What day is the Sabbath?

Originally posted by adam332
Sorry geo cajun,
Paul is talking about specific days, fasting days. You cannot generalize this statement to make it refer to something it doesn't, it is called reading and interpreting a passage in context.

Click to expand...

thats rediculous, Paul is quite clear..

"you are not justified by keeping the law"
another where one considers some days holier than others (mosaic sabbath day law). Both are considered 'disputable'

Are we required to keep sunday as you claim or not. You keep saying mosaic law this and that. Sorry but unclean laws and the Sabbath laws both predate Moses or the existence of Israelites. The old covenant and the new covenant are the same, it is the same laws just written in a new place. Might want to try reading Hebrews.....

Click to expand...

ok, I can see where you are confused now so let me try this again.
God gave us the Decalugue as "Eternal" (priviliged expression of the natural law.)
Jesus made it clear to us by his life and preaching that we are permanantely to observe it.
The word Sabbath literally means "day of rest of the heart" (akkadian form shabattu).
The third commandment says "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work.

This is clear that using only the commandment, not going any further into mosaic law, that we are to "Remember a day of rest of the heart, every seven days."
This is why Sunday worship meats the moral obligations of the commandment. We do not keep the mosaic law which the Jews use to define the Sabbath, but rather we keep the commandment, and take our day of rest on Sunday.

Your a Jew and your circumsized, aren't you?

Click to expand...

I am not circumsized as a covenant with God, no, that would make me a judahizer - which I am not - are you?
I am a Jew, in the spiritual sense, yes.

And you keep quoting Col. 2, which does nothing but endorse keeping the Sabbath in a Godly manner, and not in a manner according to man-made laws. This has been proven, but again we see that the only way you can piece such a doctrine together is by taking single verse and ignoring all context.

Click to expand...

wow, no it doesn't Col 2 is clearly saying the Sabbath is nothing but a forshadowing of the coming of the Lord and not to let anyone critisize you for it. That we have died with Christ so why submit to regulations like we live in the world...

Just like you ignored Hebrews 4:9, please read the footnotes in your KJV or look at a strongs concordance. The word for rest in v 9 is Sabbath! And that previous passage is not speaking of Jesus, but Joshua.

Click to expand...

Hebrew 4:9 tell us to take "A" sabbath (Day of rest of heart), - you are taking it out of context.

Thanks be to God!

For those who think to be under any law means lack of freedom...America has more laws than any other nation...yet we are free ....it is by laws that we are free.
Malachi 4:4-5
"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.
5 "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."
If we would only remember the law, we could have a cozy ending instead of what most call Tribulation. Why do we fear the law??? He will show us how to keep it just as He did. Will we grow enough in faith that He can give us the desires of our hearts....will we learn peace? The only one who ever did the law perfectly...is ALIVE....He will teach us, if we ask!

Geocajun,

you said;

“you failed, not one single verse you supplied said anything remotely like "All doctine must come from scripture" OR "Scripture is SUFFICIENT" (only profitable)”

No. I showed conclusively that the scripture of truth is the ONLY doctrine that should even be considered. And that men’s doctrines and traditions are ABSOLUTELY against the inspired word of God. There is no one group of people that have the right to keep compiling centuries of change and personal tradition to the word of God. That is Biblically forbidden. My references PROVED this over and over.

you said;

“now thats just silly... scripture is a book, God is truth. Dont go making an idol out of scripture and thinking it IS God.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you but, God is the Word. The Word is truth, scripture is truth. Do you really need verses???

you said;

“well so do you really, as the list of books in your bible is a Catholic doctrine.”

Just because a bunch of Israelites had preserved and collected the OT didn’t make their doctrines any better, nor did it stop them from building their own little collection of additions to His word, for which He continually rebuked them! I thought we have been over this that God can use a donkey to do His will. So why couldn’t he have used these poorly doctrined ECF to preserve the NT books, the same way he used the poorly doctrined priests to preserve His OT books. You try so hard to make this some sort of significance. Well, the only amazing significance to be found, is how quickly Church doctrine became tainted with uninspired teaching and leadership.

you said;

“"preserve" yes, but also determine which is and which ISN'T inspired. This men led by God who did this. I have not said the "Church must be treated as inspired" - do not put words in my mouth. But I did say that you would know nothing of the bible had it not been for the sacred tradition of men.”

