For all eternity - "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before God to Worship"

[Kenny'sID]

No, I'm wanting to hear you teach it. Or Bob R.

You guys are asserting commands, so please teach us about the shadow and reality of Sabbath.

LOL. your bag, or something you personally feels needs teaching, so you teach it. I'll take a look at what you teach if you like but otherwise...no.

 

[W2L]

Colossians 2 to refers to annual holy days in Lev 23 - observed only in animal-sacrifice - pointing forward to Christ.

And it also speaks about "making stuff up" in form of "Commandments of men" and "self mad religion"

No bob, the shadow is not "making stuff up", it wouldn't be a shadow if that were so. Paul uses the word shadow when referring to the Levitical law of God. Sabbath was called a shadow in Col 2, and Christ is the reality. That's what Col says. So Paul must be saying Sabbath, like the sin atonement laws and priesthood, is fulfilled in Christ, otherwise why call it a shadow?

 

[W2L]

LOL. your bag, or something you personally feels needs teaching, so you teach it. I'll take a look at what you teach if you like but otherwise...no.

So just come in, poke fun at us by asking us to define "command", and then add nothing useful.

 

[ScottA]

You are "quoting you" -- are we supposed to take "you" as our source text??

No "quotes" here:

The words are in parable:

Sabbath, meaning Heaven/kingdom...and New Moon, meaning the time of Satan's reign upon the Earth. The words define the parameters of God's judgement from both sides, from God's side, and from the side of the world.

Just as one might accurately say from 11:59am to 11:59am, or 12:01pm to 12:01pm, to describe a time period between noon of one day to noon of the next day...it is the same thing.

...just a proclamation and clarification.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So just come in, poke fun at us by asking us to define "command", and then add nothing useful.

Poke fun? Evidently I wasn't as serious as you would prefer in making my point, but I wouldn't take it so badly, that is unless you feel you need to make random and fairly baseless strikes at those who disagree with you because you have no other defense for your end of this?

On bringing nothing useful, I thought I did, but I already covered possible reasoning for such comments.

Seems to me it would have been a lot less difficult as in what is happening now, to simply make your case and see how it goes.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Poke fun? Evidently I wasn't as serious as you would prefer in making my point, but I wouldn't take it so badly, that is unless you feel you need to make random and fairly baseless strikes at those who disagree with you because you have no other defense for your end of this?

On bringing nothing useful, I thought I did, but I already covered possible reasoning for such comments.

Seems to me it would have been a lot less difficult as in what is happening now, to simply make your case and see how it goes.

I think he was right, and you just proved it. I could be wrong, but it has happened frequently on this forum, just like this.

 

[BobRyan]

No "quotes" here:
...just a proclamation and clarification.

Which is what I mean - you merely give us the "word of Scott" which is fine if we want to make "Scott" our source.

 

[BobRyan]

So just come in, poke fun at us by asking us to define "command", .

Speaking of which
How do you read Mark 7:6-13??

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Speaking of which
How do you read Mark 7:6-13??

Why ask him in particular ?
Answer if you want to. Otherwise no worries.

(I believe he is well able to speak for himself, and has done so very graciously with strength and faith in Y'SHUA even when various 'faiths' try to attack him or provoke him with various BIBLE verses or church doctrines they think they know and apparently they think that that makes it okay to defend their actions and words against him.) (and likewise against others who are not in their group)

 

[BobRyan]

Hello Bob.

I was wondering how you read the following ancient letter.

Epistle of Barnabus

Written sometime after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and before the Bar Kochba revolt in 132 AD.

