Are professed Christians that worship our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday sinning?

tall73 said:

No, it says the items listed are shadows, and the substance is of Christ.

Colossians 2:16-17​

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. (NKJV)​

The phrasing of the feasts, new moons and sabbaths refers to all the appointed times, as we see in the OT:

Ezekiel 45:17​

17 Then it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel.” (NKJV)​

​

And we know this included the weekly Sabbath, as the context spells out the various offerings, including for the weekly Sabbath:

Ezekiel 46:1​

1 ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “The gateway of the inner court that faces toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the Sabbath it shall be opened, and on the day of the New Moon it shall be opened. (NKJV)​

​

Click to expand...

The Bible defines shadow laws as animal sacrifices Heb10:1-15 so Paul is plainly speaking of the sabbaths that are connected to animal sacrifices, that had to do with food and drink offerings the context of this passage. The weekly Sabbath God connects to God’s Creation that came before sin, before animal sacrifices and points to Him as our Creator Exo20:11 the only God we are to worship Rev14:7 God our Creator will never be a shadow of anything and its a very sad and grave misunderstanding of the plain context Paul gave. This will all get sorted out in God’s time soon enough.

Soyeong said:

God's feasts are foreshadows that testify about what is to come and we should live in a way that testifies about the truth of what is to come by following Christ's examine of celebrating them rather than a way that bears false witness against the truth of what is to come, so Paul was emphasizing the the importance of not allowing anyone to judge and and prevent us from obeying God.

Click to expand...

The myriads in Jerusalem, in Acts 21 continued to be zealous for the whole law. They did not require that of the gentiles.

So the Sabbath was not done away with. The Day of Atonement, Passover, Pentecost, etc. were not done away with.

And we see them referenced in Acts:

SabbathBlessings said:

The Bible defines shadow laws as animal sacrifices Heb10:1-15 so Paul is plainly speaking of the sabbaths that are connected to animal sacrifices, that had to do with food and drink offerings the context of this passage.

Click to expand...

I posted the context which clearly points out the weekly Sabbath was included.

So when you say you go by Scripture, you should look at Scripture. This listing of holy times was already known from the OT, and included the Sabbath.

The same is true in Numbers 28, 29.

And yes, the Sabbath included sacrifices. It is an appointed time by definition.

SabbathBlessings said:

The weekly Sabbath God connects to God’s Creation that came before sin,

Click to expand...

He connects it to the Exodus from Egypt as well, but all of this is in the context of the covenant with Israel.

Exodus explains God giving the commandment which is to be remembered to honor the Creator and Redeemer of Israel.

Genesis explains the 7th day was made holy, but this too is in the context of the writings given to Israel.

Moses indicates that God blessed the 7th day as a memorial to creation. He is referring back to Exodus, as Genesis was written in the context of Israel as well.

And we see that the Sabbath was also a sign with Israel of God sanctifying them. It was in the covenant document with them.

He says clearly that the Sabbath is a sign with Israel. But the Scriptures also say that the same covenant was NOT given before then.

The covenant was with Israel at Horeb. It was NOT made with their fathers before.

In other words, it is not an argument from silence that they didn't keep the Sabbath before. It is plainly said this covenant with Israel was something new. And the Sabbath was a sign with Israel.

It was in the context of the covenant with that people that the Sabbath was given, not only to remind them of their Creator, but their liberation from Egypt:

We see also in Ezekiel 20 that God makes a distinction between the laws by which one shall live and the sign of the Sabbath given to Israel in addition to those laws:



Now we do indeed see those who were gentiles and joined themselves to Israel keeping the Sabbath.

But the Acts council, reiterated in Acts 21 again, did not require the gentiles to be circumcised and keep the whole law of Moses.

So when Paul says let no one judge you in regards to food or drink, or a feast or a new mooon or a sabbath, he said these things were shadows of things to come, and the substance is Christ.

And he said in Romans 14:


Notice also that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem were still observing the rites around vows, sacrifices, etc. while the sanctuary still stood, but they did so knowing they pointed to Christ.

They did not require circumcision and keeping the whole law for gentiles. This referred back to the council:

SabbathBlessings said:

God will never be a shadow of anything

Click to expand...

You have it backwards of course. Those appointed times are a shadow pointing to Christ. Of course God will not be a shadow of anything.

But the law is a shadow:

SabbathBlessings said:

and its a very sad and grave misunderstanding and twisting the plain context Paul gave. God will never be a shadow.

Click to expand...

