When is good, not good enough?

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because there are "good" secular activities not allowed according to Isaiah 58:13 and "not rest" according to Exodus 20:8-11 and "not holy convocation" according to Lev 23:2 -- that are fine to do -- but not for Sabbath.

On the other hand all the "good" that you see Jesus do on the Sabbath is in the form of healing not fishing, not house building, not lawn mowing or sawing wood or making benches.
What about carrying your mat? Does that violate the Sabbath? If carrying your mat is ok what about helping someone to carry their mat, is that ok?
 
Upvote 0

TzephanYahu

Active Member
Sep 9, 2018
305
283
Dorset
✟95,299.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
are you saying helping your neighbour build a shed doesn't effectively demonstrate love or care?

No, I'm not saying that. But I'm saying it's unnecessary work for the Sabbath when you have six other days to help him with it.

If it was an emergency shelter for protection from on uncoming storm, a home for a homeless person in need or to protect someone in dire need - I can see these things being permitted on the Sabbath. But if it is just to build a garden shed - that's basically just unnecessary work.

Look at it this way. If Yahweh was visible in the sky on each Sabbath, would you help the guy build the shed then?

Love & Shalom
 
Upvote 0

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
the prostitute example is a straw man. I am referring to acts of good that you would otherwise deem as acts of good on any other day. I'm not here to debate what acts towards a prostitute is good or not which is why I deliberately use a neighbour building a shed example as I thought this act on any other day wouldn't be controversial.

So before you post another straw man I'm not debating what is generally thought as of good and broadly let's define it as "doing things for God" and let's assume that even though there may be some variance on the term we can still talk about it constructively using the concept of goodness rather then debate what is good and what is not. But if that's your struggle you are welcome to open another thread to talk about dealings with prostitutes



You will have to unpack the “donkey in a ditch” scenario. is this the only reason why we may go outside the letter of the law?



situation 1 is about a strategic focus not about random stuff you do. strategic in the sense of your focus is to disciple that person into faith in Christ and helping them build a shed builds to that goal. So it is more than just general helping but helping with a missional strategy. Of course this begs the question shouldn't all our acts be strategic then? I would say yes but perhaps that's another conversation.
It’s not a straw man. It’s an an example based on the logic you are presenting. Sin is sin.

We would be sinning by joining our neighbor in building his shed on the Sabbath.

What’s hard to understand about the “donkey in a ditch” scenario?
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, I'm not saying that. But I'm saying it's unnecessary work for the Sabbath when you have six other days to help him with it.

If it was an emergency shelter for protection from on uncoming storm, a home for a homeless person in need or to protect someone in dire need - I can see these things being permitted on the Sabbath. But if it is just to build a garden shed - that's basically just unnecessary work.

Look at it this way. If Yahweh was visible in the sky on each Sabbath, would you help the guy build the shed then?

Love & Shalom

I'm not sure if seeing a Yahweh visible in the sky is productive to this conversation. If we saw this we would either run and hide out of fear or lie prostrate in worship, neither of which I suspect actually happens on the Sabbath, you might argue the worship but certainly not to that extent or not unique to the Sabbath.

The most valuable thing of a person is his soul, not his health, his livelihood or comfort. If you neighbour is an unbeliever than it is not his the focus of building a shed can be strategic to discipling him to Christ. the day of the week is not the focus but rather the opportunity to show Christ.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
What about carrying your mat? Does that violate the Sabbath?

Why would picking up a blanket or a straw mat be a violation of anything??

What about lifting your finger or opening your eyelid or buckling your belt? shall we discuss that as well?
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It’s not a straw man. It’s an an example based on the logic you are presenting. Sin is sin.

We would be sinning by joining our neighbor in building his shed on the Sabbath.

What’s hard to understand about the “donkey in a ditch” scenario?
it's a straw man because if you don't see it as good on any other day than why are we even talking about it on the Sabbath? It's not about turning things we consider already wrong and doing them in some humanitarian cover on the Sabbath to call it good. If that's what you got then you've missed the point. Let's stick to examples that are uncontroversial for clarity's sake.

the point of the OP is to establish what is is actually deemed as "good" to practice on the sabbath where on the surface it would be considered work since we know doing good is permitted on the Sabbath. Simply saying it is sinful doesn't engage the topic it ignores it. You might as well say "because I said so"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why would picking up a blanket or a straw mat be a violation of anything??