Again this is not important because God could have got the Bible into my hands using a buncha’ turtles if it was His will. So, if you want me to acknowledge that God led them, fine, as you know that only makes it about as notable as the last bunch of horribly doctrined OT guys that He led.

Are you going to tell us that the Pharisees were right? Remember they accused the disciples and Christ of items not found in the scripture, but instead found in their documents, (Mishnah). So since that was their sacred tradition, then they were right? That means Christ is a sinner, because he disobeyed their sacred tradition. If He was a sinner, then He couldn’t have been the true Messiah. If He’s not the true Messiah, then your whole point becomes redundant. Sacred tradition + scripture = Christ a false Messiah

you said;

“it also shows Jesus establishing a Church complete with councils, a Pope, and men to lead it.”

Nope the Bible says no such thing, He is building a kingdom of believers, both living and dead, they are all His body, and that is His church. Not one big colossal castle where one guys sits as head of the church. Only Christ is head of the church and he gave no power or authority to anyone man, nor succession of men. There is only ONE specific person whom He left control to, HIS SPIRIT.

His kingdom is made up of faithful believers period. OT and NT saints are all one body, that is Christ. [I can’t wait for you to comment on that one]

Rom. 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off

you said;

“your list of books that complete the bible is extra-biblical. your contradicting yourself.”

What are you talking about??? What books, and what lists????

you said;

“"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)”

What does the fact that Paul told us to maintain the traditions of the Lord’s that he delivered to us, have to do with the traditions developed over the last 2000 yrs by a group of folks in Rome. He said to remember the traditions he delivered, he didn’t say to remember and maintain any traditions ya’ feel like.

You said;

“"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11)”

What do these Corinthians, (who believed that Christ fulfilled the scripture when He died and was resurrected and seen by all the named people ~v. 3-10), have to do with anything??? Paul simply saying that he’s glad they believe in those things regardless of whether he told them or someone else did. He did not tell them to believe anything they hear. Matter of fact, he tells us..... “be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” Looks to me like Paul was just happy they were told the truth about those things he listed. And this has NO relevance on your sacred traditions....

you said;

“The Church is the pillar and foudation of TRUTH, not Scripture! (1 Tim. 3:15)”

Here we go again.... Christ body is the church, Christ is the word, the word is truth, the scripture is truth, Christ is truth...

you said;

“tell me exactly how those verses prove that the early Church observed the sabbath?”

Hmmmm.....that’s a hard one.....Disciples, Jews and Gentiles all coming out for preaching on the Sabbath and they did the same thing together on the previous Sabbath....

you said;

“I did not assume a thing, I simply put them out there to prove my point which they do.”

Sorry, please take the time to read. I showed that my statement was correct, your dates are wrong it was not written in 60AD it was written between 50-400AD. The original part being the oldest, and has many Hebrew elements. Eventually the original book appears to be guidebook for new converts, yet by all scholarly claims this book was added upon over and over and became a compilation of other later writers who went so far as to go back and add to the original. No authoritative place can you go which would tell you that the entire Didache was written in the first century. All evidence indicates that the majority of the documents were added afterwards. Did you need more than five Encyclopedic references? I’m sure there are plenty more that all say that most of it was written and added to after the first century.

you said;

“show me some references to back your claim please.”

Not my claim, but the claims of....

Encyclopedia Britannica

Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia

The Jewish Encyclopedia

Encyclopedia.com

The 1911 Encyclopedia

I believe you can find them right where you ignored them the first time, they are on page 16 or 15.

You said;

“the bible is a result of Catholic tradition - I suggest YOU learn some history”

I said we were not discussing Catholic tradition but Biblical law(the Sabbath). So then you say that the Sabbath(Bible) is a result of Catholic tradition. Well you better tell Christ, who was the creator of the world and rested on the seventh day, that He was keeping Catholic tradition. I guess when Christ was up on the mountain with Moses writing the 4th commandment with His finger onto tables of stone He was just following Catholic tradition. Isn’t that right, since the Bible is a result of Catholic tradition?

