dwell with. How awesome is it that God came to 'tabernacle'/dwell with us? I'll celebrate that everyday AND on the day God says is His forever! :pp

I Corinthians 5:7-8
7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

It is not about learning old Jewish traditions or trying to act like I am Jewish that I will agree that some do. It is about doing what Paul writes here to the Corinthians, keeping the feast with sincerity and truth. Before Yeshua the feasts were kept without truly understanding the wholeness they represent. Now, when my family and I celebrate them we do so in completeness and sincerity and truth. ;) Not under any bondage but with the freedom I have been given in Messiah. And oh, it has been nothing but a blessing for us. Whenever the kids know a feast is coming, they are thrilled! :D

God Bless!

Emanate
Sep 17th 2008, 01:00 PM
I guess the first problem is where does the NT direct you to take this change in understanding? We do have Jesus give a new meaning for the Passover, but where are these other feasts reinterpreted for us? Even an OT scripture would be acceptable! Otherwise we have no right to change what scripture explains for us.


The NT is full of references to the feasts. There have been volumes of books written.

Emanate
Sep 17th 2008, 01:15 PM
We weren't talking about my views of the Sabbath, which by the way I never said the Sabbath wasn't made for us, only that observing a particular day was not necessary (to sum it up), because we have the rest it promised.

Back to Tabernacles though, is there a scripture which can Christianize it for us? Or should we celebrate the wilderness journey? Or is it ok to just change it altogether and make it mean something other than what scripture says it was for? So far it seems like to me that there may be justification here for taking the nativity story and turning it into Christmas...


Just a small taste:

John 1:14 (http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/26059/eVerseID/26059) And the Word was made flesh, and *dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
*sukkah = dwelling (usually translated in Christendom as tabernacle)


Meanwhile, during the water pouring ceremony on the last day of Sukkot (Tabernacles):

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Very significant to the believer in Yeshua haMashiach

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 01:47 PM
Christianity (in America at least) is centered around Sunday as the central day of worship - this fact is evidenced by the blue laws that many states had in place.
The removal of such laws was not done by christiandom, (rather the churches fought it) but by merchants and businesses.

Is Sunday being the day for christians to go to church and worship according to Scripture (designated and/or exampled)
or is it just a man-made tradition?

Does it matter which day we worship? Should we not worship God everyday?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Acts 2:46 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=46) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

God bless

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 17th 2008, 02:03 PM
Does it matter which day we worship? Should we not worship God everyday?

Yes, we do worship every day but if you keep Shabbat 24/7 when do you work? todd

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 02:08 PM
Yes, we do worship every day but if you keep Shabbat 24/7 when do you work? todd

What do you think it means to worship God everyday?

Firstfruits

manichunter
Sep 17th 2008, 02:16 PM
Christianity (in America at least) is centered around Sunday as the central day of worship - this fact is evidenced by the blue laws that many states had in place.
The removal of such laws was not done by christiandom, (rather the churches fought it) but by merchants and businesses.

Is Sunday being the day for christians to go to church and worship according to Scripture (designated and/or exampled)
or is it just a man-made tradition?


This is the Manichunter knocked down, but not knocked out by Hurricane IKE, saying the question should God. The answer would be no....... but then I am I still free to worship on Sunday as a Holy Convocation.........

Studyin'2Show
Sep 17th 2008, 02:29 PM
What do you think it means to worship God everyday?

FirstfruitsJohn 4:23-24
23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

What do you think it means? :hmm:

manichunter
Sep 17th 2008, 02:39 PM
John 4:23-24
23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

What do you think it means? :hmm:

It means that there is a unique, singular, and defined way of worshipping Yahweh which is not subject to the whims, speculations, and instrinsic creativity of mankind. That Yahweh has defined worship. Yahweh has set the bondaries for worship. Yahweh has endorsed particular means of worship and not all.

What mankind's believes, hopes, and considers worship matters not if it is not according to Yahweh's truth regarding worship.

valleybldr
Sep 17th 2008, 03:03 PM
What do you think it means to worship God everyday?

Firstfruits Maybe you should try answering someone elses question to you before rattling off new questions. todd

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 03:12 PM
John 4:23-24
23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

What do you think it means? :hmm:

I agree with what you say about worship, but I was referring to the following.

Originally Posted by valleybldr http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1791352#post1791352)
Yes, we do worship every day but if you keep Shabbat 24/7 when do you work? todd


Hence my question.

Firstfruits

Studyin'2Show
Sep 17th 2008, 03:20 PM
I agree with what you say about worship, but I was referring to the following.

Originally Posted by valleybldr http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1791352#post1791352)
Yes, we do worship every day but if you keep Shabbat 24/7 when do you work? todd


Hence my question.

FirstfruitsI believe todd's point was that Sabbath IS a particular day according to God's word and has nothing to do with when we meet for fellowship with other believers. ;) You asked him what he meant by worship and my post was addressing that. :)

pastor_john
Sep 17th 2008, 03:23 PM
What do you think it means to worship God everyday?

Firstfruits

First, I 'll talk about what it is like to worship GOD in the Bible. Nehemiah 8:1-8 tell us: Ezra the scribe stood on a special platform and read aloud the law of GOD, and all the people bowed down and worshiped the LORD. Why? Because the law is the name of the LORD (Deut28:58). A familiar verse, Jesus said, the Father seeks those who worship in spirit and truth, for GOD is spirit (Jn4:23-24), for the words Jesus spoke were spirit (Jn6:62-63), and the word of GOD is truth (Jn17:17).


According to Mt15:7-9, there is a worship of GOD, which is in vain before GOD, that is, to teach human commandments as precepts, this worship is in vain, for the word of men is not spirit, nor truth! Similar idea is expressed in Isa29:13-14, the worship of GOD with human wisdom and discerning is also claimed to be vain, for human wisdom and discerning will do nothing but seal the vision or the words of GOD (10-12).


Hope this will give a hint of the meaning of worshiping Him every day, as well! Blessings!


P.J

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 03:32 PM
I believe todd's point was that Sabbath IS a particular day according to God's word and has nothing to do with when we meet for fellowship with other believers. ;) You asked him what he meant by worship and my post was addressing that. :)

Thanks S2S,

So if he was not talking about meeting with people to fellowship, is it therefore not possible to worship God daily?

Lk 9:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Heb 3:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 03:44 PM
I agree with what you say about worship, but I was referring to the following.

Originally Posted by valleybldr http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1791352#post1791352)
Yes, we do worship every day but if you keep Shabbat 24/7 when do you work? todd


Hence my question.

Firstfruits

Messiah has given us rest from sin. That's the 24/7 rest we have in Him. In no way does that relate to shabbat. Only a deceit would define 'rest' in the bible as only a one dimensional definition.

Everything Messiah fulfilled lines up with all the feasts, prophecies and plan of redemption outlined in the TeNaKh. Nowhere in the TeNaKh does any word indicat that His death and resurrection would cancel out Shabbat. The Shabbat was given before sin entered the world, so Shabbat in NOT a rest from sin, as Christians declare - otherwise God would have rested from sin. To put forth Shabbat is a rest from sin is therefore a blastphemous assertion because of that implication.

The Shabbat is exactly as GOD defines it - a rest from the labor of creative processes. God stopped creating on Shabbat, and as followers of Him, so do we. Only then can we experience what He experienced (and that is true from personal experience).

Since God is Holy, then His experience on the 7th day was Holy, and so should ours be. Only GOD decides what is Holy, not us, not our traditions, not our feeble understanding and departure of His Way. No matter how hard we try, we can not make anything Holy, including Sunday. Only God declares what's Holy (set apart for Him).

Yeshua warned us clearly that He did not come to destroy Torah. Bringing Torah to it's fullness is not canceling it out. To state otherwise is illogical.

If anyone feels like choosing to be free from God's gift and follow man's traditions, that does not change the value of the gift. Yeshua affirmed the Shabbat with very things He did and only performed thoses deeds that were permissable on the Shabbat. His critics came against Him for breaking their man-made traditions, not God's definition. Yeshua healed on Shabbat giving the afflicted rest from their labor of pain and suffering. Truly then Shabbat was made for man.

Yeshua was without sin. That means He didn't break any of the commandments that He Himself wrote. To say He disobeyed the very Torah He gave throught Moses is blastphemy.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 17th 2008, 04:16 PM
Thanks S2S,

So if he was not talking about meeting with people to fellowship, is it therefore not possible to worship God daily?

Lk 9:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Heb 3:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Firstfruits:confused :hmm: I'm at a loss to how this relates to either my post or todd's. I believe we have both clearly stated that we are to worship EVERY day in spirit and in truth. That worship, however, does not take away from or change on what day the biblical Sabbath falls. :)

God Bless!

Mograce2U
Sep 17th 2008, 04:24 PM
Just a small taste:

John 1:14 (http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/26059/eVerseID/26059) And the Word was made flesh, and *dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
*sukkah = dwelling (usually translated in Christendom as tabernacle)


Meanwhile, during the water pouring ceremony on the last day of Sukkot (Tabernacles):

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Very significant to the believer in Yeshua haMashiachThanks Emanate (and Denise) that was the scripture I wanted to find. Which gives the new meaning we need to see for this feast. Not for Israel's deliverance from Egypt, but for Jesus dwelling amongst us by His spirit who indwells us. I don't see how building little booths though helps to depict this spiritual reality. But each to his own I guess.

Firstfruits
Sep 17th 2008, 06:32 PM
:confused :hmm: I'm at a loss to how this relates to either my post or todd's. I believe we have both clearly stated that we are to worship EVERY day in spirit and in truth. That worship, however, does not take away from or change on what day the biblical Sabbath falls. :)

God Bless!

