Saturday or Sunday Church?

[SabbathBlessings]

Again another strawman your creating as a diversion from the actual discussion. I never said anything implying that all the laws have been abolished. Paul specifically stated that we don’t have to observe the Sabbath days in Colossians 2:16. You say that doesn’t include the Saturday Sabbath which is a Sabbath day (day of rest). If Paul didn’t intend to include any particular Sabbath days in that statement then he would’ve had to mention that in his statement. Your saying he didn’t mean all Sabbath days but that’s not what he said.

This was previously addressed Saturday or Sunday Church?

 

[Leaf473]

So Gentiles can worship other gods, vain God’s holy name, covet, steal, etc that was not addressed in Acts 15?

Isaiah 56 shows the Sabbath is also the covenant to the Gentiles Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 56 - New King James Version

The apostles kept the Sabbath decades after Jesus ascended back to heaven- why? Paul said keeping the commandments of God is what matters 1 Cor 7:19. The Sabbath is a commandment of God. Amen!

For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
- Acts 13:27

And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
- Acts 13:42

And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
- Acts 13:44

For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
- Acts 15:21

And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
- Acts 16:13

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
- Acts 17:2

And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
- Acts 18:4

No, they addressed all of those things
5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

They looked at the situation and came up with four laws, instead of the entire law of Moses.

Does that mean it was okay for those early gentile Christians to do those things you say? No. But not because of something written in the law of Moses, but rather because the gentiles were to love because Christ loved them, and those things don't fit with loving.

I agree the apostles attended synagogues, often on the sabbath. That is not the same as keeping the Sabbath.

 

[Soyeong]

To me it seems like if the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ that His blood is perfect for the forgiveness of sins when the blood of animals is not so it seems disrespectful to continue killing animals for forgiveness of sins, like His sacrifice was in vain if we still needed the blood of animals for forgiveness.

Why do you consider it to be disrespectful to continue to obey what God has commanded and not disrespectful to stop obeying what God has commanded? The offerings always testified about Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Again, Paul continued to make offerings and planned to pay for the offerings of others, so I don't think that he considered it to be disrespectful to Christ.

This is where we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe the scripture is referring to a literal second temple but a spiritual one.

God's law is spiritual (Romans 7:14) in that it has always been intended to teach us spiritual principles that are aspects of God's nature of which the listed laws are just examples. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier maters of the law justice, mercy, and faithfulness, so these are aspects of God's nature that the law was intended to teach us how to express. God's righteous laws are intended to teach us about a spiritual principle of righteousness that leads us to take physical actions that are examples of that principle even in situation that God's law does not specifically address. If someone thought that they understood the spiritual principle of love, so they no longer needed to take physical actions to express love for their neighbor, then they would be missing the point, so correctly understanding a spiritual principle will never lead us away from taking physical actions that are examples of that principle. A spiritual principle that has no physical expression is fruitless and learning it would not add value to us, so the Bible does not spiritualize things away from having a physical expression.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Why do you consider it to be disrespectful to continue to obey what God has commanded and not disrespectful to stop obeying what God has commanded? The offerings always testified about Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Again, Paul continued to make offerings and planned to pay for the offerings of others, so I don't think that he considered it to be disrespectful to Christ.

I agree we should obey what God has commanded, but the whole point of the sacrificial system in the Old Covenant was for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus in the New Covenant became our perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins when we repent and turn from sin. What is the point of animal sacrifices which made nothing perfect and the blood of animals is not perfect, but the blood of Christ is perfect to cleanse of all sins and all unrighteousness when we repent and turn from sin and walk in obedience. Christ died in vain if His blood was not good enough for the forgiveness of sin.

I will respond to your other section later when I have more time, I need to go for now.

God bless.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, they addressed all of those things
5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

They looked at the situation and came up with four laws, instead of the entire law of Moses.

Does that mean it was okay for those early gentile Christians to do those things you say? No. But not because of something written in the law of Moses, but rather because the gentiles were to love because Christ loved them, and those things don't fit with loving.

I agree the apostles attended synagogues, often on the sabbath. That is not the same as keeping the Sabbath.

I don’t think God wants anyone to worship other gods or lie or steal so I think you might have some misunderstanding about Acts 15.

Prayer, reading God’s Word, preaching God’s Word, going to worship God (temples) reasoning from scriptures are all great examples of keeping the Sabbath commandment.

As usual we agree to disagree. Take care.

 

[Carl Emerson]

In Romans 3:21-22, the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Written Law is through faith in Christ, so that is not a distinction. Sin is acting against God's righteousness, so the living law revealing a Gospel of righteousness by faith also brings conviction of sin.

So does the evidence of God's character through creation.

However what you seem to miss is that the Law of the Spirit is the very voice of the indwelling Christ which is far more precise than the Written Law ever was.

Paul warned against returning to accountability to the written Law and thereby loosing the walk of faith that Jesus paid such a high price that we might walk in it's freedom. In so doing we would attain to a higher level of righteousness because the result is much more than right action, it also includes right attitude.