1. A forgery created around 135 A.D.
2. Not the Bible
3. Paul warned about this very thing in 2Thess 2:1-5
4. A number of pro-Sunday scholars all admit to these points



Neander speaks as follows:


"The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers are, alas! come down to us, for the most part, in a very uncertain condition; partly, because in early times writings were counterfeited, under the name of these venerable men of the church, in order to propagate certain opinions or principles; partly, because those writings which they had really published were adulterated, and especially so to serve a Judao-hierarchical party, which would fain crush the free evangelical spirit. We should here, in the first place, have to name Bamabas, the well known fellow traveler of St. Paul, if a letter, which was first known in the second century, in the Alexandrian church, under his name, and which bore the inscription of a Catholic epistle, was really his composition. But it is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabis who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul, and had received his name from the power of his animated discourses in the churches. We find, also, nothing to induce us to believe the author of the Epistle was desirous of being considered Barnabas. But since its spirit and its mode of conception corresponded to the Alexandrian taste, it may have happened, that as the author's name was unknown, and persons were desirous of giving it authority, a report was spread abroad in Alexandria, that Barnabas was the author." (History of the Christian Church of the First Three Centuries, pp. 407, 408, Rose's Trans.)


Mosheim says:

"The Epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew, who most probably lived in this [the second] century, and whose mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show, notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must have been a very different person from the true Barnabas who was St. Paul's companion." (Church History, Vol. 1, p. 113, Maclaine's Trans.)

Also from the same author:

"For what is suggested by some of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself. Several of the opinions and interpretations of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little, either of truth, or dignity, or force, as to render it impossible that they ever could have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely inspired." (Historical Commentaries, Century 2, See. 53.)



Eusebius says:
"Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles." (Church History, Book III., chap. 25, Sec. 4. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I., p. 156.



Prof. Hackett says:

"The letter still extant, which was known as that of Bamabas, even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine. (Commentary on Acts, p. 251.)



Millner says:

"Of the Apostle Barnabas, nothing is known, except what is recorded in the Acts. There we have an honorable enconium of his character, and a particular description of his joint labors with St. Paul. It is a great injury to him, to apprehend the Epistle which goes by his name to be his." (Vol. I., p. 126, Church History. Boston, 1809.)



Kitto says:

"The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century." (Cyclopedia Biblical Literature, article Lord's-day.)

Sir William Domville, after an exhaustive examination of the whole question, concludes as follows:


"But the Epistle was not written by Bamabas; it is not merely "unworthy of him," it would be a disgrace to him, and, what is of much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion, as being the production of one of the authorized teachers of that religion in the time of the apostles, which circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine origin." (An Examination of the Six Texts, p. 233.)


Prof. W.D. Killen, a prominent representative of the Presbyterian church in Ireland, bears testimony as follows:

"The tract known as the "Epistle of Barnabas" was probably composed in A.D. 135. It is the production, apparently, of a convert from Judaism, who took special pleasure in allegorical interpretation of Scripture." (History of the Ancient Church, p. 367. New York, 1859. See also The Old Catholic Church, pp. 8, 13. T. & T. Clark, 1871.)


Rev. Lyman Coleman says:

"The Epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful conceits; and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority. Neander supposes it to have originated in the Alexandrian school; but at what particular time he does not define. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified. chap. 2, sec. 2, p. 47. Philadelphia, 1852.)



Dr. Schaff rejects the theory that the Epistle is genuine, and says:

"The author was probably a converted Jew from Alexandria (perhaps by the name Barnabas, which would easily explain the confusion), to judge from his familiarity with Jewish literature, and, apparently, with Philo, and his allegorical method in handling the Old Testament. In Egypt his Epistle was first known and most esteemed, and the Sinaitic Bible which contains it was probably written in Alexandria or Caesarea in Palestine. The readers were chiefly Jewish Christians in Egypt, and the East, who overestimated the Mosaic traditions and ceremonies." (History Christian Church, Vol. II., p. 677. New York, 1883.)


The Encyclopedia of Religious knowledge (article Barnabas' Epistle), speaking of Barnabas the companion of Paul, says:

"He could not be the author of a work so full of forced allegories, extravagant and unwarrantable explications of Scripture, together with stories concerning beasts, and such like conceits, as make up the first part of this Epistle."

 

[BobRyan]

So just come in, poke fun at us by asking us to define "command", .

Speaking of which
How do you read Mark 7:6-13??

Why ask him in particular ?
Answer if you want to. Otherwise no worries.