What about lifting your finger or opening your eyelid or buckling your belt? shall we discuss that as well?
Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.

The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, and so the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.”

But he replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’ ”

likely a straw mat rolled up, not heavy but notable from a distance.
perhaps we need to define what work is.

but you raise a good point. the logic goes to our beating hearts and breath we take. no one can satisfy the demands of the Sabbath.

the letter of the Sabbath needs to take into account how we cause others to work on the Sabbath not just how we work. For example when I turn my internet, phone or light switch on, I am using a service that requires people to work to provide that on demand service to me. You may call these essential services but are we using them in this bare minimal capacity (or not at all) because we could use flash lights or lanterns to minimize the demand needed for people to work on the Sabbath. Is this going too far? Perhaps you should read the 4th commandment again.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
What about carrying your mat? Does that violate the Sabbath?

Why would picking up a blanket or a straw mat be a violation of anything??

What about lifting your finger or opening your eyelid or buckling your belt? shall we discuss that as well?

Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.


So then Jesus also appears to agree that the lifting of a blanket, the lifting of a straw mat, the lifting of your finger, the opening of your eyelid etc are not even "a thing" to be concerned with Sabbath or not if one is reading the scriptures and looking for what God actually said about for Sabbath.

How is this even "a thing" for your post?

The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, and so the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.”

But he replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’ ”

There is "no such law" in scripture about carrying a mat.

In Acts 10 Peter said this about the made-up-laws-of-Pharisees and Jewish leaders

"28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him;"

hint: there is no such "law" in the OT.

Both examples of "law" above are the examples of man-made-law created to make the Command of God look unreasonable.

likely a straw mat rolled up, not heavy but notable from a distance.
perhaps we need to define what work is.

but you raise a good point. the logic goes to our beating hearts and breath we take. no one can satisfy the demands of the Sabbath.

Now I congratulate you on your creativity in coming up with an extreme-beyond-scripture that outstrips even the Pharisees. Good example.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
After the cross: They did not have to keep the Sabbath. Christ nailed to the cross those ordinances that were against us (like the Sabbaths) (See: Colossians 2:14-17).

Col 2 says that the "certificate of debt" is what was nailed to the cross - not the commandments of God.
And Mark 2:27 says the "Sabbath was made FOR mankind" not 'against mankind'.

Isaiah 66:23 says that for all eternity after the cross "all mankind" will come before God to worship.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the commandments of God" where "the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1-2 is still the 5th commandment.

Scripture tells me that I am not to allow any man to judge me .

And that is no change from before the cross as Christ points out in Matthew 7:1-6 -- a great example of "not changed after the cross" because it was already that way before the cross.

I quoted Colossians 2:14, and Colossians 2:16, and they are plain in what they say. You either believe them in what they plainly say or you don't believe them.

That's the part I agree with

Here is where I quote Col 2

...
This "topic" is about Col 2 and whether it is merely condemning the "traditions of man" or if it is condemning scripture itself. Responses should deal with the content of what is actually in Col 2 along with any other texts that you believe should be related to Col 2 content.

========================
proof for Col 2 -- condemning the traditions and doctrines of man - and upholding the Word of God --

Col 2 is opposed to 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:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ

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)

============= Christ Himself condemned Bible-denying traditions of man

GOD speaks for God and HE already spoke to this point of changing His Law via church tradition. As we see in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium of the one-true nation church of Christ day - started by God at Sinai -- is hammered "sola scriptura" in the case where it is shown via "Sola Scriptura" testing that it is traditions and "doctrines of men" that are at odds with scripture

================= Accuser of the Brethren condemned

In Rev 12 we see the work of the "Accuser of the brethren".

In Matt 7 (pre-cross -- and law in full effect) Christ condemns judging others.