You ignored the OT context. And you are the one who twisted the claim. God is not a shadow. The appointed times are.

We see in later history the church carried on commemorating the Pascha, Pentecost, Sabbath, etc. as times of worship, but not in the same way as with Israel in the law, as @The Liturgist has alluded to at times.

So even the gentiles in the church did not disregard these shadows pointing to Christ.

But they are shadows, and He is the substance. They point to Him.

Christ our Passover Lamb has been slain. His blood is the blood of the new covenant. He entered into heaven itself on our behalf once for all, not as the priest entered yearly with blood not His own.

He fulfilled it.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Yes. The regulative principle is found in Protestant theology mainly Reformed, during very late in the Reformation Era due to Puritan influences in the Westminster Confession of Faith (pub. 1649). The regulative principle is unknown in Lutheran circles as Lutheranism was developed fully as would naturally allow in 1580 with the publishing of the Book of Concord.

The principle that which is not expressly permitted, is prohibited runs contrary to Paul's law of Christian liberty

I Cor 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.

• I Cor 10:23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable

P.S. We saw in the last three years a secular form of the Regulative Principle concerning the Second Amendment. No guns in private establishments except without prior approval....smacks of that which is not expressly permitted, is prohibited AND IS BAD LAW.

Click to expand...

Good point - the regulative principle is not only predicated upon a logical fallacy, argumentum ex silencio, and unreasonable readings of St. Paul (vis a vis a cappella exclusive psalmody) but is in fact unscriptural.

Carl Emerson said:

Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

Click to expand...

Thank you Carl. I forgot the verse number, but indeed, this is unambiguous worship in the context of 1 Corinthians 11:1-34, and synoptic parallels in the Gospels According to Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke, and also the risen Lord once again communing with His Disciples, becoming “known to them in the breaking of bread” in Luke ch. 24, and also of course, John ch. 6.

Alas this is unlikely to satisfy those who reject a Eucharistic understanding of worship centered around becoming partakers of the divine nature, as St. Peter put it in his first epistle, to know Christ our God and through Him the Father through the uncreated grace of God the Holy Spirit* in the Breaking of Bread.

* However, as He so often does, God the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who spake by the prophets and is everywhere present and fills all things, as our Comforter and Paraclete, who indwells the faithful and guides us, provides us a compelling footnote, in His quiet, mysterious manner: for He also descended on the First Day, in Acts chapter two, while the Apostles and 200 disciples were praying - at the third hour, that is to say, 9 AM, the most common time for Sunday worship! Thus even those who would ignore or deny the Eucharistic allusion and reduce worship to a spirit-led prayer service (and such services like Matins, Lauds, Prime, or in the East, Orthros, and the Hours, have always been a vital part of Christian worship in all major denominations) should acknowledge a precedence in Acts.

Carl Emerson said:

They came together for the breaking of bread which was commanded to be a regular event and must celebrate the resurrection as they partake in His Resurrected Life by faith in the drinking of the wine.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it is so commanded by God Himself that we do this in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; and Luke 22:14-23; we also see it happen in Luke 24 and Acts 20, and there is a further imperative to partake of the Eucharist (which had not yet been instituted, alienating many followers of our Lord, in some cases temporarily) in John 6:29-65.

Believe it or not, I have seen attempts by some to deny that John 6:29-65 has a Eucharistic relevance, but such arguments are not exegetically credible due to the corresponding texts referenced above with clear linguistic parallels. However it is irksome that we are accused of not providing Scripture when we do, that when we articulate our theology we are accused of disobeying Scripture, as opposed to a particular interpretation that I would argue is not obvious nor exegetically viable, relying on an eisegetical hermeneutic predicated upon accommodating dogma sourced in what some restorationists believe is infallible inspired extra-Biblical text, and also, when we point out errors of interpretation, addressing the argument, are falsely accused of what amounts to argumentum ad hominem.

Perhaps it would help if people realized the ad hominem fallacy is not “your arguments consistently follow such and such an error” but rather, “your arguments are wrong because you made them.” For example if we dismissed as erroneous a statement only because it was made by a religious leader we personally had a history of disagreeing with, for example, if I rejected all of Hubert Zwingli’s theological writings or all of the writings of certain prior Roman Popes, or of John Calvin for that matter, simply because I disagree with them on many things, that would be an ad hominem argument per se. Ad hominem does not apply to pointing out repeated error, but to rejecting an argument on the basis of the source (it being the opposite of appeal to unqualified authority, and also a close relative of the appeal to ignorance and certain related a priori appeals such as the appeal to compromise (also known as the Golden Mean fallacy), the argument from silence, etc.