Did Paul get the following wrong, or is it contrary to God if we do not keep the Sabbath?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 06:45 PM
Did Paul get the following wrong, or is it contrary to God if we do not keep the Sabbath?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Firstfruits

Paul is referring to pagan day-keeping.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 17th 2008, 07:02 PM
Did Paul get the following wrong, or is it contrary to God if we do not keep the Sabbath?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

FirstfruitsThanks for bringing up that scripture. Paul got it absolutely right. Let's look at the entire concept. ;)

Romans 14:4-6a
4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

Now, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with you being fully convinced in your own mind not to observe Sabbath or the feasts. Do you have any problem with those of us who are fully convinced in our own minds TO observe these days to the LORD? :hmm:

edit ** BTW, the OP isn't telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do. It's merely posing a question.

manichunter
Sep 17th 2008, 09:38 PM
(I wonder what spirit it is that wants to discuss or argue Saturday vs. Sunday?

God has clearly allowed that most of the Christian world is gathering together on Sundays to worship. Is that worship "wrong" or in error?

How would it be if we shifted our focus from the calendar to worship?)

Silence on a matter does not mean endorsement or approval,

valleybldr
Sep 17th 2008, 11:05 PM
Paul is referring to pagan day-keeping. No, he is not. Read the context carefully. todd

valleybldr
Sep 17th 2008, 11:06 PM
Did Paul get the following wrong, or is it contrary to God if we do not keep the Sabbath?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Firstfruits Context, context! This has nothing to do with the Shabbat. todd

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 11:12 PM
No, he is not. Read the context carefully. todd


Well I don't see it as it relates to God, as it relates to men's traditions.

valleybldr
Sep 17th 2008, 11:39 PM
Well I don't see it as it relates to God, as it relates to men's traditions. I don't know of the links so I'm not willing to say that religious tradition regarding fast days have "pagan" origins.

todd

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 11:45 PM
I don't know of the links so I'm not willing to say that religious tradition regarding fast days have "pagan" origins.

todd

Oh man, what did I miss? :eek: Thanks, I'm going back to that Scripture now.....

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 11:48 PM
I don't know of the links so I'm not willing to say that religious tradition regarding fast days have "pagan" origins.

todd

Verse 3. Cool. Thanks! I missed it. There's so much in here I need, especially this week! Halleluja!!

bless you brother~

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 06:51 AM
Paul is referring to pagan day-keeping.

If what you say is right then does that mean we should be worshiping on the Sabbath without Choice?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 06:59 AM
Thanks for bringing up that scripture. Paul got it absolutely right. Let's look at the entire concept. ;)

Romans 14:4-6a
4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

Now, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with you being fully convinced in your own mind not to observe Sabbath or the feasts. Do you have any problem with those of us who are fully convinced in our own minds TO observe these days to the LORD? :hmm:

edit ** BTW, the OP isn't telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do. It's merely posing a question.

As I have said before I have no problem what day you choose to worship God, it is God we worship not the day.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 07:01 AM
Messiah has given us rest from sin. That's the 24/7 rest we have in Him. In no way does that relate to shabbat. Only a deceit would define 'rest' in the bible as only a one dimensional definition.

Everything Messiah fulfilled lines up with all the feasts, prophecies and plan of redemption outlined in the TeNaKh. Nowhere in the TeNaKh does any word indicat that His death and resurrection would cancel out Shabbat. The Shabbat was given before sin entered the world, so Shabbat in NOT a rest from sin, as Christians declare - otherwise God would have rested from sin. To put forth Shabbat is a rest from sin is therefore a blastphemous assertion because of that implication.

The Shabbat is exactly as GOD defines it - a rest from the labor of creative processes. God stopped creating on Shabbat, and as followers of Him, so do we. Only then can we experience what He experienced (and that is true from personal experience).

Since God is Holy, then His experience on the 7th day was Holy, and so should ours be. Only GOD decides what is Holy, not us, not our traditions, not our feeble understanding and departure of His Way. No matter how hard we try, we can not make anything Holy, including Sunday. Only God declares what's Holy (set apart for Him).

Yeshua warned us clearly that He did not come to destroy Torah. Bringing Torah to it's fullness is not canceling it out. To state otherwise is illogical.

If anyone feels like choosing to be free from God's gift and follow man's traditions, that does not change the value of the gift. Yeshua affirmed the Shabbat with very things He did and only performed thoses deeds that were permissable on the Shabbat. His critics came against Him for breaking their man-made traditions, not God's definition. Yeshua healed on Shabbat giving the afflicted rest from their labor of pain and suffering. Truly then Shabbat was made for man.

Yeshua was without sin. That means He didn't break any of the commandments that He Himself wrote. To say He disobeyed the very Torah He gave throught Moses is blastphemy.

Are you saying that the law still stands, are we still under the law?

Firstfruits

Studyin'2Show
Sep 18th 2008, 10:04 AM
As I have said before I have no problem what day you choose to worship God, it is God we worship not the day.

FirstfruitsSo, what's the issue? :hmm: No one in this thread has said that you must keep Sabbath or the feasts. We've explained why, according to our interpretation of scripture, we do. The OP has a fairly simple question.

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 11:16 AM
So, what's the issue? :hmm: No one in this thread has said that you must keep Sabbath or the feasts. We've explained why, according to our interpretation of scripture, we do. The OP has a fairly simple question.

Let me get this clear, it is not because of the commandment that you keep the sabbath and the feasts, or else that would mean all that did not do the same would be breaking the commandments, is that right? Either the commandment stands or it does not.

Firstfruits

Studyin'2Show
Sep 18th 2008, 12:21 PM
Let me get this clear, it is not because of the commandment that you keep the sabbath and the feasts, or else that would mean all that did not do the same would be breaking the commandments, is that right? Either the commandment stands or it does not.

FirstfruitsJeremiah 31:33
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

This scripture pretty much sums it up for me. I do not do what I do because I am under obligation. I do not do what I do because I am trying to 'earn' anything from God. I do not do what I do because I fear punishments or curses. I do what I do because YHWH has put His law in my mind and written it on my heart. His law is my desire. I can not compare what God has written in my heart to what is in your heart. :dunno: As Paul writes:

Romans 14:4 - Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

Look, I absolutely know that I have been saved from the very instant that I accepted the blood of Yeshua almost 10 years ago. Since then, the Holy Spirit has led me every step of the way to where I am now, as I trust He has been leading you. Who am I to compare where I am in my journey to where you are? Are we not each serving our Master faithfully as He leads us? So, you will be made to stand because God is able to make you stand, just as I will be made to stand for the same reason. ;)

God Bless!

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 12:51 PM
Jeremiah 31:33
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

This scripture pretty much sums it up for me. I do not do what I do because I am under obligation. I do not do what I do because I am trying to 'earn' anything from God. I do not do what I do because I fear punishments or curses. I do what I do because YHWH has put His law in my mind and written it on my heart. His law is my desire. I can not compare what God has written in my heart to what is in your heart. :dunno: As Paul writes:

Romans 14:4 - Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

Look, I absolutely know that I have been saved from the very instant that I accepted the blood of Yeshua almost 10 years ago. Since then, the Holy Spirit has led me every step of the way to where I am now, as I trust He has been leading you. Who am I to compare where I am in my journey to where you are? Are we not each serving our Master faithfully as He leads us? So, you will be made to stand because God is able to make you stand, just as I will be made to stand for the same reason. ;)

God Bless!

Thanks S2S,

Knowing that the law that God has put into our hearts is not the same as the law that was or is at this time in the hearts of Israel, and was broken, which law has God therefore put in our hearts?

Did God take his law that was already in their hearts and put the same one back?

Thanks S2S.

Firstfruits

manichunter
Sep 18th 2008, 01:09 PM
Thanks S2S,

Knowing that the law that God has put into our hearts is not the same as the law that was or is at this time in the hearts of Israel, and was broken, which law has God therefore put in our hearts?

Did God take his law that was already in their hearts and put the same one back?

Thanks S2S.

Firstfruits

Well the word used in the Hebrew from the translation of this Scripture is Torah, what kind of Torah I guess is the question I pose to you. How many Torahs are there? I think one kind of Torah, but you might think differently. The Old Israel never had a Torah written on their heart, it was written on Stones and Scrolls. The New Israel has the Torah written on their heart by the inhabitation of the Holy Spirit.

valleybldr
Sep 18th 2008, 01:10 PM
Knowing that the law that God has put into our hearts is not the same as the law that was or is at this time in the hearts of Israel, and was broken, which law has God therefore put in our hearts? Again, many of us don't agree with the premise from which you work. Which divinely authored "laws" bother you the most? todd

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 01:27 PM
Well the word used in the Hebrew from the translation of this Scripture is Torah, what kind of Torah I guess is the question I pose to you. How many Torahs are there? I think one kind of Torah, but you might think differently. The Old Israel never had a Torah written on their heart, it was written on Stones and Scrolls. The New Israel has the Torah written on their heart by the inhabitation of the Holy Spirit.

God said it is not according to the first, and the first was already in their hearts so as you have already said, which Torah/law has he put into our hearts?

Heb 8:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Heb 8:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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:

Deut 6:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

Deut 11:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 01:31 PM
Again, many of us don't agree with the premise from which you work. Which divinely authored "laws" bother you the most? todd

I am asking why the law that was already in there hearts is not according to the New.

I have no problem with Gods commandments but it would be interesting to know why they are not the same.

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 18th 2008, 01:43 PM
I have no problem with Gods commandments but it would be interesting to know why they are not the same.

Maybe it would be helpful to point out which are different. todd

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 02:37 PM
Maybe it would be helpful to point out which are different. todd

Agreed.