In Col 2:16 we have this -

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


An example of NOT condemning eating OR drinking or remembering God's Ten-Commandment creation-Sabbath day to keep it holy. Rather Col 2 condemns the "commandments of men" - (as is so carefully avoided in the quotes we often see from Col 2)


Col 2 is opposed to making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with a made-up rule, even if that invented rule is based on "turning" a Bible command. - so this chapter is opposed to 'making stuff up' - via "man-made tradition"


Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (NASB)

Certificate of debt. the debt owed being paid by blood sacrifice of Christ.



Notice that in that post of mine - where I say this

Col 2 -- condemning the traditions and doctrines of man - and upholding the Word of God --

Col 2 is opposed to 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".

Acts 15:1-2 the historic context of some folks 'making stuff up' and saying that one cannot be saved unless they comply with the made-up rules. In Col 2:14-15 Paul points out that salvation is through Christ who paid the debt of sin owed. Then Paul goes after all the various forms of making-stuff-up showing how it is condemned.

Col 2:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ

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)

You either believe them in what they plainly say or you don't believe them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why would picking up a blanket or a straw mat be a violation of anything??

What about lifting your finger or opening your eyelid or buckling your belt? shall we discuss that as well?



So then Jesus also appears to agree that the lifting of a blanket, the lifting of a straw mat, the lifting of your finger, the opening of your eyelid etc are not even "a thing" to be concerned with Sabbath or not if one is reading the scriptures and looking for what God actually said about for Sabbath.

How is this even "a thing" for your post?



There is "no such law" in scripture about carrying a mat.

In Acts 10 Peter said this about the made-up-laws-of-Pharisees and Jewish leaders

"28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him;"

hint: there is no such "law" in the OT.

Both examples of "law" above are the examples of man-made-law created to make the Command of God look unreasonable.



Now I congratulate you on your creativity in coming up with an extreme-beyond-scripture that outstrips even the Pharisees. Good example.

do you want to try that one again? after the recycled copy and pasted parts I think the only unique thing here was some sort of sarcastic remark on congratulating my creativity. Do you wish to engage? because I'm not interested in that sort of discussion.

Does turning on a light switch cause people to work? if so this violates the letter of the Sabbath. man made laws go both ways, some pile on things to it to make it more difficult, others take things away to make it more easy.

Ex 20:10b "On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns."

this sounds like an all inclusive sort of deal summed up essentially with "don't work and don't cause others to work", and almost impossible in a modern world unless you were completely unplugged. But I guess because it doesn't mention the internet, cell phones or electricity then surely the law doesn't mean that. We all make interpreted provisions to dismiss our out of law actions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Col 2 says that the "certificate of debt" is what was nailed to the cross - not the commandments of God.
And Mark 2:27 says the "Sabbath was made FOR mankind" not 'against mankind'.

Isaiah 66:23 says that for all eternity after the cross "all mankind" will come before God to worship.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the commandments of God" where "the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1-2 is still the 5th commandment.



And that is no change from before the cross as Christ points out in Matthew 7:1-6 -- a great example of "not changed after the cross" because it was already that way before the cross.



That's the part I agree with

Here is where I quote Col 2




Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (NASB)

Certificate of debt. the debt owed being paid by blood sacrifice of Christ.



Notice that in that post of mine - where I say this

Col 2 -- condemning the traditions and doctrines of man - and upholding the Word of God --

Col 2 is opposed to 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".

Acts 15:1-2 the historic context of some folks 'making stuff up' and saying that one cannot be saved unless they comply with the made-up rules. In Col 2:14-15 Paul points out that salvation is through Christ who paid the debt of sin owed. Then Paul goes after all the various forms of making-stuff-up showing how it is condemned.

Col 2:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ

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)

Again, the context does not change what the text says.

"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; " (Colossians 2:14).

Still talking about the handwriting of ordinances that were nailed to the cross:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: " (Colossians 2:16).

We are told to let nobody judge us in regards to the keeping of Sabbath days. Sabbath days would include the Saturday Sabbath because the Saturday Sabbath is a Sabbath day or among the Sabbaths days.