To put it another way, what some people don’t seem to understand is that an ad hominem if I were to dismiss the arguments of someone because of who they were, and not based on the content of their argument. Addressing a perceived repetitive error or erroneous trend in someone’s arguments does not constitute an ad hominem, for it still focuses on the argument and does not a priori reject an argument that person says on the basis of their identity, which is the heart of the ad hominem fallacy (or its inverse, appeal to authority, which accepts arguments that would otherwise be rejected or ignored on the basis of the source, particularly where the source is lacking qualifications pertinent to the subject matter).

By the way @Ain't Zwinglian @ViaCrucis @prodromos does my logic check out to you here? I always like to check my logical arguments for fear of accidental sophistry.

The Liturgist said:

By the way @Ain't Zwinglian @ViaCrucis @prodromos does my logic check out to you here? I always like to check my logical arguments for fear of accidental sophistry.

Click to expand...

I'm not terribly good at identifying logical fallacies. I can recognise that there is a fallacy but I'm not too good at articulating how or why.

tall73 said:

I posted the context which clearly points out the weekly Sabbath was included.

So when you say you go by Scripture, you should look at Scripture. This listing of holy times was already known from the OT, and included the Sabbath.

The same is true in Numbers 28, 29.

And yes, the Sabbath included sacrifices. It is an appointed time by definition.



He connects it to the Exodus from Egypt as well, but all of this is in the context of the covenant with Israel.

Exodus explains God giving the commandment which is to be remembered to honor the Creator and Redeemer of Israel.

Genesis explains the 7th day was made holy, but this too is in the context of the writings given to Israel.

Moses indicates that God blessed the 7th day as a memorial to creation. He is referring back to Exodus, as Genesis was written in the context of Israel as well.

And we see that the Sabbath was also a sign with Israel of God sanctifying them. It was in the covenant document with them.

Exodus 31:12-18​

12 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. 14 You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ”​

18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God. (NKJV)​

​

He says clearly that the Sabbath is a sign with Israel. But the Scriptures also say that the same covenant was NOT given before then.

​

Deuteronomy 5:1-4​

1 And Moses called all Israel, and said to them: “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive. 4 The LORD talked with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. (NKJV)​

​

​

The covenant was with Israel at Horeb. It was NOT made with their fathers before.

In other words, it is not an argument from silence that they didn't keep the Sabbath before. It is plainly said this covenant with Israel was something new. And the Sabbath was a sign with Israel.

It was in the context of the covenant with that people that the Sabbath was given, not only to remind them of their Creator, but their liberation from Egypt:

Deuteronomy 5:12-15​

12 Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. (NKJV)​

​

Adventists speak of moral and ceremonial law, though both were required of Israel. But if you speak of moral and ceremonial, the Sabbath is clearly ceremonial. It points to creation, liberation from Egypt, to sanctification, it is a memorial. It has sacrifices associated with it, as do the other appointed times.​

​

There is no sacrifice associated with thou shalt not kill, or thou shalt not steal, because they are not ceremonial memorials.​

​

​

We see also in Ezekiel 20 that God makes a distinction between the laws by which one shall live and the sign of the Sabbath given to Israel in addition to those laws:

Ezekiel 20:10-12​

10 “Therefore I made them go out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. 11 And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments, which, if a man does, he shall live by them.’ 12 Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them. (NKJV)​

Now we do indeed see those who were gentiles and joined themselves to Israel keeping the Sabbath.

But the Acts council, reiterated in Acts 21 again, did not require the gentiles to be circumcised and keep the whole law of Moses.

So when Paul says let no one judge you in regards to food or drink, or a feast or a new mooon or a sabbath, he said these things were shadows of things to come, and the substance is Christ.

Colossians 2:16-17​

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. (NKJV)​

​

And he said in Romans 14:

Romans 14:5-6​

5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. (NKJV)​

​

This is a broad principle which Adventists try to limit. But he didn't limit it.​

​

The Israelite Christians went right on keeping the law, as it pointed to Christ. That was best for them to reach non-believing Jews. They were zealous for the whole law (even the part Adventists are not).​

​

However, they didn't require the gentiles to keep the whole law. And this was best for them, as being circumcised and making pilgrimage three times a year was not given to Gentiles, and would not help them in their evangelism towards them.​

​

Acts 21:20-25​

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (NKJV)​

Notice also that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem were still observing the rites around vows, sacrifices, etc. while the sanctuary still stood, but they did so knowing they pointed to Christ.