Thanks

Firstfruits

Studyin'2Show
Sep 18th 2008, 04:12 PM
Did God take his law that was already in their hearts and put the same one back?That was the problem. It was not in their hearts. It was on cold hard stone. They didn't do what they did because of desire (heart) but because of obligation and tradition. God has always desired the heart of His people. :)

Studyin'2Show
Sep 18th 2008, 04:26 PM
Deut 6:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

Deut 11:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

FirstfruitsThat's what God told them to do, but that's not what they did. Go to the wailing wall today and you will see that they have little boxes full of scriptures that they have tied (physically) to their hands and foreheads. :rolleyes: But is that what God had meant? :hmm: I think not.

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 05:15 PM
That's what God told them to do, but that's not what they did. Go to the wailing wall today and you will see that they have little boxes full of scriptures that they have tied (physically) to their hands and foreheads. :rolleyes: But is that what God had meant? :hmm: I think not.

No, God didn't mean for anyone to stick a box on thier head. "frontlets between your eyes" means "focus on your God", not some box. That said, I can't dismiss that there are orthodox Jews who really do love God with all they have. I pray for them.

Mograce2U
Sep 18th 2008, 05:32 PM
No, God didn't mean for anyone to stick a box on thier head. "frontlets between your eyes" means "focus on your God", not some box. That said, I can't dismiss that there are orthodox Jews who really do love God with all they have. I pray for them.Yet the love of God is not in them and that is what they need. I will pray for that.

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 05:39 PM
Yet the love of God is not in them and that is what they need. I will pray for that.

Not sure I read you right. Are you saying God doesn't love them?

threebigrocks
Sep 18th 2008, 05:45 PM
No, God didn't mean for anyone to stick a box on thier head. "frontlets between your eyes" means "focus on your God", not some box. That said, I can't dismiss that there are orthodox Jews who really do love God with all they have. I pray for them.

And that's the trouble. Between your eyes is focus and of the mind, having a mind that is of God, conformed to Christ. Man took it as I gotta do, I gotta put, I gotta show. Doesn't work.

We need to remember that God demands, desires, our love of Him. Now, we do so through His Son who opened up the way to Father to us through grace. We conform our mind to Christ. The legalism and self righteousness is of no value.

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 05:47 PM
Yes, you're right. Now it's "I enjoy doing", just as Jesus did.

threebigrocks
Sep 18th 2008, 06:00 PM
Yes, you're right. Now it's "I enjoy doing", just as Jesus did.

I enjoy doing because it's where He leads me, and it's pleasing to Him. It doesn't contradict who He is, and brings all glory to Christ and shows the purpose for which we have hope. :) Pretty awesome.

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 06:16 PM
I enjoy doing because it's where He leads me, and it's pleasing to Him. It doesn't contradict who He is, and brings all glory to Christ and shows the purpose for which we have hope. :) Pretty awesome.

Amen to that! Just wait until we're with Him sans this world, in His House he is building for us. :) Then the real fun begins!

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 07:12 PM
That's what God told them to do, but that's not what they did. Go to the wailing wall today and you will see that they have little boxes full of scriptures that they have tied (physically) to their hands and foreheads. :rolleyes: But is that what God had meant? :hmm: I think not.

I do not know about the boxes of scriptures, but the post was to show that the law was to be in their hearts. As with the New covenant that God put in our hearts.

Thanks S2S

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 07:16 PM
And that's the trouble. Between your eyes is focus and of the mind, having a mind that is of God, conformed to Christ. Man took it as I gotta do, I gotta put, I gotta show. Doesn't work.

We need to remember that God demands, desires, our love of Him. Now, we do so through His Son who opened up the way to Father to us through grace. We conform our mind to Christ. The legalism and self righteousness is of no value.

Amen to that Threebigrocks,

It seems as though we want to hold on to legalism etc.

God bless you

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 07:21 PM
I do not know about the boxes of scriptures, but the post was to show that the law was to be in their hearts. As with the New covenant that God put in our hearts.

Thanks S2S

Firstfruits

Do you thnk the law was in the hearts of those who claimed to be Christian who forced conversion by the sword, persecuted, murdered or burned at the stake non-Christians in the name of Christ?

Or was it legalism?

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 07:57 PM
Do you thnk the law was in the hearts of those who claimed to be Christian who forced conversion by the sword, persecuted, murdered or burned at the stake non-Christians in the name of Christ?

Or was it legalism?

It was the law in their hearts, but it was broken, which is why God promised the New covenant.

The New covenant we have been given willnot be replaced, as no one could be worth more than Jesus the Son of God. If we do not hear Him who then will we hear?

Firstfruits

Studyin'2Show
Sep 18th 2008, 08:37 PM
I do not know about the boxes of scriptures, but the post was to show that the law was to be in their hearts. As with the New covenant that God put in our hearts.

Thanks S2S

FirstfruitsDevout Jews bind boxes with scripture to their foreheads and to their hands because of the scripture you quotes. My point is that they did not have the law in their hearts. They merely were obedient for obedience sake, not because they desired to do God's will. That is the difference. Now, of course, I can't speak for them all because I don't know the heart, but when I see those little boxes called phylacteries tied to their foreheads ... :rolleyes: I have to believe they missed the point.http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/499799081_d1c461e5b2.jpg?v=1203469302

It was the law in their hearts, but it was broken, which is why God promised the New covenant.

The New covenant we have been given willnot be replaced, as no one could be worth more than Jesus the Son of God. If we do not hear Him who then will we hear?

FirstfruitsI believe keck553 was asking if those who called themselves Christian yet killed and forced people to say they accepted Messiah, has the law written in their hearts. I personally believe they could not have been truly following Yeshua and forcing people by threat of death to claim Christianity.

Emanate
Sep 18th 2008, 09:17 PM
It was the law in their hearts, but it was broken, which is why God promised the New covenant.



The law was supposed to be in their hearts, but quite obviously was not. That is why Jeremiah spoke of Y'shua when he said the renewed covenant would write the law on the hearts of Judah and the house of Israel.

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 09:54 PM
It was the law in their hearts, but it was broken, which is why God promised the New covenant.

The New covenant we have been given willnot be replaced, as no one could be worth more than Jesus the Son of God. If we do not hear Him who then will we hear?

Firstfruits

FF, these events took place after the 2nd century. Wasn't the New Covenant down payment of the Holy Spirit on all believers in effect from Shavout circa 33AD ?

I agree, no one can even approach the value of Yeshua. But I tell you Yeshua has something better for you than you can possibly imagine. Just wait!

SIG
Sep 18th 2008, 10:19 PM
Not sure I read you right. Are you saying God doesn't love them?

(Re Orthodox Jews): Of course God loves them, and they love Him as best they can. But if they have rejected Messiah, how can His spirit indwell them?

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 11:41 PM
(Re Orthodox Jews): Of course God loves them, and they love Him as best they can. But if they have rejected Messiah, how can His spirit indwell them?

Amen to that. I've seen Jews accept Messiah. It's as sharp as a light turning on in total darkness. It's very beautiful and emotioanlly compelling.

The repentance, and joy are magnified way beyond what we see normally in a secular person.

Imagine having a love affair for 50 years through the mail and suddenly meeting your lover in person.

Mograce2U
Sep 19th 2008, 12:35 AM
Not sure I read you right. Are you saying God doesn't love them?Of course not. But what Jesus once said to the Samaritan woman applies to them now as well:

Jn 4:21 Jesus saith to her, 'Woman, believe me, that there doth come an hour, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father;
Jn 4:22 ye worship what ye have not known; we worship what we have known, because the salvation is of the Jews;
Jn 4:23 but, there cometh an hour, and it now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father also doth seek such to worship him;

The way of salvation did once belong to the Jew, but now it is found only in Christ. The Church is the pillar of the Truth now; and while the oracles of God were first given to them, they don't have understanding of the Torah they claim to hold so dear.

It seems like it would be near impossible to bring a Jew to faith in Christ and believe that He is God incarnate and not an idol we worship. But praise God He can do what men cannot:

Lk 18:26 And they that heard [it] said, Who then can be saved?
Lk 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Firstfruits
Sep 19th 2008, 12:25 PM
The law was supposed to be in their hearts, but quite obviously was not. That is why Jeremiah spoke of Y'shua when he said the renewed covenant would write the law on the hearts of Judah and the house of Israel.

Thanks Emanate,

Can what you have said be applied to the law God has put in our hearts according to the new covenant, since we are not all obedient to we ought to do?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 19th 2008, 12:29 PM
Devout Jews bind boxes with scripture to their foreheads and to their hands because of the scripture you quotes. My point is that they did not have the law in their hearts. They merely were obedient for obedience sake, not because they desired to do God's will. That is the difference. Now, of course, I can't speak for them all because I don't know the heart, but when I see those little boxes called phylacteries tied to their foreheads ... :rolleyes: I have to believe they missed the point.http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/499799081_d1c461e5b2.jpg?v=1203469302
I believe keck553 was asking if those who called themselves Christian yet killed and forced people to say they accepted Messiah, has the law written in their hearts. I personally believe they could not have been truly following Yeshua and forcing people by threat of death to claim Christianity.

If therefore they should have had the law in there hearts but were disobedient would it be fair to say that those that did obey did have the law in their hearts?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 19th 2008, 12:33 PM
FF, these events took place after the 2nd century. Wasn't the New Covenant down payment of the Holy Spirit on all believers in effect from Shavout circa 33AD ?

I agree, no one can even approach the value of Yeshua. But I tell you Yeshua has something better for you than you can possibly imagine. Just wait!

Thanks Keck,

Looking forwards with hope.

God bless you.

Firstfruits

Studyin'2Show
Sep 19th 2008, 03:54 PM
If therefore they should have had the law in there hearts but were disobedient would it be fair to say that those that did obey did have the law in their hearts?

