WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[trophy33]

Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN"

And regarding reformed churches, we can check with The Second Helvetic Confession:

SUPERSTITION. In this connection we do not yield to the Jewish observance and to superstitions. For we do not believe that one day is any holier than another, or think that rest in itself is acceptable to God. Moreover, we celebrate the Lord's Day and not the Sabbath as a free observance.

THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Whether you are intentionally doing this or not, this error needs to be corrected.

Lawlessness is, yes, a general term, there is no necessary connection to the Law of Moses - you are reading such a connection in to support your position.

I agree there is an error but I see you have not addressed it.

You stated commandment “thou shalt not covet” is not the law of God, but you never proved this through scripture.

Paul defines what sin is and said he would not know sin and coveting if God‘s law did not say thou shalt not covet Romans 7:7 found in the Ten Commandments Exodus 20:17.

One can certainly be lawless in all sorts of ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Law of Moses. If Jesus had said "I never knew you; depart from me, you who break the Law", then, and only then would you have an argument here.

This is not Romans 7:8, it is Romans 8:7. But, in any event, you are not accounting for the broader context. Yes, if you take this verse out of context, there is a strong implication that those who are not "carnal" are indeed empowered to follow the Law.

But we know, beyond any doubt from Romans 7 that Paul cannot mean this:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Whatever Paul means in Romans 8:7, it cannot be that we are still in any way under the Law.

Although you will likely deny this, a neutral evaluation of Romans 7 and the first part of 8 reveals Paul's thinking: the Law enslaves the Jew - it energizes sinful impulses within him. But later in chapter 7, Paul echoes what he writes in 7:6 about being set free from the Law:

Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [y]the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin

Although you guys always muddle this up, Paul is acknowledging that while the Law itself is good - he delights in it in his mind - it nevertheless enslaves him to sin.

This is beyond clear from the text of Romans 7 but you will almost certainly refuse to take Paul at his word as it undermines your position.

So when we get to Romans 8:7, we know that Paul is reflecting on the state of his contemporaries - Jews who, as he was before conversion, are enslaved to sin by the action of the Law. These Jews are "stuck" in their struggle - they try to obey the Law, but they cannot.

What Paul is saying has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion that believers are somehow empowered to obey the Law. How could he be saying this - he has just told us in Romans 7:6 that we are entirely set free from the Law.

Jesus in His own words said those who practice lawlessness (sin 1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7) will not be in His kingdom. Matthew 7:23

We see the parallel of this at His Second Cowing that those who do (keep) His commandments enter into the gates of Heaven Revelation 22:14 but outside are the lawless Revelation 22:15

The teaching that we are free to be lawless would make the sacrifice of Jesus in vain. If there was no law Jesus would not need to sacrifice Himself for us breaking the law (the wages of sin is death) and if there was no law we would not need grace and if we do need grace for the forgiveness of sin (breaking the law) than we no longer need a Savior so who do you think wants us to believe we do not need to keep God’s law and scripture tells us, its not God but His adversary Revelation 17:12. We should be doing what enrages the devil and not what break’s God’s heart.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

There are more than one Sabbath in the Bible, there is the weekly seventh day Sabbath that started from creation Genesis 2:1-3 and it is God’s holy day that He said in His own words Isaiah 58:13, and the day He commanded us to keep holy Exodus 20:8 as we are made in His image to follow Him, not to do something different. The other sabbath(s) are ordinances, not a commandment, are about food and drink offerings and point to Jesus who became our sacrifice for sins. The Sabbath commandment is part of God’s eternal law Revelation 11:19 and kept through love and faith Revelation 14:12, Romans 3:31 1 John 5:3. If this is what you are saying than we are in agreement.

Ok, no, we are not agreed. All sabbaths, both the 7th day AND the feast day sabbaths were of the same importance. They all NEEDED to be observed. They were all part of God's covenant law given to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai and expected to be followed to the letter. This is exactly why it is such a big deal what Paul was saying in Colossians. Living in Christ frees you from all those sabbath keeping laws - the 7th day and the feast days. All of them. No longer needed or required. All fulfilled. Done. Finished. Complete. End of story.
However....you are free to keep them as a love offering to God. That actually was God's original intent to begin with.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

In Ex 20 it does not say "any day" it says "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD".
In Ex 16 it says "tomorrow IS the Sabbath"
For 40 years -- no manna fell on that exact 7th day.

Where do you get that the weekly Sabbath is a command to pick any day in 7??