(I believe he is well able to speak for himself, and has done so very graciously

W2L brings up the question about "Command" and why we might be interested in a Command from God - as if to reference it is to "poke fun" or make light of something.

So then it raises the question - how is it that Christ brings up this very topic to Jewish leadership and the point is to read the text and show that either Christ is making a good point - or point out a flaw or some reason we should not all go and do as Christ did.

This is not - attack, or provoke. It is scripture. It is the teaching of Christ with almost no text at all from "me" in that short post.

 

[ScottA]

Which is what I mean - you merely give us the "word of Scott" which is fine if we want to make "Scott" our source.

I claim nothing, it is not I who am the source of what I told you. It is not I who speak, but the Holy Spirit. Believe what you will.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This is not - attack, or provoke. It is scripture. It is the teaching of Christ with almost no text at all from "me" in that short post.

Yes, I agree you did not attack nor provoke nor post unseemly to a brother. I did not expect you had any such motive, and wanted to verify this. (in line with all your other posts basically - nothing unseemly seen nor expected)

I thank you for posting the reason for asking him, for clarity as I didn't see all that and didn't want to presume to 'guess'.

 

[W2L]

Speaking of which
How do you read Mark 7:6-13??

Its a scripture you take out of context, and use it to judge people with

 

[W2L]

Yes, I agree you did not attack nor provoke nor post unseemly to a brother. I did not expect you had any such motive, and wanted to verify this. (in line with all your other posts basically - nothing unseemly seen nor expected)

I thank you for posting the reason for asking him, for clarity as I didn't see all that and didn't want to presume to 'guess'.

I never said bob attacked anyone.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I never said bob attacked anyone.

I don't know that anyone ever said you did. The point was that his motive was not ever seen by me to be an attack on you nor on anyone else (it was not in him to attack another)
and basically all together , all the way round for all of us, was for edification or exhortation or encouraging and learning (so awkward on this forum) peaceably .
This is because of and in contrast to some other posters who have not been so peaceable or who did not seem to have agreeable motives whether only in appearance or in reality.

 

[W2L]

I don't know that anyone ever said you did. The point was that his motive was not ever seen by me to be an attack on you nor on anyone else (it was not in him to attack another)
and basically all together , all the way round for all of us, was for edification or exhortation or encouraging and learning (so awkward on this forum) peaceably .
This is because of and in contrast to some other posters who have not been so peaceable or who did not seem to have agreeable motives whether only in appearance or in reality.

I wasn't sure what was being said, I just wanted that said for the record.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I wasn't sure what was being said, I just wanted that said for the record.

Likewise, actually(for several of these recent posts) ! It's going PLATINUM !


(or , rather, words like gold, yea like much fine gold, sweeter also than the honeycomb ! )

 

[Jezmeyah]

Then use the information to address the 5 points in the OP or do you just agree with them -- with no comment?

I have chosen to address what I am inclined to address. As I observed from you ignoring portions of my posted reply to you, I reserve the right not to comment on your every point.

BobRyan previous post - 5. And of course while the "new moon" is a physical "event" that takes place on a cycle - God's Holy "Sabbath" is a "practice" a "convention" and "observance" not a physical cycle in the heavens - so to worship "from Sabbath to Sabbath" would require that "convention" to still exist. (unquote)

You contradict yourself. You say that it is a physical event cycle, then you say that it isn't. But, I would ask in what way do you observe it, or propose that every Christian observe it? Do we strictly observe exactly as the Jewish do?.. and if not, why not? How can our chosing what and how to observe in difference to them be right?

Which brings me to this.. why is it? that the new testament difference in observance practiced by both Messianic Jews (such as the disciples - apostles of the LORD who wrote the new testament) and Gentile Christians clearly allow for what days are acceptable to worship God. Which is not only Saturday, but Sunday. (this part that I addressed you chose to ignore, so I gladly bring it up again).

My previous post - The observance is regarding the Millenium, with the heavenly Jerusalem being (visibly) above the earthly Jerusalem. That heavenly Jerusalem consisting of the glorified saints who will constantly stand before God in worship and service to Him.