FirstfruitsI believe you are completely missing the point. Take a look at the image. There are those, even through today that are still believing they are being obedient by tying little boxes to their bodies. Do they have the law in their hearts?

keck553
Sep 19th 2008, 04:23 PM
Of course not. But what Jesus once said to the Samaritan woman applies to them now as well:

Jn 4:21 Jesus saith to her, 'Woman, believe me, that there doth come an hour, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father;
Jn 4:22 ye worship what ye have not known; we worship what we have known, because the salvation is of the Jews;
Jn 4:23 but, there cometh an hour, and it now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father also doth seek such to worship him;

The way of salvation did once belong to the Jew, but now it is found only in Christ. The Church is the pillar of the Truth now; and while the oracles of God were first given to them, they don't have understanding of the Torah they claim to hold so dear.

It seems like it would be near impossible to bring a Jew to faith in Christ and believe that He is God incarnate and not an idol we worship. But praise God He can do what men cannot:

Lk 18:26 And they that heard [it] said, Who then can be saved?
Lk 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.


Speaking of the Samaritan woman, why do you think He healed the Centurian's aid but told the Samaritan He came only for the children of Israel?

Personally I think Yeshua was testing her faith - not that He needed to know - but perhaps for her benefit. God tests our faith not for His knowledge, but for ours. What do you think?

keck553
Sep 19th 2008, 04:25 PM
I believe you are completely missing the point. Take a look at the image. There are those, even through today that are still believing they are being obedient by tying little boxes to their bodies. Do they have the law in their hearts?

I'm not one to judge hearts, but perhaps they have more Talmud in thier hearts than God. If you study it, you'll find that after the destruction of the Temple, rabbinic Judaism threw more than half the Torah out the window.

Firstfruits
Sep 19th 2008, 04:36 PM
I believe you are completely missing the point. Take a look at the image. There are those, even through today that are still believing they are being obedient by tying little boxes to their bodies. Do they have the law in their hearts?

I cannot say that none of them have the law in their hearts because that would mean that since God gave His law no one has been obedient to it, and I could not say that.

Firstfruits

Ethnikos
Sep 19th 2008, 06:34 PM
I believe you are completely missing the point. Take a look at the image. There are those, even through today that are still believing they are being obedient by tying little boxes to their bodies. Do they have the law in their hearts?
I would not mess with the tefillin.
I bought a talus that was made in Israel of silk, to wear when I went to temple. I wanted to show proper respect for their religion. I carried it in the box that it came in and in the box, I kept a piece of paper that I wrote on in Hebrew text and the phonetic spelling of the Hebrew. Before I put on what a gentile might call a prayer shawl, I would take out the paper and read the prayer. I do not know if you have ever been blessed to see a Jew put on the tefillin but it is not done lightly and I would like to see Christians as respectful of our religion as these Jews are of theirs.
So, show up at church with your t-shirt and shorts and flip-flops and turn around and bad mouth someone who puts on the tefillin, an act that you could not even think about doing without the deepest respect for God, tyeing God's word on your arm. Just your words disqualifies you from doing it, "boxes". Even the written word of God has to be respected and the "boxes" preserve the word from being defiled.
My advice is to not even let the word "sabbath" come out of your mouth because you do not have enough respect to say one of His words.
comment: I look at this picture and I notice these people there, talking to Jews and I have to be thankful they are at least wearing hats. They may have been forced to, for all I know but it would seem to be the least they cloud do, to show respect.

Emanate
Sep 19th 2008, 06:46 PM
I would not mess with the tefillin.
I bought a talus that was made in Israel of silk, to wear when I went to temple. I wanted to show proper respect for their religion. I carried it in the box that it came in and in the box, I kept a piece of paper that I wrote on in Hebrew text and the phonetic spelling of the Hebrew. Before I put on what a gentile might call a prayer shawl, I would take out the paper and read the prayer. I do not know if you have ever been blessed to see a Jew put on the tefillin but it is not done lightly and I would like to see Christians as respectful of our religion as these Jews are of theirs.
So, show up at church with your t-shirt and shorts and flip-flops and turn around and bad mouth someone who puts on the tefillin, an act that you could not even think about doing without the deepest respect for God, tyeing God's word on your arm. Just your words disqualifies you from doing it, "boxes". Even the written word of God has to be respected and the "boxes" preserve the word from being defiled.
My advice is to not even let the word "sabbath" come out of your mouth because you do not have enough respect to say one of His words.

I would say that the Teffelin is a prime example of Judaism missing the intent of Torah. They are more concerned with an outward appearance that inward. Even the Tallit, while a fun practice, is not grounded in Scipture. Now, you cannot fault them for the reasons they started wearing Tallit in the middle ages, however, it is not Scripture. The tzittzit with techelet was too be worn on the clothes, not something you wear to pray during the day. Most prayer shawls do not even even display the techelet.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 19th 2008, 07:26 PM
I would not mess with the tefillin.
I bought a talus that was made in Israel of silk, to wear when I went to temple. I wanted to show proper respect for their religion. I carried it in the box that it came in and in the box, I kept a piece of paper that I wrote on in Hebrew text and the phonetic spelling of the Hebrew. Before I put on what a gentile might call a prayer shawl, I would take out the paper and read the prayer. I do not know if you have ever been blessed to see a Jew put on the tefillin but it is not done lightly and I would like to see Christians as respectful of our religion as these Jews are of theirs.
So, show up at church with your t-shirt and shorts and flip-flops and turn around and bad mouth someone who puts on the tefillin, an act that you could not even think about doing without the deepest respect for God, tyeing God's word on your arm. Just your words disqualifies you from doing it, "boxes". Even the written word of God has to be respected and the "boxes" preserve the word from being defiled.
My advice is to not even let the word "sabbath" come out of your mouth because you do not have enough respect to say one of His words.
comment: I look at this picture and I notice these people there, talking to Jews and I have to be thankful they are at least wearing hats. They may have been forced to, for all I know but it would seem to be the least they cloud do, to show respect.It seems clear that you have completely missed the spirit of the post. As reverent as they may be one thing should be abundantly clear to any follower of Yeshua, they have not accepted their Messiah nor do they have His Holy Spirit living within them. It is not my place to judge them, there is a Judge and it ain't me. But there a saying that says that someone strains out a gnat but swallows a camel. My point is simply that (I believe) they are so focused on the minutia that they missed what was most important....Yeshua Ha'Mashiach.

And btw, it is rude to assume someone goes to fellowship wearing shorts and flip flops simply because they might disagree with your position. Very few of us actually know each other in person so let's refrain from making comments that do not edify. :)

God Bless!

Ethnikos
Sep 19th 2008, 08:51 PM
It seems clear that you have completely missed the spirit of the post. As reverent as they may be one thing should be abundantly clear to any follower of Yeshua, they have not accepted their Messiah nor do they have His Holy Spirit living within them. It is not my place to judge them, there is a Judge and it ain't me. But there a saying that says that someone strains out a gnat but swallows a camel. My point is simply that (I believe) they are so focused on the minutia that they missed what was most important....Yeshua Ha'Mashiach.

And btw, it is rude to assume someone goes to fellowship wearing shorts and flip flops simply because they might disagree with your position. Very few of us actually know each other in person so let's refrain from making comments that do not edify. :)

God Bless!
A lot of them did accept Jesus (the people, and not the rulers)and now they are dead. There was a war and Jerusalem was destroyed. The romans made it illegal for Jews to live there and the place ended up being not much of anything until recent times.
Do you know how many people today, who are Christians, are descended from people who were formerly Jews who became Christians? There were little pockets of people, spread around the world who had kept the old traditions. A lot of them ended up in present day Israel. To point at these people and criticize them, as if they had met with Jesus in person and then hammered nails into his hands, seems a little uncharitable, to me.
While these people are still around, why don't you talk to survivors of the holocaust and get some idea of how they might think about so-called Christians?
I have seen people in church dressed like I described, did you see Jews rejecting Jesus? My guess would be that if you went to Europe and looked at what the percentage of these people is who were raised in so-called Christian countries, who regularly go to church; and compared it to the percentage of people who were in Jerusalem and saw Jesus healing in the Temple, and believed, you might see something that would cause you to worry.

keck553
Sep 19th 2008, 09:01 PM
If I may add to that, how many Christians miss the point of the traditions of Christmas and Easter? Isn't a decorated tree and a bunny rabbit another 'outward' appearance?

Ethnikos
Sep 19th 2008, 09:07 PM
I would say that the Teffelin is a prime example of Judaism missing the intent of Torah. They are more concerned with an outward appearance that inward. Even the Tallit, while a fun practice, is not grounded in Scipture. Now, you cannot fault them for the reasons they started wearing Tallit in the middle ages, however, it is not Scripture. The tzittzit with techelet was too be worn on the clothes, not something you wear to pray during the day. Most prayer shawls do not even even display the techelet.
Thanks for the info. I have never set foot into an Orthodox synagogue. I went only a few times to the Conservative synagogue. The one close to me is Reformed. The Rabbi was probably raised Orthodox and he wore something all the time, but under his regular clothes (when he was younger). I forget what it is called. As for the tefillin, I was taking the Rabbi's class and one day the kids who were studying for Bar Mitzvah came in and one of them gave a demo. So that is the extent of what I know, first hand.
Anyway, Criticizing Jews and their religious practices, even if they seen inconsistent, is useless and there are plenty of examples in Christendom for us to use without fostering more ant-Semitism.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 19th 2008, 10:24 PM
Anyway, Criticizing Jews and their religious practices, even if they seen inconsistent, is useless and there are plenty of examples in Christendom for us to use without fostering more ant-Semitism.Is that what you got from my post? :o Come on, you're completely missing the point. I am able to look at the saints in the Hebrew and the Apostolic scriptures and learn from their victories and their errors. In the same way I can look at those alive now and learn. I do not question the Jews love for YHWH or their reverence or obedience. My point is simple. I believe that God intended the command to be more than a ritual. IMHO it has always been intended as a spiritual command, and yes, I believe they have misinterpretted the individual command. Just as I see many who call themselves Christian who I believe misunderstand things in scripture. Just as i am sure there are many things of which I may not have complete understanding. If you disagree and believe it was the Father's intention that we all bind boxes of scripture to our foreheads then explain why you believe this and we can discuss it. But don't jump into the discussion assuming that you have a clue as to my motivation when you clearly do not. It is quite important in this format that we do not make quick assumptions about others. Nine times out of ten we would be wrong. ;)

God Bless!