I didn't. Please read my comment again.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Ok, no, we are not agreed. All sabbaths, both the 7th day AND the feast day sabbaths were of the same importance. They all NEEDED to be observed. They were all part of God's covenant law given to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai and expected to be followed to the letter. This is exactly why it is such a big deal what Paul was saying in Colossians. Living in Christ frees you from all those sabbath keeping laws - the 7th day and the feast days. All of them. No longer needed or required. All fulfilled. Done. Finished. Complete. End of story.
However....you are free to keep them as a love offering to God. That actually was God's original intent to begin with.

We went through this already, Col 2:14 gives the context to Col 2:15-17 built sadly many choose to ignore these important details.

Yes, the Sabbath is God’s original intent which is why it goes back to us worshipping in His presence every Sabbath for eternity. Sin separated man from God and the saints Revelation 14:12 will be united with Him soon and Sabbath worship will once again be in His presence until then we keep His Sabbath holy through His Spirit.
\

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

We went through this already, Col 2:14 gives the context to Col 2:15-17 built sadly many choose to ignore these important details.

Yes, the Sabbath is God’s original intent which is why it goes back to us worshipping in His presence every Sabbath for eternity. Sin separated man from God and the saints Revelation 14:12 will be united with Him soon and Sabbath worship will once again be in His presence until then we keep His Sabbath holy through His Spirit.
\

Your other comment which I was addressing specifically states: "The other sabbath(s) are ordinances, not a commandment," This is not correct. That's what I addressed.
"And you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever." Exodus 12:17. Pretty much a commandment, I'd say.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Your other comment which I was addressing specifically states: "The other sabbath(s) are ordinances, not a commandment," This is not correct.

Well you haven’t proved that the annual sabbaths are one of the Ten Commandments or a commandment and not an ordinance as the scriptures shows
Post in thread 'WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY'
WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

That's what I addressed.
"And you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever." Exodus 12:17. Pretty much a commandment, I'd say.

Where does it say “commandments”

Not everything is a commandment Neh 9:13……and the annual sabbaths are not in the Ten Commandments, but the weekly Sabbath is, written personally by God. There is a difference and why context matters Col 2:14-17

 

[Leaf473]

Of course He was a Jew. It says "to redeem those under the law"...why would He need to redeem them if it means what you say it means? Redemption from the curse...death.

He would need to redeem the others born under the law because the others, like us, broke the law and thus were under its curse.

Jesus didn't break the law, yet he was still under it. He became under its curse either by being so designated by his father, or because he hung on a tree. Two possibilities.

 

[trophy33]

Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN"

a) evangelical churches do not affirm that
b) reformed churches do not affirm that
c) neither charismatic nor pentecostal churches affirm that
d) Roman churches are special, they morphed it to Sunday, with similar laws and rules - so, kind of, but not in the way you would like
e) baptists in continental Europe do not keep Sabbath; I do not know which baptists adopted the London Baptist Confession, if some branches in England/USA.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Well you haven’t proved that the annual sabbaths are one of the Ten Commandments or a commandment and not an ordinance as the scriptures shows
Post in thread 'WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY'
WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

Where does it say “commandments”

Not everything is a commandment Neh 9:13……and the annual sabbaths are not in the Ten Commandments, but the weekly Sabbath is, written personally by God. There is a difference and why context matters Col 2:14-17

Not one of the 10 commandments? What? How is that of any difference? A command of God is a command.

 

[HIM]

That's interesting, though it may not be a slam dunk.

Did you use an online resource to find those occurrences?

No sir

 

[HIM]

How did you learn this? Were you able to find occurrences of nomia?

I haven't found a good way to search for Greek words in the NT. Because Greek uses declensions, the standard "string search" method won't work.

What I usually do is find an occurrence, and then use Biblehub's interlinear page to find the Strong's number for it.

Like this

1 John 3:4 Interlinear: Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,

But it requires finding at least one instance of it. If you know of a better way, I'm interested ❤️

Here is a Link. I have been running theword on my computer for about 15 years with zero issues. It is free bible software. If you download pm me and I will help you navigate to download the packages that apply to your specific needs. They have modules that you can pay for, but the free ones will get you what you need. The only one I paid for is the BDAG and I have close to100 free resources in this program that I picked.

 

[HIM]

Not one of the 10 commandments? What? How is that of any difference? A command of God is a command.

Colossians 2:14-16 context is in respect to the hand writing to the ordinances or by the ordinances not the ordinances themselves.

 

[HIM]

Right, some parts of the letter may have been intended for a gentile audience.