In Revelation 20 and 21 that happens after the 1000 years - after the millennium is over.

What verses do you base that on? Rev.20:4-6 states that the Tribulation saints resurrected do reign with Christ for 1000 years. Do you consider that reigning does not include worshipping God during that time?

The point is that it is certainly after the cross and it is certainly for all eternity and it is certainly all mankind in complete harmony, in complete unity of worship to the One True God.
And that only happens after the 1000 years have ended.

The Rev.20:4-6 verse shows that you are mistaken.

My previous post - The people still of flesh bodies will by contrast be active with daily life and required to attend the restored and glorious earthly Temple building and see the visible glorified LORD Jesus Christ sitting on his earthly throne and worship Him on the appointed day from New Moon to New Moon which refers to a particular yearly Jewish Feast Day,..

1. New moons happen every month - there is no "yearly new moon" in Leviticus 23.

Read the Leviticus text again. Levit.23:2 speaks of appointed times (moeds) which all are only observed once a year. Such holy convocations take a full week (vs 6) to properly observe., such as Passover.

And is quite different than your assumption in thinking that it's talking about a monthly new moon.
I was referring to the Jewish Feast of Rosh Hashanah which involves the new moon which signals the start of the Observance.. which happens every year, it is the start of their new year.

2. There is nothing in Isaiah 66 or Rev 20-21 about 'still have flesh bodies - or don't still have them".

Clearly Isaiah 65:20 speaks of the people who bear children, and live extended lengths of years and dying, which indicates that they are still in flesh bodies.

Previous post - "Rosh HaShanah" is the commemoration of the creation of Adam, and the observance of those risen from the dead, which also by extension, refers to the rapture and moment of glorification of the saints.

Rosh HaShanah is the feast of trumpets - 10 days of awe just before the great Day of Atonement - nothing of that sort going on in Isaiah 66 New Earth or in Rev 20 or Revelation 21.

Isaiah 66 or Rev 20-21 are not the only verses of scripture that speak of future events.

My previous post - And also the command is that all people attend from week to week.

From "Sabbath to Sabbath" - because it is a day of holy convocation.

So there is God's own Genesis 1-2:3 weekly cycle with His own "Holy Day of the LORD" Isaiah 58:13 day which is a "day of holy convocation" Leviticus 23:2-4.

The word 'sabbath', and the word 'week' are both derived from the same Jewish root word as the word 'seven'. So there is nothing wrong with the interchange of the two words.

And there is also the monthly cycle with a day of holy convocation - from new moon to new moon.

I have stated that it is not talking about the common monthly new moon. But rather referring to the very significant yearly new moon.

All the other "details" you mention are logistics none-too-big for God - and not at all in the texts.

What 'texts' do you refer to? But in any case, in a discussion one is free to post whatever they are inclined to address pertaining to the topic.. regardless of a dismissal on the basis of not being found in any unspecified text. (The dismissal that occurs because it addresses the matter of Sunday worship).

My previous post - There is a question of exactly how that is going to be worked out.. concerning everyone from all points of the world flocking to Jerusalem every week to attend at the Temple in one 24 hour day, or perhaps it will be allowed that attendance be done at one's local community church building with satellite live hook up to Jerusalem.
By commanding attendance on Saturday (the Sabbath day of rest), I don't see there that it automatically forbids the attendance at the Temple on a Sunday, particularly when the first day of the week - Sunday, is the day that Jesus arose from the dead, and also the day that the early Christians gathered together to have church services in worship of the risen Savior.
There's also the matter of global time zones which would mean that people would be attending on both Saturday and Sunday anyway.. so a strict observance of just one day out of the week would be impossible.

 

[BobRyan]

Also, define "New heaven and earth"

So then Revelation 21 comes to mind.

Shadow and reality. (col 2) What are they?

Colossians 2 to refers to annual holy days in Lev 23 - observed only in animal-sacrifice - pointing forward to Christ.

And it also speaks about "making stuff up" in form of "Commandments of men" and "self mad religion"

Now for those not inclined to ignore every detail in Colossians 2 - we have

In this following post it is pointed out that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)


In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.