Ethnikos
Sep 19th 2008, 10:46 PM
Is that what you got from my post? :o Come on, you're completely missing the point. I am able to look at the saints in the Hebrew and the Apostolic scriptures and learn from their victories and their errors. In the same way I can look at those alive now and learn. I do not question the Jews love for YHWH or their reverence or obedience. My point is simple. I believe that God intended the command to be more than a ritual. IMHO it has always been intended as a spiritual command, and yes, I believe they have misinterpretted the individual command. Just as I see many who call themselves Christian who I believe misunderstand things in scripture. Just as i am sure there are many things of which I may not have complete understanding. If you disagree and believe it was the Father's intention that we all bind boxes of scripture to our foreheads then explain why you believe this and we can discuss it. But don't jump into the discussion assuming that you have a clue as to my motivation when you clearly do not. It is quite important in this format that we do not make quick assumptions about others. Nine times out of ten we would be wrong. ;)
God Bless!
Eminate wrote an informative post about this ritual or whatever you want to call it. It was not something that was done in the time of Jesus. They probably learned it from a teacher in Russia and thought it was a good thing to copy. I do not pretend to understand it but I do respect it and the study involved. As for you, personally, you may be right and I am not trying to say anything about your intention.
What I was saying is this topic about this particular practice should be off limits. Just my opinion. To criticize it is just like what you are saying about my post. I mean would you like that guy in the picture, who looks like he is kneeling, to tell you what he thinks about you saying the word is not in his heart?

SIG
Sep 19th 2008, 11:35 PM
The bottom line is the same for both Jews and Christians: If you believe Jesus is the Messiah, and He lives in you, and you follow His leading, you are saved.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 20th 2008, 12:29 AM
What I was saying is this topic about this particular practice should be off limits. Just my opinion. To criticize it is just like what you are saying about my post. I mean would you like that guy in the picture, who looks like he is kneeling, to tell you what he thinks about you saying the word is not in his heart?This is a discussion. Why would the topic need to be off limits? I am not this man's judge. Firstfruit said he/she did not know what I meant when I spoke of what I believe is a misinterpretation of scripture. The image was merely so FF could see what I was referring to, not to make any judgment on the man in the photo or anyone else who wears them. I would have no trouble with him questioning my faith or my practices. My faith is strong enough to stand up to the scrutiny as I'm sure he might say of his. I apologize if it offended you but it was not my intention to make fun of anyone, but simply to discuss the scriptures FF had put forth and where I believe those scripture are misinterpreted.

God Bless!

Firstfruits
Sep 21st 2008, 10:23 AM
With reagards to the OP, when we are in Christ, does it matter what day we worship God?

Will it affect our relationship with God?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Thanks

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 21st 2008, 10:56 AM
With reagards to the OP, when we are in Christ, does it matter what day we worship God?

Will it affect our relationship with God?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Thanks

Firstfruits Romans 14 is not about which day we "worship God." I think no one argues that we are to worship God everyday so why is this question continually being asked? The issue behind Romans 14:5 is religious fast days. Carefully read and research the passage. Had Paul wanted the principle to apply to the days God "esteems" he could have well communicated that point...but he did not here or in Col 2:16.

todd

Firstfruits
Sep 21st 2008, 11:21 AM
Romans 14 is not about which day we "worship God." I think no one argues that we are to worship God everyday so why is this question continually being asked? The issue behind Romans 14:5 is religious fast days. Carefully read and research the passage. Had Paul wanted the principle to apply to the days God "esteems" he could have well communicated that point...but he did not here or in Col 2:16.

todd

As it is the OP, It is good to remember the point of the thread.

Thanks

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 21st 2008, 11:39 AM
As it is the OP, It is good to remember the point of the thread.

Thanks

Firstfruits Exactly. The OP is not about worship in general it's about '"Is Sunday being the day for christians to go to church and worship according to Scripture (designated and/or exampled) or is it just a man-made tradition? " Romans 14, in it's original context, has nothing to do with why modern majoritive Christianity prefers Sunday as a congregational day of meeting over the Shabbat. If you want to apply the principle of Romans 14:5 to this subject you are free to do so and I am free to disagree that this is in harmony with the passage in context or Scripture in general. todd

Firstfruits
Sep 21st 2008, 11:53 AM
Exactly. The OP is not about worship in general it's about '"Is Sunday being the day for christians to go to church and worship according to Scripture (designated and/or exampled) or is it just a man-made tradition? " Romans 14, in it's original context, has nothing to do with why modern majoritive Christianity prefers Sunday as a congregational day of meeting over the Shabbat. If you want to apply the principle of Romans 14:5 to this subject you are free to do so and I am free to disagree that this is in harmony with the passage in context or Scripture in general. todd

Is worshiping/gathering on the first day of the week according to what the apostles did?

Jn 20:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Then The same day at evening, being The first day of The week, when The doors were shut where The disciples were assembled for fear of The Jews, came Jesus and stood in The midst, and saith unto Them, Peace be unto you.

Acts 20:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 Cor 16:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Thanks

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 21st 2008, 11:59 AM
Is worshiping/gathering on the first day of the week according to what the apostles did?

Jn 20:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Then The same day at evening, being The first day of The week, when The doors were shut where The disciples were assembled for fear of The Jews, came Jesus and stood in The midst, and saith unto Them, Peace be unto you.

Acts 20:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 Cor 16:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Thanks

Firstfruits As a general rule no. We have gone through these passages many times and they have nothing to do with negating something far more sensitive (pun intended ;))then circumcision (which is the most heated point of contention in the Apostles writings). Try to read and study Scripture simply for what it says. todd

Firstfruits
Sep 21st 2008, 12:30 PM
As a general rule no. We have gone through these passages many times and they have nothing to do with negating something far more sensitive (pun intended ;))then circumcision (which is the most heated point of contention in the Apostles writings). Try to read and study Scripture simply for what it says. todd

I do not think that by the disciples gathering upon the first day of the week negated worship on the Sabbath, for as we know Paul taught regularly on the Sabbath, but he also taught upon the first day of the week.

Acts 20:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 Cor 16:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 was also the day when they were to collect their offerings.

Thanks,

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 21st 2008, 12:50 PM
I do not think that by the disciples gathering upon the first day of the week negated worship on the Sabbath, for as we know Paul taught regularly on the Sabbath, but he also taught upon the first day of the week.

Acts 20:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 Cor 16:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 was also the day when they were to collect their offerings.

Thanks,

Firstfruits This had nothing to do with the transference of the early Christian Shabbat (as a congregational worship day) to Sunday. Roman society had two day weekend as do we. When Christians came together for fellowship they spent as much time together as possible. This is the case of the Saturday night mentioned in Acts 20. It was special to have Paul and no one was rushing to get out the door.

I think you are projecting the modern Sunday plate passing "offering" back into Scripture which is describing the gathering (after Shabbat) of assistance for the needy.

todd

Firstfruits
Sep 21st 2008, 01:03 PM
This had nothing to do with the transference of the early Christian Shabbat (as a congregational worship day) to Sunday. Roman society had two day weekend as do we. When Christians came together for fellowship they spent as much time together as possible. This is the case of the Saturday night mentioned in Acts 20. It was special to have Paul and no one was rushing to get out the door.

I think you are projecting the modern Sunday plate passing "offering" back into Scripture which is describing the gathering (after Shabbat) of assistance for the needy.

todd

I do not see their woship on the first day of the week as a transference from the seventh day, is that were this scripture is applied?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Firstfruits

Br. Barnabas
Sep 21st 2008, 01:45 PM
This had nothing to do with the transference of the early Christian Shabbat (as a congregational worship day) to Sunday. Roman society had two day weekend as do we. When Christians came together for fellowship they spent as much time together as possible. This is the case of the Saturday night mentioned in Acts 20. It was special to have Paul and no one was rushing to get out the door.


The Romans did not have a two day weekend. They worked everyday. In fact they thought the Jewish people were very strange because they kept one lazy day, the Sabbath.

We see from the Letters of Pliny the Younger that Christians meet together very early in the morning before they went to work and then went to work and came back together later in the day for more fellowship.

But 1st century Roman society did not have anything that could be considered a "weekend" by our modern standards. Most of the people unless they were very, very, very wealthy worked everyday.

valleybldr
Sep 21st 2008, 01:53 PM
The Romans did not have a two day weekend. They worked everyday. In fact they thought the Jewish people were very strange because they kept one lazy day, the Sabbath. Yes, this is correct. The Romans had special days for their dieties. Sunday was special to the Emporer worship cult. Jews and early Chrsitians kept Shabbat in the Roman world but they did not, as you note, have a clear delination of two "days off" as do we in modern society. todd

Firstfruits
Sep 21st 2008, 02:51 PM
Yes, this is correct. The Romans had special days for their dieties. Sunday was special to the Emporer worship cult. Jews and early Chrsitians kept Shabbat in the Roman world but they did not, as you note, have a clear delination of two "days off" as do we in modern society. todd

How does that apply to the disciples gathering on the first day of the week, and therefore those that followed their doctrine?