Originally posted by adam332
Geocajun,

“the bible is a result of Catholic tradition - I suggest YOU learn some history”

I said we were not discussing Catholic tradition but Biblical law(the Sabbath). So then you say that the Sabbath(Bible) is a result of Catholic tradition. Well you better tell Christ, who was the creator of the world and rested on the seventh day, that He was keeping Catholic tradition. I guess when Christ was up on the mountain with Moses writing the 4th commandment with His finger onto tables of stone He was just following Catholic tradition. Isn’t that right, since the Bible is a result of Catholic tradition?

Click to expand...

Adam, I am pretty much done with you, but I must address this last bit of words your trying to put in my mouth.
I never said the sabbath was Catholic law, I said it was mosaic law to celbrate it on Saturday and all the other baggage that went with it is also mosaic law.
The Catholic Church assembled the canon (list of books) of the bible, so the books in your bible, are a product of the living tradition of the Catholic Church. just as the OT we use (all 46 books, septuagent) are a result of the Jewish tradition.

so did I ever say that Moses was keeping Catholic tradition? dont be absurd... read slower, and dont be a judahizer.
your seeming really desperate now, to try to prove why we should build up mosaic law again.

Geocajun,

you said;

“thats rediculous, Paul is quite clear..”

Is that your idea of a rebuttal to two pages of commentary? Yes, Paul is quite clear that he never mentions the Sabbath or even hints at any of the ten commandments. He is also quite clear to be discussing fasting days, only. It is called context, something which everyone here is aware that you never use. You cannot take a single verse out of the Bible and just because it says the word “day“, and automatically apply it to be speaking of the Sabbath for no reason! Especially when you can clearly see he never even mentions the Sabbath, but only is speaking of fasting days.

It is amazing how you are able to build a whole little story and interpretation out of a verse even when it directly conflicts with what the chapter tells you.

you said;

“God gave us the Decalugue as "Eternal" (priviliged expression of the natural law.)

Jesus made it clear to us by his life and preaching that we are permanantely to observe it.”

Yes, Christ gave us the ten commands from the beginning and then wrote them on stone much later, and then later he put them in our hearts.

you said;

“The word Sabbath literally means "day of rest of the heart" (akkadian form shabattu).”

The only problem is.... we aren’t studying the akkadian form. The word originates from ancient Hebrew, Shabath. Which contextually means....“<B>to keep or observe the sabbath</B>” it is the word “rested”, used in Gen 2:2. Let’s stick with the oldest known language of God’s people shall we? Then we have the Hebrew word Shabbath, (Exo. 20) which comes from the former word, and simply means what it says, the Sabbath.

you said;

“The third commandment says "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work.”

No it doesn’t. That is the fourth commandment, remember your sacred traditions include doing such things as praying and bowing before graven images. So your little sacred tradition guys didn’t want to look like hypocrites so they removed the second commandment in you catholic literature, thus making the fourth commandment appearing as though it were only the third..... What happened to your claims...”God gave us the Decalugue as "Eternal”, Jesus made it clear to us by his life and preaching that we are permanantely to observe it”? Looks like what you guys really teach is “The Octalogue”

Mat. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Pro. 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Daniel identified that the beast would attempt such a thing....

Dan. 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

This "little horn" power is diverse from all others, being a religious power and not a political power, yet holds power over nations. It speaks "blasphemies", not by interpretation of the word, but by literally changing the word of God. Daniel identifies this power as one that will "change times and laws". Note the plural for both.

What "times" has the Holy Roman Empire changed?

1. It was they who gave us a midnight to midnight day, in place of God’s sundown to sundown day.

2. It was they who changed the Christian Sabbath to the 1st day, in place of God’s 7th day.

What "laws" has the Holy Roman Empire changed?

1. They have completely removed the second commandment, form God’s law.

2. They have then split God’s tenth commandment into the 9th and 10th, in order to retain ten commandments, due to their removal of the 2nd.

you said;

“This is clear that using only the commandment, not going any further into mosaic law, that we are to "Remember a day of rest of the heart, every seven days."”