"...another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Romans 14:5).

If Paul believed the Saturday Sabbath was still in effect, he would not tell the man who esteems every day alike to be persuaded in his own mind. Granted, there is nothing wrong with thinking that one thinks they should regard the Saturday Sabbath, but it does become a problem if they think it is a salvation issue.

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:4).

This law is the Law of Moses because Paul was trying to convince the Galatians to not be circumcised (See: Galatians 5:2). Circumcision is a part of the Old Testament. In fact, Scripture flat out says this....

"And by him all that believe are justified from all things,
from which
ye could not be justified by
the law of Moses
." (Acts of the Apostles 13:39).

Scripture says you cannot be justified by the Law of Moses.
Read it, and believe it.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Again, the context does not change what the text says.

I think that is the part we agree on 100%.

=============

which is why I posted this -- on the Col 2 thread

Col 2 says that the "certificate of debt" is what was nailed to the cross - not the commandments of God.
And Mark 2:27 says the "Sabbath was made FOR mankind" not 'against mankind'.

Isaiah 66:23 says that for all eternity after the cross "all mankind" will come before God to worship.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the commandments of God" where "the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1-2 is still the 5th commandment.


This "topic" is about Col 2 and whether it is merely condemning the "traditions of man" or if it is condemning scripture itself. Responses should deal with the content of what is actually in Col 2 along with any other texts that you believe should be related to Col 2 content.

========================
proof for Col 2 -- condemning the traditions and doctrines of man - and upholding the Word of God --

Col 2 is opposed to 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:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ

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)

============= Christ Himself condemned Bible-denying traditions of man

GOD speaks for God and HE already spoke to this point of changing His Law via church tradition. As we see in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium of the one-true nation church of Christ day - started by God at Sinai -- is hammered "sola scriptura" in the case where it is shown via "Sola Scriptura" testing that it is traditions and "doctrines of men" that are at odds with scripture

================= Accuser of the Brethren condemned

In Rev 12 we see the work of the "Accuser of the brethren".

In Matt 7 (pre-cross -- and law in full effect) Christ condemns judging others.

In Col 2:16 we have this -

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


An example of NOT condemning eating OR drinking or remembering God's Ten-Commandment creation-Sabbath day to keep it holy. Rather Col 2 condemns the "commandments of men" - (as is so carefully avoided in the quotes we often see from Col 2)


Col 2 is opposed to making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with a made-up rule, even if that invented rule is based on "turning" a Bible command. - so this chapter is opposed to 'making stuff up' - via "man-made tradition"[/QUOTE]


Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (NASB)

Certificate of debt. the debt owed being paid by blood sacrifice of Christ.


We are told to let nobody judge us in regards to the keeping of Sabbath days.
Yep.. eating... drinking and the Sabbath day(S) --

1. Same "do not judge" as we find before the cross - in Matthew 7.
2. Does not abolish eating... or drinking fluids.. or Sabbath days. Not before the cross... not after the cross.

The point remains.


=================

You either believe them in what they plainly say or you don't believe them.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
If Paul believed the Saturday Sabbath was still in effect, he would not tell the man who esteems every day alike to be persuaded in his own mind.

lots of "inference"' at that point poured into the text by your suggestion.

Romans 14 does not mention the 7th Sabbath at all being in question.

Its reference is to the list of annual Bible-approved annual holy days we find Lev 23 where one man observes one of them above the others -- while another man observes them all.

But Gal 4 condemns even one observance of a pagan holy day - so then Rom 14 is talking about observing all "Bible approved" holy days.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Again, the context does not change what the text says.

"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; " (Colossians 2:14).

Still talking about the handwriting of ordinances that were nailed to the cross:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: " (Colossians 2:16).
Hello dear friend. Context does not change what the scriptures say they define what the scriptures are talking about and it is the very context that proves if our interpretation of COLOSSIANS 2:16-17 true or not true. I believe many people cherry pick and surface read COLOSSIANS 2:16-17 out of context to the rest of the bible, chapter and scripture context to make it say things that if does not say especially considering the many kinds of sabbaths in the bible that are not God's 4th commandment from the 10 commandments that can fall on any day of the week.