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 21st 2008, 03:07 PM
How does that apply to the disciples gathering on the first day of the week, and therefore those that followed their doctrine?

Firstfruits There is no doctrine/teaching of the Apostles about gathering on the first day of the week. "Gather" whenever you'd like. My congregation meets on Shabbat and my small group meets every other Wednesday night. todd

Eaglenester
Sep 21st 2008, 03:10 PM
How does that apply to the disciples gathering on the first day of the week, and therefore those that followed their doctrine?

Firstfruits

Because Scripture - in CONTEXT of GREEK language does NOT support that.
But you refuse to see or accept that and hang on to your traditions.

Marc B
Sep 21st 2008, 03:11 PM
Wednesday nights?! You heathen. :lol:
Just kidding.

Mograce2U
Sep 21st 2008, 03:32 PM
Because Scripture - in CONTEXT of GREEK language does NOT support that.
But you refuse to see or accept that and hang on to your traditions.And now 13 pages later we see that is the case and that it doesn't matter at all as long as our gathering is UNTO THE LORD!

petepet
Sep 21st 2008, 03:33 PM
Because Scripture - in CONTEXT of GREEK language does NOT support that.
But you refuse to see or accept that and hang on to your traditions.


Sorry Eaglenester. You clearly do not know Greek. It is you who refuse to accept the Greek because you want to hang on to YOUR traditions.

Best wishes

Eaglenester
Sep 21st 2008, 03:46 PM
The Greek of Acts 20 shows they gathered on the Sabbath and NOT Sunday.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 21st 2008, 05:24 PM
Okay, now let's cool it! We spend way too much time focusing on the things that make us different and don't give nearly enough attention to what we have in common. Because we choose to gather on different days should not divide us. The existence of divisions and strife only shows a lack of spiritual maturity. :rolleyes:

1 Corinthians 3:1-3
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?

So, let's grow up! Please!

SIG
Sep 21st 2008, 05:28 PM
I think I'll base my beliefs on whoever wins the poll.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 21st 2008, 05:47 PM
I think I'll base my beliefs on whoever wins the poll.I know this comment is tongue-in-cheek but we really need to move beyond competition. We are all different and that's okay. We each have purpose in our own way and we do not need to conform to anyone but Yeshua and Him alone. If we were all carbon copies, how boring would that be? Let's rejoice in our diversity! :)

God Bless!

Eaglenester
Sep 21st 2008, 06:05 PM
I don't say it's wrong to gather on Sundays - I just say that the faction of christianity that says we should gather on Sundays because that's when the early church gathered is wrong.

If we truly followed Scripture - we'd be meeting every day in each others houses; breaking bread together, fellowshipping, taking our meals with gladness.

What a concept - to bad we don't see this taking place very often.
What a different place the world would be.

UncleDan
Sep 21st 2008, 06:06 PM
Christians traditionally meet together on Sunday because the disciples did. Jesus rose on the first day of the week and appeared to them that evening, and then He appeared to them again the next Sunday (John 20:1-2; 19; 26). His other appearances don't specify the day of the week but because Jesus rose from the dead and chose to appear to them on Sundays, it isn't all that unreasonable that they would make a habit of getting together on that day of the week (Acts 20:7).

But Sunday didn't become the new Sabbath or replace Saturday as the Sabbath day. Many of them continued to witness in the Synagogues on the Sabbath, but they did gather together as the church on the first day of the week. Trying to make Sunday the new Sabbath, and instituting blue laws for Sunday as if it is the Sabbath was a man made tradition.
Excellent Answer!!

Mograce2U
Sep 21st 2008, 06:10 PM
I don't say it's wrong to gather on Sundays - I just say that the faction of christianity that says we should gather on Sundays because that's when the early church gathered is wrong.

If we truly followed Scripture - we'd be meeting every day in each others houses; breaking bread together, fellowshipping, taking our meals with gladness.

What a concept - to bad we don't see this taking place very often.
What a different place the world would be.Let's fire up the BBQ!

Firstfruits
Sep 21st 2008, 06:34 PM
Because Scripture - in CONTEXT of GREEK language does NOT support that.
But you refuse to see or accept that and hang on to your traditions.

Why is the following being taken as tradition, when it is just telling us that the disciples gathered to break bread on the first day of the week?

Jn 20:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Then The same day at evening, being The first day of The week, when The doors were shut where The disciples were assembled for fear of The Jews, came Jesus and stood in The midst, and saith unto Them, Peace be unto you.

Acts 20:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 Cor 16:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

They also worshiped daily, Paul preached on the seventh day and on the first day.

So what therefore is the tradition?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 21st 2008, 06:38 PM
Christians traditionally meet together on Sunday because the disciples did. Jesus rose on the first day of the week and appeared to them that evening, and then He appeared to them again the next Sunday (John 20:1-2; 19; 26). His other appearances don't specify the day of the week but because Jesus rose from the dead and chose to appear to them on Sundays, it isn't all that unreasonable that they would make a habit of getting together on that day of the week (Acts 20:7).

But Sunday didn't become the new Sabbath or replace Saturday as the Sabbath day. Many of them continued to witness in the Synagogues on the Sabbath, but they did gather together as the church on the first day of the week. Trying to make Sunday the new Sabbath, and instituting blue laws for Sunday as if it is the Sabbath was a man made tradition.

I agree with that.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 21st 2008, 06:40 PM
As a general rule no. We have gone through these passages many times and they have nothing to do with negating something far more sensitive (pun intended ;))then circumcision (which is the most heated point of contention in the Apostles writings). Try to read and study Scripture simply for what it says. todd

May I ask what is the general rule that is used?

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 21st 2008, 07:05 PM
May I ask what is the general rule that is used?

Firstfruits
Mat 5:18 "Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud (י ) or a stroke will pass from the Torah — not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." CJB

:bounce:

todd

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 08:59 AM
Mat 5:18 "Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud (י ) or a stroke will pass from the Torah — not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." CJB

:bounce:

todd

According to the following what is it that was to be fulfilled?

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 22nd 2008, 09:12 AM
According to the following what is it that was to be fulfilled?

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Firstfruits The Scripture answers your question. He fulfilled that which was prophecied concerning His first coming. todd

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 09:53 AM
The Scripture answers your question. He fulfilled that which was prophecied concerning His first coming. todd


So with regards to you previous scripture; Mat 5:18 "Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud (י ) or a stroke will pass from the Torah — not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." CJB

According to Jesus he has finished the work he was sent to do; Jn 17:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
The disciples were witnesses to the fulfilment; Lk 24:48 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=48) And ye are witnesses of these things.

Is your general rule therefore fulfilled or is the gospel misleading to say; Gal 5:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law?

Firstfruits

Studyin'2Show
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:19 AM
So with regards to you previous scripture; Mat 5:18 "Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud (י ) or a stroke will pass from the Torah — not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." CJB

According to Jesus he has finished the work he was sent to do; Jn 17:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
The disciples were witnesses to the fulfilment; Lk 24:48 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=48) And ye are witnesses of these things.

Is your general rule therefore fulfilled or is the gospel misleading to say; Gal 5:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law?

FirstfruitsIt has always been my position that Yeshua has fulfilled everything regarding our salvation, but we still look ahead for prophecies to be fulfilled. Yeshua said IT is finished on the cross, not ALL is finished. I believe He was speaking specifically about the work of redemption and not all that is to be fulfilled. ;) Do you believe that ALL prophecies concerning Messiah have been fulfilled?

God Bless!

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 11:25 AM
It has always been my position that Yeshua has fulfilled everything regarding our salvation, but we still look ahead for prophecies to be fulfilled. Yeshua said IT is finished on the cross, not ALL is finished. I believe He was speaking specifically about the work of redemption and not all that is to be fulfilled. ;) Do you believe that ALL prophecies concerning Messiah have been fulfilled?

God Bless!

Not all, but concerning what he said to the disciples yes.

Mat 5:18 "Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud (י ) or a stroke will pass from the Torah — not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." CJB

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Could the disciples teach other than to obey all that is written in the law if that were not so?

Firstfruits

Emanate
Sep 22nd 2008, 01:47 PM
It is true that the NT mentions believers meeting on the first day of the week which began at sundown after Sabbath. It is likewise true that believers in the NT met in the temple daily, and in the synagogues on Sabbath.

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:01 PM
It is true that the NT mentions believers meeting on the first day of the week which began at sundown after Sabbath. It is likewise true that believers in the NT met in the temple daily, and in the synagogues on Sabbath.

If according to the following, those that followed the disciples continued to follow them, would that not therefore continue today?

Acts 2:42 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:05 PM
If according to the following, those that followed the disciples continued to follow them, would that not therefore continue today?

Acts 2:42 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Firstfruits You are taking one specific event and trying to project it into a huge doctrinal shift. If that had happened you would have had plenty of ink spilled trying to calm the consequent tumult. todd

Emanate
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:12 PM
If according to the following, those that followed the disciples continued to follow them, would that not therefore continue today?

Acts 2:42 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Firstfruits

Yes, and thousands of different groups claim to be the ones.

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:36 PM
You are taking one specific event and trying to project it into a huge doctrinal shift. If that had happened you would have had plenty of ink spilled trying to calm the consequent tumult. todd

Can I ask if you believe that the law of the Sabbath still stands and and that what Paul said is not valid?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Are we not free to choose?

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:46 PM
Can I ask if you believe that the law of the Sabbath still stands and and that what Paul said is not valid?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Are we not free to choose?

Firstfruits Again, a passage dealing with religous fast days has nothing, IMO, to do with the Shabbat. todd

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:07 PM
Again, a passage dealing with religous fast days has nothing, IMO, to do with the Shabbat. todd

Does the law of the Sabbath that God gave to Israel still stand, and if so does that mean that those that do otherwise are breaking Gods commandment?