It is clear to who? You have produced ZERO evidence to support such a claim. What we do know is that THE seventh day is THE Sabbath. Nowhere does the Bible remotely hint that we can choose whatever day we want as our Sabbath. God blessed and sanctified only one specific day, and that was the seventh day period! No man nor church has the power to transfer God’s sanctity to whatever day they feel like. If you want a Sabbath blessing there is only one time to find it, and it is on the 7th day. That is the only day that he made for man.

He only made woman for man too, so by your logic....man has the power to remove God’s blessing off of that which was made for him, and place it where he feels like.

This means a gay man can takes God’s sanctity of marriage and place it on a marriage between him and his homosexual partner.

Every time I turn around your doctrines and interpretations conflict with themselves, on some of the simplest levels......

you said;

“This is why Sunday worship meats the moral obligations of the commandment. We do not keep the mosaic law which the Jews use to define the Sabbath, but rather we keep the commandment, and take our day of rest on Sunday.”

Again, your unbiblical, unsupported, uncontextual, illogical comments can not be validated by your view of an akkadian definition. What a joke..... Like I said, the Sabbath predates Mosaic law. This is God’s Eternal law. It was established on the seventh day of creation, where it was blessed for man. The Israelites inherited it’s observance since they became children of God and so did we. You can not take one out of ten commands and alter it to fit the tradition of some group of folks in Rome who then passed it on to a buncha’ other people. That is illogical and inconsistent theology. What you apply to one, you must apply to all!

you said;

“I am not circumsized as a covenant with God, no, that would make me a judahizer - which I am not - are you?”

Circumcision was a sign or badge that signified the covenant that Abraham was ALREADY faithful. But it was always the heart that mattered, whether the foreskin of our heart was cut was always the true sign, and that has not changed. So yes the foreskin of my heart is cut as a badge of the covenant between God and I.

Deu.10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deu. 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Jer. 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

Rom. 2:28 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

you said;

“wow, no it doesn't Col 2 is clearly saying the Sabbath is nothing but a forshadowing of the coming of the Lord and not to let anyone critisize you for it. That we have died with Christ so why submit to regulations like we live in the world...”

Wrong again. If you have a problem with my commentary please address it instead of the comments on the commentary. I showed contextually speaking that the man-made laws(which is the SUBJECT OF THE CHAPTER!) were nailed to the cross therefore we are not to worry about men judging us by those laws. Because Christ was accused and not found guilty for breaking their sacred traditions. Thus do not let anyone judge us by those laws because Christ openly triumphed over them. You are also conveniently swithching to an inferior translation. Most all scholars and theologians, and translations agree that these things are a shadow of things yet to come. Please refer back to my original commentary on Col. 2 and address it point for point, instead of your very weak method of ignoring the context and everyone else’s evidence. And just saying ; “Your wrong cause I say your wrong.” Your like some guy who’s on the ground bleeding and battered thinking he can still win. Everything thing you have presented has been utterly demolished over and over using superior study methods and sources and just plain common sense, yet you just keep clinging even though you don’t have anything to hold onto.....how sad.

you said;

"Hebrew 4:9 tell us to take "A" sabbath (Day of rest of heart), - you are taking it out of context."

Again, there you go....this time you are applying the akkadian definition for shabatu to the greek word, “sabbatismos”.....[sigh]

Sabbitmos means a keeping of the sabbath. There is no word “A” found in the original text. Might want to invest in a concordance or a Lexicon.....

Heb. 4:9 There remaineth therefore a keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God.

geocajun,

you said;

"uhhhhhh Jesus is the word, the bible is not God...
you think "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

is really saying "In the begiinning was the bible, and the bible was with God and the bible was God"

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.
Jesus is not the bible. . .
the bible is a library of books put together by the Catholic Church

I never said the Bible was God!!!! The Bible was put together by poorly doctrined OT men who had their own documents of sacred traditions which they added to the scripture, and by poorly doctrined NT men who had their own documents of sacred traditions which they added to the scripture. It only goes to show a pattern of how bad the their doctrines were, I don't know why you keep emphasizing it..... Christ rebuked the behavior of adding your own traditions or thinking you were special, you've only shown that the ECF preservers of the word were as bad as the OT preservers of the word.