Lets talk the detail and see if your interpretation of the sciptures hold up by looking at both the subject matter and within chapter and scripture context and look at the old testament scriptures that Paul is referring to in COLOSSIANS 2:11-17 shall we? What I would like to examine here if your interested is....

1. THE CHAPTER CONTEXT OF COLOSSIANS 2
2. THE WITHIN SCRIPTURE CONTEXT OF COLOSSIANS 2:16
3. THE GREEK WORD MEANINGS OF THE WITHIN SCRIPTURE CONTEXT COLOSSIANS 2:14-17
4. CONTEXT TO THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURE WITHIN ALL SCRIPTURE - WHERE IS PAUL QUOTING FROM IN COLOSSIANS 2:16?

I will provide what I believe the scirputures teach in COLOSSIANS 2:11-17 in relation to the above headings. You can consider what is shared with you through the scriptures and show why you agree or disagree is that a good suggestion for a friendly discussion? Before we start though you do know that there are many different types of sabbaths in the bible right that are not Gods' 4th commandment sabbath? For example...

1. The Sabbaths of the Feast of unleavened bread (first and last day) that can fall on any day of the week *LEVITICUS 23:6-8
2. The Sabbath on the annual day of Atonement that can fall on any day of the week *LEVITICUS 23:27-32
3. The Sabbath on the annual Feast of Trumpets that can fall on any day of the week *LEVITICUS 23:24-25?
4. The Sabbath on the Feast of Booths that can fall on any day of the week *LEVITICUS 23:34-36
5. Feast of first fruits (first and last day) that can fall on any day of the week *LEVITICUS 23:39
6. The sabbaths (sabbaton plural) of holy convocations from the annual feast days *LEVITICUS 23:7-8; 21;24; 27; 35-36 that can fall on any days of the week
7. The Sabbath of the land (7 year single cycle) *LEVITICUS 25:2
8. The Sabbath of Jubilee - culminating of the 7x7 yearly cycles sabbaths *LEVITICUS 25:9-54
9. Or God's 4th commandment seventh day weekly Sabbath which is one of the 10 commandments that define sin when broken? *EXODUS 20:8-11 from GENESIS 2:1-3

Can you prove to me from the bible alone what sabbaths are being talked about in COLOSSIANS 2:16? Let me know if your interested in having a discussion with me in relation to the scripture and chapter context of COLOSSIANS 2:16-17?
"...another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Romans 14:5).

If Paul believed the Saturday Sabbath was still in effect, he would not tell the man who esteems every day alike to be persuaded in his own mind. Granted, there is nothing wrong with thinking that one thinks they should regard the Saturday Sabbath, but it does become a problem if they think it is a salvation issue.
Your misinterpreting the scriptures by trying to read into the scriptures what the scriptures do not say or teach here dear friend. Where is the scripture that says ROMANS 14 is talking about God's 4th commandment Sabbath? ROMANS 14 is talking about eating and not eating (fasting) on days that men esteem over other days and judging others in regards to these pratices. There is nothing in these scriptures about Paul telling people not to keep the Sabbath. That intepretation of the scriptures would make Paul a hypocrite as it was Paul's custom just like JESUS and all the Apostles to keep the Sabbath *(Acts 13:14; 13:27; 13:44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4; Rev 1:10; Matthew 12:1-8; 10-12; 24:20; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:1-10; 13:14-16; 14:1-5; John 7:22-23; 9:14; Mark 1:21; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:16; 31; Luke 14:1; 23:56; John 2:6; Matthew 16:24; 1 Corinthians 11:1; Ephesians 5:1-21; Peter 2:20-22). Happy to discuss this further with you if you like. Just let me know?
"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:4).
Your scripture is not relevant here dear friend. No one is seeking to be justified by the law because through the law we have the knowledge of sin. So your scriptures you provide here are not relevant to the conversation. We are only saved by GRACE through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God *EPHESIANS 2:8. OBEDIENCE to God's LAW is not how we are saved it is the FRUIT of God's work in us as we BELIEVE and FOLLOW his WORD by faith that works by LOVE. Salvation is from sin (breaking any one of God’s 10 Commandments) not to continue in sin *ROMANS 6:1-23; JOHN 8:31-36. Those who continue in known unrepentant sin do not know God and need to be Born again into the NEW COVENANT promise to love *HEBREWS 8:10-12; ROMANS 13:8-10. This is God's work in us and a part of the NEW COVENANT promise *HEBREWS 8:10-12; PHILIPPIANS 2:13. If our faith has no fruit it is dead *JAMES 2:18-20; 26 and our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *MATTHEW 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50.
This law is the Law of Moses because Paul was trying to convince the Galatians to not be circumcised (See: Galatians 5:2). Circumcision is a part of the Old Testament. In fact, Scripture flat out says this....