They did not require circumcision and keeping the whole law for gentiles. This referred back to the council:

Acts 15:5​

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (NKJV)​

​

Acts 15:23-26​

23 They wrote this letter by them:​

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,​

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:​

Greetings.​

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NKJV)​

You have it backwards of course. Those appointed times are a shadow pointing to Christ. Of course God will not be a shadow of anything.

But the law is a shadow:

Hebrews 10:1​

1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. (NKJV)​

You ignored the OT context. And you are the one who twisted the claim. God is not a shadow. The appointed times are.

Click to expand...

I have provided context to Col2:14-17 more times than I can count. You can rely on misunderstood Paul, my faith is in my Creator Exo 20:11 Rev 14:7 and I know when God made the Sabbath at Creation Exo20:11 had no sacrifices because there was no sin, repeated in stone written by the Holy Spirit, kept by Jesus, made for mankind, He said would be kept for His people after the Cross and for eternity with no sacrifices because the 4th commandment Exo20:8-11 was never connected to animal sacrifices like the annual sabbaths, you know this, but are still teaching it anyway. The holy day of the LORD is about honoring God by our actions Isa 58:13, animal sacrifices came as a result of sin, for breaking the law of God. They were daily sacrifices, including on the Sabbath because people sinned daily, but animal sacrifices ended at the Cross Heb10:1-15 as we go to Jesus now for forgiveness and cleansing of sins which is still breaking the law of God, the Sabbath did not end at the Cross Acts 13:42 Acts 13:44 Acts 15:21 Acts 16:13 Acts 18:4, kept decades and decades after the Cross, just as Jesus indicated. My faith is in Him, not traditions and teaching of man taking a lot of Scripture out of context, just as we were warned. You are free to believe and teach as you wish and we are accountable Mat5:19 Matt15:3-14, you will not convince me so I am OK agreeing to disagree. God will sort this all out, in His time.

SabbathBlessings said:

I have provided context to Col2:14-17 more times than I can count.

Click to expand...

You have repeatedly said that it does not include the weekly Sabbath. But it does, as the OT context makes clear. The listing of appointed times he is drawing upon did include the weekly Sabbath in Numbers 28 and 29 and Ezekiel 45 and 46. And yes, it refers to food and drink offerings, as do those passages. Because it all went together. They were all shadows. And the Sabbath had appointed offerings.

SabbathBlessings said:

You can rely on misunderstood Paul, my faith is in my Creator

Click to expand...

Your Creator called Paul to his ministry. You cannot say we have to go by Scripture then try to cut Paul out of Scripture.

SabbathBlessings said:

I know when God made the Sabbath at Creation Exo20:11

Click to expand...

It says He rested the 7th day.

We see the introduction of it to Israel in Ex. 16, and it had to be explained. And this was quite a while after leaving Egypt:


It was a sign with Israel:

SabbathBlessings said:

repeated in stone

Click to expand...

Yes, repeated in stone to Israel, and spoken by God. But not before then, as the text makes plain:

SabbathBlessings said:

kept by Jesus

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed, just as was the Passover, etc. He kept all the law given to Israel. But you don't.

SabbathBlessings said:

He said would be kept for His people after the Cross and for eternity

Click to expand...

I have noted already that none of these days are done away with. The Israelite believers were zealous for all of them. But you don't acknowledge the statements in Acts about the feast of unleavened bread, the fast, Pentecost, etc. Because you don't do those.

And your reference to Isaiah shows more of your inconsistency. Isaiah indicates both the New Moon and Sabbath were occasions for worship. Both point to Jesus, per Col. 2.

SabbathBlessings said:

because the 4th commandment Exo20:8-11 was never connected to animal sacrifices like the annual sabbaths, you know this

Click to expand...

I of course do NOT know it because it is not true.


The Sabbath sign with Israel included offerings.

SabbathBlessings said:

but are still teaching it anyway.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is in Scripture.

SabbathBlessings said:

The holy day of the LORD is about honoring God by our actions Isa 58:13

Click to expand...

Israel had turned away from the covenant God made with them regarding the Sabbath, among other sins.

SabbathBlessings said:

They were daily sacrifices, including on the Sabbath because people sinned daily, but animal sacrifices ended at the Cross

Click to expand...