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:11 PM
Does the law of the Sabbath that God gave to Israel still stand, and if so does that mean that those that do otherwise are breaking Gods commandment?

Firstfruits Yes and Yes. todd

Emanate
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:13 PM
Can I ask if you believe that the law of the Sabbath still stands and and that what Paul said is not valid?

Rom 14:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=14&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Are we not free to choose?

Firstfruits


This verse you keep quoting has nothing to do with the issue of the validity of Sabbath. It deals with judging others who do or do not observe Sabbath. The point being that we cannot judge others based upon what they do or do not do. We should be more concerned with our own heart and our own practice, not that of others.

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:22 PM
This verse you keep quoting has nothing to do with the issue of the validity of Sabbath. It deals with judging others who do or do not observe Sabbath. The point being that we cannot judge others based upon what they do or do not do. We should be more concerned with our own heart and our own practice, not that of others.

That is what I believed it meant, so does that mean it does not matter what day we have our rest, or are we breaking Gods commandment by doing otherwise?

" Human traditions are not in and of themselves wrong." todd

Firstfruits

Emanate
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:28 PM
That is what I believed it meant, so does that mean it does not matter what day we have our rest, or are we breaking Gods commandment by doing otherwise?

Firstfruits


I do not see this scripture as addressing the does/does not matter topic. It speaks more of people judging others for doing or not doing as it does not mention Sabbath. On the topic you have mentioned, this verse speaks to the issue of loving one another and having unity.

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:40 PM
I do not see this scripture as addressing the does/does not matter topic. It speaks more of people judging others for doing or not doing as it does not mention Sabbath. On the topic you have mentioned, this verse speaks to the issue of loving one another and having unity.

Concerning the Sabbath is Gods law of the Sabbath still valid and if it is are we breaking Gods Sabbath by doing otherwise?

I am asking about the Sabbath and not the scripture.

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:41 PM
Does the law of the Sabbath that God gave to Israel still stand, and if so does that mean that those that do otherwise are breaking Gods commandment?

Firstfruits

Does the law of "You shall have no other gods before me" that God gave to Israel still stand, if if so does that mean that those that do otherwise are breaking God's commandment?

valleybldr
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:47 PM
That is what I believed it meant, so does that mean it does not matter what day we have our rest, or are we breaking Gods commandment by doing otherwise?

" Human traditions are not in and of themselves wrong." todd

Firstfruits If it didn't matter He would have not picked on specific day. Add to it whatever days you can afford to take off. todd

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:51 PM
Does the law of "You shall have no other gods before me" that God gave to Israel still stand, if if so does that mean that those that do otherwise are breaking God's commandment?

You could ask that of all of Gods Commandments but then you would have to agree that since no one can keep them all we have broken them all.

So which of Gods commandments still stand according to scripture, and can you supply those scriptures, according to the Law of Christ, the new covenant?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:53 PM
Yes and Yes. todd

So what you are saying is that all that are here on this forum or wherever they may be, as long as the do not rest according to Gods law on the Sabbath they are breaking Gods law, and at what cost?

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:02 PM
So what you are saying is that all that are here on this forum or wherever they may be, as long as the do not rest according to Gods law on the Sabbath they are breaking Gods law, and at what cost?

Firstfruits We all "break God's laws" in multiple ways every day. We don't reap whatever blessing would come from doing otherwise.

todd

keck553
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:11 PM
All of God's laws stand. Do you think God changes them to fit Roman day-keeping or some pompous Pope's replacement theology?

We fall short of God's commands, we need to experience our failures so we can rely on the assurance of the atoning work of Yeshua. How can you repent when you don't know you've sinned? Just believing some pastor you're a sinner is not enough. You have to know in your heart you've fallen short, and you have to know in your heart Jesus went through every temptation, trial and tribulation you can possibly experience without sin. You have to know that He alone can approach the Father with your petitiions, that you belong to Him and He treasures you and keeps you as one of His sheep. You have to know that sin is disobedience to God's ordinances, not something made up by men. To use your salvation as a tool to give you free license to do whatever feels good to your soul, I would consider filthy works.

Jesus wants to give us life, abundant life, here and right now. The problem is people have been falsely taught that obedience in response to His free gift is a yoke.

What you have to remember is that God's character doesn't change. Even in Sinai, the people of Israel were already free from Egypt when they accepted God's Torah. They made it into a yoke because of their heart condition, just as an unbeliver sees the teachings of Yeshua as a yoke because of their heart condition.

Living the way God said is not a yoke. So what if we don't do it as perfect as Jesus? Can we do ANYTHING as well as He did? Jesus told the pharisees they shut the Kingodm of Heaven up to even those who were trying. Are we to shut the Kingdom of Heaven up to those who are now trying? Do we not have the basic grace and mercy Jesus told the pharisees they should have?

We are an imperfect people trying to follow a perfect God. Because we fall short, are we to stop altogether and regress into paganism, and say "Oh well, we're covered"?

Understand that Yeshua is our teacher, and He convicts us into the way of the LORD with His Spirit. To oppose His teaching is sin. He taught us the real intent of Shabbat in His Word, and He put that in my heart. Am I to follow men's traditions or God?

Emanate
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:12 PM
Concerning the Sabbath is Gods law of the Sabbath still valid and if it is are we breaking Gods Sabbath by doing otherwise?

I am asking about the Sabbath and not the scripture.

Firstfruits


I suppose that all depends on what God meant by "eternal". Is there any security in eternity when spoken by God?

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 05:34 PM
We all "break God's laws" in multiple ways every day. We don't reap whatever blessing would come from doing otherwise.

todd

What blessing is there from keeping the Sabbath according to Gods commandment/word/scripture?

Firstfruits

Studyin'2Show
Sep 22nd 2008, 05:45 PM
Not all, but concerning what he said to the disciples yes.

Mat 5:18 "Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud (י ) or a stroke will pass from the Torah — not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." CJB

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Could the disciples teach other than to obey all that is written in the law if that were not so?

FirstfruitsI asked in my last post if you feel all prophecy concerning Yeshua has been fulfilled, do you? What in either passage says that ALL is limited to the redemptive work of Messiah? My short answer is nothing. To say that it is limited to the cross is reading in what simply is not there. ;)

God Bless!

valleybldr
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:33 PM
What blessing is there from keeping the Sabbath according to Gods commandment/word/scripture?

FirstfruitsRest is the obvious answer but try taking God at his word and experience it for yourself. Then you can make the list yourself. todd

Firstfruits
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:42 PM
I asked in my last post if you feel all prophecy concerning Yeshua has been fulfilled, do you? What in either passage says that ALL is limited to the redemptive work of Messiah? My short answer is nothing. To say that it is limited to the cross is reading in what simply is not there. ;)

God Bless!

I did answer your question, in the first sentence, by saying "Not all"

If we look at what Jesus commanded the disciples to preach concerning himself then it was about the redemptive work of Messiah, this is what he meant when he said; Jn 17:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

If in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, then Jew and Gentile must be able to be one, if however that which separated Jew and Gentile still stands then Christs work is not complete, the plan of salvation where we are all one body is incomplete.

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 22nd 2008, 08:56 PM
What blessing is there from keeping the Sabbath according to Gods commandment/word/scripture?

Firstfruits

I'm afraid this would be like trying to describe color to a blind person.

No offense, but I can't find it in human language to describle the fullness of our LORD.

All I can say is for you to earnestly pray about it, and then try it. After not much time, God will free you from the yoke you thought it was and the colors I can't explain will be revealed to you. I totally understand your thoughts on this. I felt exactly the same way before God freed the yoke of my slavery to men's traditions and the worlds ways. God wants you to have more than you can possibly imagine. It's a special time for Him to give you more than you think you already have. I can't explain further than to forget about all the human reasoning and just trust what God says. Shabbat (the 7th day) was made for you. That means He's got something awesome for you. But don't take my word for it.

Trust Him.

Studyin'2Show
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:45 PM
I did answer your question, in the first sentence, by saying "Not all"

If we look at what Jesus commanded the disciples to preach concerning himself then it was about the redemptive work of Messiah, this is what he meant when he said; Jn 17:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

If in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, then Jew and Gentile must be able to be one, if however that which separated Jew and Gentile still stands then Christs work is not complete, the plan of salvation where we are all one body is incomplete.

FirstfruitsOf course they were to preach that the redemptive work has been finished. But that is not what Yeshua said when referring to a jot or a tittle being changed until ALL had been fulfilled! He did not say until the redemptive work has been finished! He did not say until the work which thou gavest me is finished! He DID say until ALL that has been written of Me is finished. THAT has not yet happened, wouldn't you agree? :hmm: You yourself have agreed that ALL that has been written of Messiah has not yet been fulfilled.

God Bless!

Vhayes
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:27 AM
Of course they were to preach that the redemptive work has been finished. But that is not what Yeshua said when referring to a jot or a tittle being changed until ALL had been fulfilled! He did not say until the redemptive work has been finished! He did not say until the work which thou gavest me is finished! He DID say until ALL that has been written of Me is finished. THAT has not yet happened, wouldn't you agree? :hmm: You yourself have agreed that ALL that has been written of Messiah has not yet been fulfilled.

God Bless!
Then using that same argument, not a jot or a tittle has been changed and we are still under the entire law, every jot and tittle. Right?

Studyin'2Show
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:30 AM
Then using that same argument, not a jot or a tittle has been changed and we are still under the entire law, every jot and tittle. Right?You say the law has been changed, right? I say it has been written in my heart, as Jeremiah prophesied. Every jot and tittle in my heart. No longer is it about a requirement. Now it is simply about my desire (heart) to walk in the righteousness Yeshua died to impart me with. :pp

God Bless!