"And by him all that believe are justified from all things,
from which
ye could not be justified by
the law of Moses." (Acts of the Apostles 13:39).

Scripture says you cannot be justified by the Law of Moses.
Read it, and believe it.
Once again "CIRCUMCISION" is not one of God's 10 commandments. It is one of the laws in ordinances and shadow laws *HEBREWS 10:1-12; EPHESIANS 2:15. So not relavant to the conversation here either.

Look foward to your reply
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Scripture says -

"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"THIS IS the Love of God - that we KEEP His commandments" 1 John 5:2-3
"do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! in fact we ESTABLISH the Law" Rom 3:31
The LAW defines what sin IS Rom 3:19-20
"Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 KJV
the 5th commandment "is the FIRST commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1-2 in that still valid unit of TEN.

And no wonder it says that since under the NEW Covenant God writes "His LAW on the heart and mind" Jer 31:31-34

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:4).
...
"And by him all that believe are justified from all things,from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts of the Apostles 13:39).

Scripture says you cannot be justified by the Law of Moses.

More examples of The LAW of Moses

"Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5
"Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18
"Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
"Honor your father and mother" Ex 20:12

And of course nobody can be "justified" by that law - however that LAW IS "Written on the heart and mind" under the NEW Covenant for the born-again Christian.

"IF they will not hear Moses NEITHER will they listen though one rises from the dead" Luke 16
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
the whole verse says "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts."

is not Circumcision a commandment of God? How can this be reconciled?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
'
the whole verse says "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts."
'
Indeed - it contrast the ceremonial law (for example circumcision) with the moral law "God's Commandments" where as Paul points out in Eph 6:1-2 the 5th commandment is "The first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
'
'
Indeed - it contrast the ceremonial law (for example circumcision) with the moral law "God's Commandments" where as Paul points out in Eph 6:1-2 the 5th commandment is "The first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN
So when you refer to "God's Commandments" you only refer to the 10 Commandments? What happened to the others?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
'
the whole verse says "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts."
'
Indeed - it contrast the ceremonial law (for example circumcision) with the moral law "God's Commandments" where as Paul points out in Eph 6:1-2 the 5th commandment is "The first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN

So when you refer to "God's Commandments" you only refer to the 10 Commandments? What happened to the others?

1. Paul's statement in Eph 6:1-2 is exclusively a reference to the TEN. I can't help that.

2. What I normally talk about is the Jer 31:31-34 LAW of God written on the heart that "INCLUDES" the TEN that we see at Sinai - just as Christ in Matthew 19 mixes in quotes from THE TEN along with Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
'
'
Indeed - it contrast the ceremonial law (for example circumcision) with the moral law "God's Commandments" where as Paul points out in Eph 6:1-2 the 5th commandment is "The first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN



1. Paul's statement in Eph 6:1-2 is exclusively a reference to the TEN. I can't help that.

2. What I normally talk about is the Jer 31:31-34 LAW of God written on the heart that "INCLUDES" the TEN that we see at Sinai - just as Christ in Matthew 19 mixes in quotes from THE TEN along with Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".
Interesting

Genesis 17:13-14
My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

Hmm... sounds pretty serious.
 
Upvote 0