So while it's possible that
ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία

means
Breaking the law of Moses is sin,

I think it's much more likely that it means
Living an unrestrained lifestyle is sin.

I think everyone here would agree that living unrestrained is wrong, and we also know that self-control is part of the fruit of the Spirit.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 1 - J.B. Phillips New Testament

We are writing to you about something which has always existed yet which we ourselves actually saw and heard: something which we had an opportunity to observe closely and even to hold in our hands, and yet, as we know now, was something of the very Word of life himself! For it was life which...

www.biblegateway.com

That's interesting, though it may not be a slam dunk.

Did you use an online resource to find those occurrences?

What is the difference? I guess it would have to do with what your definition of sin.

Well, we would have to look at each case. But let's say that they are all references to the Law of Moses. Surely, you must realize that this in no way necessitates that we have to interpret any New Testament references to "lawlessness" in the same way.

What are you doing here is very subtly begging the question (making a circular argument).

The assertion that I, and others perhaps, am defending is that the Law comes to an end at the cross. And there have been many arguments put forward to that effect. Suppose, just for the sake of the argument that it is indeed a fact that the Law ended at the cross and that the author of 1 John knows this. You should see where this is going. Knowing as he does, in this hypothetical, that the Law of Moses has been set aside, he makes a more general claim that "sin is all about violating any set of laws that happen to be in force".

The point is this: You simply assume that the Law, or at least part of it, remains in force and you then leverage that assumption into what seems to be a very reasonable expectation that "lawlessness" in the Old Testament is the same as "lawlessness" in the New Testament. But if the Law has been set aside - and that is a different debate - then such a line of reasoning obviously fails.

So some of you think John's understanding of what sin is was different than Paul's?

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

John is speaking of willful sin. He says, "whosoever commits the sin also commits the wickedness. And the sin is the wickedness."

 

[HIM]

Well, we would have to look at each case. But let's say that they are all references to the Law of Moses. Surely, you must realize that this in no way necessitates that we have to interpret any New Testament references to "lawlessness" in the same way.

Let's take a look.
Matt 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matt 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Matt 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Matt 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
2Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Thess 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
1John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Now shall we just focus on what Paul said and in it's context?

He says that he had not known sin but by the law. And respect to it he says we have been made free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness wherein before we were slaves to iniquity. And iniquity is being said in respect to sin which is known by the law. So you think John and Paul were of different spirits and disagreed?

Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Maybe look to how Jesus used the word next or the writer of Hebrews?

 

[Leaf473]

as I said the substance is missing -- address the points with support for your claims/accusations etc.

I don't recall making any accusations. If you believe I did, please cite the post(s) where you believe that happened.

I did claim that the law has a shadow, yes:
Σκιὰν ἔχων ὁ νόμος

Bible Gateway passage: ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ 10 - SBL Greek New Testament

Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς οὐδέποτε δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους τελειῶσαι· ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι, διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν ἔτι συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας...

www.biblegateway.com

Hebrews 10:1 Interlinear: For the law having a shadow of the coming good things -- not the very image of the matters, every year, by the same sacrifices that they offer continually, is never able to make perfect those coming near,

 

[Leaf473]

It is addressed the same as suicide or any other self-harming activity. Paul points this out in 1 Cor 3 -

16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

you seem to be "reaching" and not finding.

The person I was talking to had asked what the difference was between breaking the law of Moses and being out of control.

I cited drinking to access as an example. Being drunk is not addressed in the letters of the law of Moses.

As you point out, it is addressed in places like Corinthians.

So 1 Corinthians 3 supports the idea that anomia in 1 John 3:4 could mean things other than breaking the law of Moses.

Good to hear from you I thought maybe you'd left the thread.

 

[Leaf473]

Yes it would as I explained...

Right, and then bringing it around to 1 John 3:4, as I just talked about with @BobRyan, anomia could refer to things like drinking to excess. That would be living without restraint or self-control, but not necessarily breaking the law of Moses.

 

[Leaf473]

Yes it would as I explained...

Or if you're saying that sin is transgression of the principles of the law of Moses,
then Yes, I'd agree with that, too. That could be a possible meaning of anomia

 

[Leaf473]

It says LAW...WORKS...

Yes, it talks about What kind of law: the law of works or the law of faith.

Another example of a place where nomos means something different than the law of Moses. This appears to be a quote from Psalms:
John 15:25
But this happened so that the word may be fulfilled which was written in their law, ‘They hated me without a cause.’