Mograce2U
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:23 AM
I'm afraid this would be like trying to describe color to a blind person.

No offense, but I can't find it in human language to describle the fullness of our LORD.

All I can say is for you to earnestly pray about it, and then try it. After not much time, God will free you from the yoke you thought it was and the colors I can't explain will be revealed to you. I totally understand your thoughts on this. I felt exactly the same way before God freed the yoke of my slavery to men's traditions and the worlds ways. God wants you to have more than you can possibly imagine. It's a special time for Him to give you more than you think you already have. I can't explain further than to forget about all the human reasoning and just trust what God says. Shabbat (the 7th day) was made for you. That means He's got something awesome for you. But don't take my word for it.

Trust Him.And exactly how is this to be done to find this blessing? I'm asking.

SIG
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:15 AM
You could ask that of all of Gods Commandments but then you would have to agree that since no one can keep them all we have broken them all.

So which of Gods commandments still stand according to scripture, and can you supply those scriptures, according to the Law of Christ, the new covenant?

Firstfruits

Rom 13:8 ¶ Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

Rom 13:11 ¶ And that, knowing the time, that now [it is] high time to awake out of sleep: for now [is] our salvation nearer than when we believed.

Firstfruits
Sep 23rd 2008, 08:50 AM
I'm afraid this would be like trying to describe color to a blind person.

No offense, but I can't find it in human language to describle the fullness of our LORD.

All I can say is for you to earnestly pray about it, and then try it. After not much time, God will free you from the yoke you thought it was and the colors I can't explain will be revealed to you. I totally understand your thoughts on this. I felt exactly the same way before God freed the yoke of my slavery to men's traditions and the worlds ways. God wants you to have more than you can possibly imagine. It's a special time for Him to give you more than you think you already have. I can't explain further than to forget about all the human reasoning and just trust what God says. Shabbat (the 7th day) was made for you. That means He's got something awesome for you. But don't take my word for it.

Trust Him.

Is it not a day of rest and refreshment for the flesh/body?

Is there only one day that our flesh/bodies can rest and be refreshed and be thankful to God?

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 23rd 2008, 09:25 AM
Hope to read this overview as time allows. Thought it might help as background for the discussion.

todd

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SABBATH VS. SUNDAY: THE REST OF THE STORY
'Deception': Christians war over worship day
Centuries-old clash continues over disputed commandment
By Joe Kovacs
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57978

Firstfruits
Sep 23rd 2008, 10:46 AM
Hope to read this overview as time allows. Thought it might help as background for the discussion.

todd

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SABBATH VS. SUNDAY: THE REST OF THE STORY
'Deception': Christians war over worship day
Centuries-old clash continues over disputed commandment
By Joe Kovacs
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57978

There is no dispute as to the Sabbath being on the seventh day. What I would like to know is whether or not the disciples were wrong to gather upon the first day of the week, which according to the site is Sunday. They did not call it the Sabbath, but they did gather to break bread and fellowship together. So were they wrong?

Are we wrong to follow their example? If so why?

Thanks

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 23rd 2008, 11:49 AM
There is no dispute as to the Sabbath being on the seventh day. What I would like to know is whether or not the disciples were wrong to gather upon the first day of the week, which according to the site is Sunday. They did not call it the Sabbath, but they did gather to break bread and fellowship together. So were they wrong?

Are we wrong to follow their example? If so why?

Thanks

Firstfruits No, they were not wrong to assemble and break bread on any day. If you want to meet with friends and break bread on Sunday by all means do so. todd

Firstfruits
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:06 PM
Of course they were to preach that the redemptive work has been finished. But that is not what Yeshua said when referring to a jot or a tittle being changed until ALL had been fulfilled! He did not say until the redemptive work has been finished! He did not say until the work which thou gavest me is finished! He DID say until ALL that has been written of Me is finished. THAT has not yet happened, wouldn't you agree? :hmm: You yourself have agreed that ALL that has been written of Messiah has not yet been fulfilled.

God Bless!

If you look at it that way then we would have to agree that since nothing has changed in the law and we cannot teach men not to keep it, that we are still under the law of Moses, this would then also mean that the wall that divided Jews and Gentiles still stands and we therefore cannot be one until that is fulfilled.

My question now is, are we still under the law of Moses?

Firstfruits

valleybldr
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:13 PM
My question now is, are we still under the law of Moses?

Firstfruits And my question still is, what do you mean by "under?" We are going to disagree on that one so maybe we should let the bruised and battered horse alone for a while?

shalom,

todd

Ta-An
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:17 PM
Firstfruits, When , Why, By whom, was Sunday worship instituted?? :hmm:

Ta-An
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:35 PM
My question now is, are we still under the law of Moses?

Firstfruits,Romans 6:15 says : we are not under the law, but under grace..... now you have become a servant of righteousness :idea:

So now my question to you is: "What does it mean to be a servant of righteousness?" :hmm:

Does a servant have to obey his Master??
What does it mean to obey? What does he have to obey?
When there are rules to obey, does that not imply that there is some kind of a law?? yet it is G_d's law.... how much does His law differ from Moses's law??
Is there not a lot of overlapping of these laws??

What changed?
We now have a different set of house rules...
The law of Moses taught us that we are in desperate need of a Saviour.... now we have one, now we have to obey His rules (law) This law is written on your hearts.... and here they are : http://shalach.org/BibleSearch/NTCommandments.htm

It is like this: We were under the law of Mr. Law, but now we are married to the Saviour Mr.Grace.... now we walk in obedience to his rules...

Firstfruits
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:50 PM
Firstfruits, When , Why, By whom, was Sunday worship instituted?? :hmm:

I did not say it was instituted, but it is written that the disciples gathered to break bread and fellowship on the first day of the week, along with those that followed them.

So my question is, were the apostles wrong to do so?

Thanks

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:54 PM
You say the law has been changed, right? I say it has been written in my heart, as Jeremiah prophesied. Every jot and tittle in my heart. No longer is it about a requirement. Now it is simply about my desire (heart) to walk in the righteousness Yeshua died to impart me with. :pp

God Bless!

But does every jot and tittle that is in the law still stand, if so then we must still be under the law whichever way you look at it, whether it is in your heart or not.

Thanks

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:57 PM
Rom 13:8 ¶ Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

Rom 13:11 ¶ And that, knowing the time, that now [it is] high time to awake out of sleep: for now [is] our salvation nearer than when we believed.

Is that the same as every jot and tittle, meaning that the law of Moses still stands?

Firstfruits

Studyin'2Show
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:02 PM
But does every jot and tittle that is in the law still stand, if so then we must still be under the law whichever way you look at it, whether it is in your heart or not.

Thanks

FirstfruitsI don't know what has been written in your heart. I only know what desires He has written on mine. I think it's best if we, as believers, stop trying to compare ourselves to each other. That's what the enemy wants us to do; be in competition with that 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude. The kingdom of heaven is not about competing with one another. I encourage you to study God's word diligently and follow as His Spirit leads you, as I would hope you would encourage me with the same. :)

God Bless!

Firstfruits
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:24 PM
I don't know what has been written in your heart. I only know what desires He has written on mine. I think it's best if we, as believers, stop trying to compare ourselves to each other. That's what the enemy wants us to do; be in competition with that 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude. The kingdom of heaven is not about competing with one another. I encourage you to study God's word diligently and follow as His Spirit leads you, as I would hope you would encourage me with the same. :)

God Bless!

If all is not fulfilled then it must be every jot and tittle of the Mosaic law that is in your heart.

Firstfruits

Ta-An
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:25 PM
I did not say it was instituted, but it is written that the disciples gathered to break bread and fellowship on the first day of the week, along with those that followed them.

So my question is, were the apostles wrong to do so?

Thanks

Firstfruits I have two different calenders..... on one the Sunday is the first day of the week, on the other one Sunday is the 7th day of the week..:o

Sabbath is still the 7th day of the week :idea:

So when they were breaking bread, on the first day after the Sabbath, it was dark already, the doors were closed ,, thus it was the next day already according to Jewish tradition...




I have to run, but I'll be back later :idea:

Ta-An
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:26 PM
I did not say it was instituted, but it is written that the disciples gathered to break bread and fellowship on the first day of the week, along with those that followed them.

So my question is, were the apostles wrong to do so?

Thanks

FirstfruitsDid they not break bread every day??

Firstfruits
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:32 PM
I have two different calenders..... on one the Sunday is the first day of the week, on the other one Sunday is the 7th day of the week..:o

Sabbath is still the 7th day of the week :idea:

So when they were breaking bread, on the first day after the Sabbath, it was dark already, the doors were closed ,, thus it was the next day already according to Jewish tradition...




I have to run, but I'll be back later :idea:

So according to Jewish tradition, by the apostles gathering to break bread on the first day of the week, the day after the Sabbath, were they wrong to do so?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:38 PM
Did they not break bread every day??

Jn 20:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Then The same day at evening, being The first day of The week, when The doors were shut where The disciples were assembled for fear of The Jews, came Jesus and stood in The midst, and saith unto Them, Peace be unto you.

Acts 20:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Does that answer your question?

Firstfruits

Emanate
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:03 PM
So according to Jewish tradition, by the apostles gathering to break bread on the first day of the week, the day after the Sabbath, were they wrong to do so?

Firstfruits

No, it was not uncommon in Judaism. The New Testament is clear that believers were in the synagogue on Sabbath. Therefore, after Sabbath they came together to break bread and fellowship with one another. Paul did not preach into the night after starting preaching 'sunday' afternoon. It was because the first day began 'saturday' evening. Fact: The believers in Messiah met on the first day. Fact: The believers in Messiah observed Sabbath (according to Acts).