You said;
"Adam, I am pretty much done with you"
Now that's a hoot! I'm still waiting for ya' to get started or at least bring in a ringer who stands a chance. You have been utterly shown to have NOTHING. Like I said study really hard for the next five years, and maybe you'll come up with one decent Biblical argument. Because brother ya' never stood a chance, so next time ya' wanna' play with the big boys, better make sure you got some ammo, otherwise your next effort will surely be as pathetic as this one....

Did you find that plank in your eye Pastor NB? Or when you get shown to not know what your talking about, do you just fall silent?

Originally posted by adam332
geocajun,


You said;
"Adam, I am pretty much done with you"
Now that's a hoot! I'm still waiting for ya' to get started or at least bring in a ringer who stands a chance. You have been utterly shown to have NOTHING. Like I said study really hard for the next five years, and maybe you'll come up with one decent Biblical argument. Because brother ya' never stood a chance, so next time ya' wanna' play with the big boys, better make sure you got some ammo, otherwise your next effort will surely be as pathetic as this one....

Click to expand...

you make me proud to be Catholic! God Bless you Adam!
You have shown me once again, exactly why we need an objective authority!

I am going to pray a rosary for you tonight!

That's right, I've let the cat out of the bag.....oops.... Protestants can act like jerks and can sin too, yep, that's an amazing revevelation you had alright...

TS,
sorry I got your name included in a blasphemous Pagan ritual.....my bad.

Pastor NB,
I just want to clarify about "not knowing what your talking about" was referring to. That was not your knowledge of scripture, for it seems to be fine except for maybe a couple of semantics issues and your one reference about what was nailed to the cross. Besides those little details everything else that I've seen you reference, whether it be broad or specific, appears to be in line with my thoughts. Albeit, I find your writing a little hard to follow. I was refferring to your little public questioning of my faith. Want to point out a sin of mine, fine. Let's do it. But, don't presume that one facet of my life is the absolute fruit of my being. That was my point.

TS,

here's a cut and paste from a few pages back....

"You must pay attention to the context of Col. 2 to determine what ordinances are being spoken of. One thing I'm sure you must be missing is that it speaks of the ordinances as past tense, when it says they were "nailed" to the cross. But, it speaks of the eat and drink and the Sabbaths and new moons, as being "are a shadow of things to come".

Did you catch that?!! This passage is not speaking of the ceremonial laws that were a shadow of things that had already came, but instead is speaking of a future fulfillment of Sabbaths, new moons etc.... that "are to come".

Sound familiar?

Isa. 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Another hint as to what ordinances are being referred to is, that they are mentioned in relationship to men judging men about their Sabbaths and new moons.

We saw examples of this throughout Christ ministry, didn't we? Wasn't Christ continually being judged guilty of Sabbath breaking by the Pharisees?

Well what ordinances were they judging Him with? The man-made additions they had made to the Sabbath!!!! Not the law of God!

With these things in mind let's look at what the subject matter of Col. 2 is.

4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind

21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

The subject matter of that chapter is the false teachings of men and for us to beware of them. He came as a Jew and openly disobeyed there man-made laws, "And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly".

So, since Christ has come and openly challenged these items and could not be found guilty of them, no matter how hard they tried to trap Him, therefore don't let any man judge us concerning the man-made laws of the Sabbath, etc...., either.

Here are other verses where Paul is referring to the Jews who were against Christ, or their teachings, as being "contrary" to them.

Col. 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

1Thes. 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

Rom. 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Acts 23:3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

It was the actions and laws of man that Paul was telling us was contrary to us not the ceremonial laws of Moses. These were shadows and were fulfilled, but they were not at all contrary. They are still applicable but not in a physical earthly nature, but instead in the heavenly sanctuary with Christ acting as the spiritual High priest on our behalf.

BTW: The Greek word for "ordinances" no.1 definition in the Lexicon is "doctrines".

Remember, Paul says that when Christ disarmed("spoiled" see Strongs) the principalities and powers when He took away their ordinances that were AGAINST them ......

2Cor. 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Also remember Paul was once a high power and a Pharisee who also spoke and falsely accused the brethren based on man's laws and not God's.....

Acts 26:9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them."