In Jeremiah 31:31, the New Covenant is only made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel, and while the Covenant is based on better promises and has a superior mediate, it does not involve following better laws, but rather it still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33). Changing the medium upon which God is written from stone to our hearts does not change the content of what it instructs us to do, such as the command to honor our parents has the same content written on stone as it does written on our hearts. While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same Written Law for how to act in accordance with His nature. For example, it was against God's righteousness to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, long before the Mosaic Covenant, during it, it remains sinful after it has become obsolete, and if that were to ever change then God's righteousness would not be eternal. I have never suggested that we should come under the Mosaic Covenant, but have been speaking about the way to live under the New Covenant.

If the New Covenant is only made with the Nation of Israel then the Body of Christ including the Gentiles is non-existant.

Paul contrasted the Written Law with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit of Life with the law of sin and death, so he equated the Law of the Spirit of Life with the Written Law.

This is false logic that you are compelled to construct.

The Law of the Spirit and the Written Law are entirely different.

The New Covenant was made with the spiritual descendants of Abraham the Father of all who have faith, not the Nation of Israel.

Why pull believers back to a Yoke that is unbearable ???

Acts 15

9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

 

[Servus]

Not quite from the beginning and I'm not sure if the error is grievous. A lot of what is taught in the OT is repeated in the NT, so even if someone is doing everything commanded in the NT, then they are doing good, though I think that we are called to more fully follow Christ's example.

When I wrote "practically from the beginning", I was hoping you'd understand that to mean "not quite from the beginning". So are we supposed to be practicing Judaism or not? Because now it sounds like you're saying it's all good and doesn't really matter.

 

[Leaf473]

When the Israelites were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, they were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land...", so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be followed. When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's law, which required them to have access to the temple, which had just been destroyed, so when there are laws that can't be obeyed, we should nevertheless be faithful to obey as much as we can.

God's laws form a fractal pattern that is structurally the same at different scales, such as where the earthly pattern of the temple is based on the dimension of the heavenly pattern. The Levites were priests and had duties like putting God on display, helping people to navigate atonement, interceding on behalf of others, and distributing resource to those in need, though there is also a sense that Israel is a kingdom of priests, so we can still perform those duties at other scales as a nation, as a community, as a family, and as an individual, so we can still follow many of the same principles that the temple was intended to teach us even without the temple, which to some extent is what Jews have continued to do in its absence.

This is what was taught to early believers:

Didache 6:1-3:
Against False Teachers, and Food Offered to Idols. See that no one causes you to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it teaches you. For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able. And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly careful; for it is the service of dead gods.

The wandering in the wilderness was a set time, 40 years. Fairly short.

The Babylonian captivity was 70 years, clearly prophesied.

It's been 1,952 years since the destruction of the Temple and passing of the levitical priesthood. To me, that looks like something way different.

But again, if we take the loosest possible interpretation of any odd or difficult laws, then cool. I think I read something about the Levites giving the meaning of the law. And it looks like we agree that the law works as a whole, take a piece out of it and it doesn't work right anymore.

Then, it's not up to us to try to figure out the right interpretation of a law, how to keep it. What we would do is go ask a Levite. If there's no Levites around, then we have a piece missing from the law.

 

[Leaf473]

The mishpatim are laws in regard to righteousness and justice that straightforwardly make sense why God commanded them that are based on the principle of treating others the way that we want to be treated, which are often found in other cultures. The chukim are laws that don't straightforwardly make sense why God commanded them and no explanation is given for them, such as the laws in regard to red heifer in Numbers 19. These laws invite us to ponder what God is teaching us about His eternal nature through them, and we have no greater opportunity to express our faith than by still obeying what God has commanded even when we don't ultimate discern a reason for why He commanded it. The edot are laws in regard to testimony or remembering a certain event, such as Passover.

Seems like there would be some amount of subjectivity as to what makes obvious sense or not.

What are those different categories in English as commonly translated?

 

[Carl Emerson]

The wandering in the wilderness was a set time, 40 years. Fairly short.

The Babylonian captivity was 70 years, clearly prophesied.

It's been 1,952 years since the destruction of the Temple and passing of the levitical priesthood. To me, that looks like something way different.

But again, if we take the loosest possible interpretation of any odd or difficult laws, then cool. I think I read something about the Levites giving the meaning of the law. And it looks like we agree that the law works as a whole, take a piece out of it and it doesn't work right anymore.

Then, it's not up to us to try to figure out the right interpretation of a law, how to keep it. What we would do is go ask a Levite. If there's no Levites around, then we have a piece missing from the law.

Jesus is our Levite...

He will lead us to keep His Living Law by His Spirit within each one of us.

 

[Soyeong]

When I wrote "practically from the beginning", I was hoping you'd understand that to mean "not quite from the beginning". So are we supposed to be practicing Judaism or not? Because now it sounds like you're saying it's all good and doesn't really matter.

Yes, Christianity is a form of Judaism that we should be practicing. It didn't say that it didn't matter or that it wasn't an error that shouldn't be corrected, but I don't necessarily think that it is a grievous error because there is a lot that is taught by the Torah that many Christians still follow.

 

[Leaf473]

I don’t think God wants anyone to worship other gods or lie or steal so I think you might have some misunderstanding about Acts 15.

Prayer, reading God’s Word, preaching God’s Word, going to worship God (temples) reasoning from scriptures are all great examples of keeping the Sabbath commandment.

As usual we agree to disagree. Take care.

I agree that God doesn't want us to do those things. We avoid them not because they are written in the law of Moses, but because of the living, breathing Spirit within us.

Those things are examples of keeping the sabbath, but you can do all of them and not be keeping the sabbath. I can pray on Saturday and not be keeping the Sabbath according to your interpretation of the scriptures.

 

[Soyeong]

Seems like there would be some amount of subjectivity as to what makes obvious sense or not.

What are those different categories in English as commonly translated?

For example, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, Spirit has the role of leading us to obey what many translations translate as decrees, statutes, judgements, commandments, ordinances, etc., but the Hebrew words used as mishpatim and chukim.

 

[Leaf473]

Jesus is our Levite...

He will lead us to keep His Living Law by His Spirit within each one of us.

True! And now it's the holy spirit that guides us into all truth, who Jesus said he would send when he left.

 

[Leaf473]

For example, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, Spirit has the role of leading us to obey what many translations translate as decrees, statutes, judgements, commandments, ordinances, etc., but the Hebrew words used as mishpatim and chukim.

Which is which? Thanks in advance for the information.

 

[Leaf473]

Heading out for a walk now. Hope to return tomorrow.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s love, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes, Christianity is a form of Judaism that we should be practicing. It didn't say that it didn't matter or that it wasn't an error that shouldn't be corrected, but I don't necessarily think that it is a grievous error because there is a lot that is taught by the Torah that many Christians still follow.

Do we need to be circumcised then ???

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I agree that God doesn't want us to do those things. We avoid them not because they are written in the law of Moses, but because of the living, breathing Spirit within us.

Those things are examples of keeping the sabbath, but you can do all of them and not be keeping the sabbath. I can pray on Saturday and not be keeping the Sabbath according to your interpretation of the scriptures.

The Spirit is not in conflict with God's laws. The spirit that leads you away from God's law is not the spirit we should be following.

The apostles kept the Sabbath commandment and the examples shown in scriptures is all ways of keeping the Sabbath holy.

You could pray and then work on the Sabbath which according to God's interpretation is not keeping the Sabbath holy. Exodus 20:8-11 so in that regard you're correct, but I wasn't talking about you I was quoting the scriptures of the examples the apostles left on Sabbath-keeping.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I said there is nothing in Acts 15 that says the Sabbath commandment is deleted. Circumcision is not one of the Ten Commandments, but the Sabbath is. This has been addressed previously in my posts so no need to go over it again.

Yes that’s when you changed the subject. Here’s your original post that I was replying to.

The New Testament does not delete the Old Testament so whoever taught this to you is leading you down the wrong path. Jesus and the disciples quoted and taught from the Old Testament. God instead of deleting His laws in the New Covenant/New Testament wrote them in our hearts and minds Hebrews 8:10 which of course include the commandments of God and the Sabbath that Jesus and the disciples kept and will continue to be the Lords chosen day of worship for eternity Isaiah 66:22-23.

to which I replied

It does and it happened in Acts 15. That is unless of course you still believe that circumcision of the foreskin is still a requirement for entering into God’s covenant. Or that we still need to offer sin offerings for forgiveness of our sins.

and now your reply where you changed the subject

There is nothing in Acts 15 thats says the Sabbath commandment ended and you are going in circles on scriptures that have been addressed that you have not been responsive to.

And my response

Oh now your going to change the subject, you said the New Testament doesn’t delete the Old Testament. Everyone knows that circumcision was abolished in Acts 15 and Christ’s sacrifice abolished sin offerings. Both of those were deleted.

and now

I said there is nothing in Acts 15 that says the Sabbath commandment is deleted. Circumcision is not one of the Ten Commandments, but the Sabbath is. This has been addressed previously in my posts so no need to go over it again.

That’s not what you originally said when I first mentioned Acts 15 in my reply, that’s what you said when you changed the subject from your original statement that “the New Testament does not delete the Old Testament”.

 

[Servus]

Yes, Christianity is a form of Judaism that we should be practicing. It didn't say that it didn't matter or that it wasn't an error that shouldn't be corrected, but I don't necessarily think that it is a grievous error because there is a lot that is taught by the Torah that many Christians still follow.

Well since Christianity doesn't follow the law the way Judaism does, isn't that a grievous error?