No, there were specific offerings on the Sabbath in addition to the daily.


And regarding sacrifice, the Jewish believers in Jerusalem kept offering them until the temple was destroyed--because they pointed to Jesus and His once-for-all Sacrifice.

SabbathBlessings said:

the Sabbath did not end at the Cross Acts 13:42 Acts 13:44 Acts 15:21 Acts 16:13 Acts 18:4, kept decades and decades after the Cross, just as Jesus indicated.

Click to expand...

Of course, neither did I claim it ended. Just the opposite. And neither did the fast, or the days of unleavened bread, or Pentecost. They were all referred to in Acts. But you don't acknowledge those. The Jewish believers were zealous for the whole law. But that was not required of the gentiles.

SabbathBlessings said:

My faith is in Him, not traditions and teaching of man taking a lot of Scripture out of context, just as we were warned.

Click to expand...

You took Col. 2 out of its OT context.

You ignored the statements in Acts about all the law being kept, including Pentecost, etc. You ignored my statement that the Sabbath was not done away with.

But its context was a covenant with Israel, as part of their covenant, which was NOT made with their forefathers, as Scripture said.

Hentenza said:

Maybe you can answer the question that the other posters keep avoiding. Can you provide evidence that the sabbath was kept before Moses?

Click to expand...

God says it is a sign with the Children of Israel.


Moses affirms God made the covenant at Horeb, but NOT with the fathers before then.


So it seems unlikely.

The Liturgist said:

By the way @Ain't Zwinglian @ViaCrucis @prodromos does my logic check out to you here? I always like to check my logical arguments for fear of accidental sophistry.

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

I'm not terribly good at identifying logical fallacies. I can recognise that there is a fallacy but I'm not too good at articulating how or why.

Click to expand...

I am with Prodromos here. But what I find irksome with the Regulative Principle is that is it wrong or worse, it is a sin to preach on Christ's birth on Christmas Eve or Day because there is no passage of Scripture explicitly allowing Christmas as a Christian holiday or special day. Mind you, the Regulative principle will allow you to preach on Christ's birth on any other day....but not Christmas.

This transgresses Paul's law of Christian freedom----Romans 14:5-6 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord.

Just because I believe in a Christian Day festive service.....I have that Christian Freedom to worship this way. The regulativists want all days everywhere alike.

tall73 said:

You have repeatedly said that it does not include the weekly Sabbath. But it does, as the OT context makes clear. The listing of appointed times he is drawing upon did include the weekly Sabbath in Numbers 28 and 29 and Ezekiel 45 and 46. And yes, it refers to food and drink offerings, as do those passages. Because it all went together. They were all shadows. And the Sabbath had appointed offerings.

Click to expand...

All you are doing is quoting that there was sabbath(s) feast days in the OT and the Sabbath day, you have not proved that Paul is speaking of both. Paul very clearly is speaking of the sabbath(s) that were handwritten in ordinances. Col2:14

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;

The Ten Commandments including the Sabbath comamndment was written by the finger of God. Its the Testimony of God Exo31:18 under the mercy seat of God Exo25:21

Moses handwrote the ordinances so the context is proving your interpretation to be wrong.

2Chro 33:8 and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers—only if they are careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.”

Which included every thing except the Ten Commandments, which included the 4th commandment written by the finger of God, Exo31:18 not handwritten by Moses, that was placed besides the ark that was a witness against thee Deut31:24-26

Your interpretation makes the Sabbath that God made for mankind Mark2:27 against mankind at Creation, so basically teaching God was against man right after He made man in His image at Creation before sin.

Shadow laws are not sin, what God deems as doing righteousness, doing evil, the Bible very clearly and plainly tells us what shadow laws are Heb 10:1-10 which is in context to this entire passage. God never un-Blessed and un-Sanctified the seventh day Sabbath. Jesus claimed Lordship over it and said who He made it for. Not for Paul to come along 30 years later and countermand Him after Jesus ratified His covenant by His death.

tall73 said:

Your Creator called Paul to his ministry. You cannot say we have to go by Scripture then try to cut Paul out of Scripture.

Click to expand...

This is a strawman and I never said such thing. I beleive Paul was a servant of God, not His corrector. Why I beleive what the Bible says people would do to his writings 2Peter3:16 something I beleive we should take serious as it is a serious warning

tall73 said:

Exodus 20:11​

11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (NKJV)​

It says He rested the 7th day.

Click to expand...

God did 4 things with the seventh day that He did not do with any other day.

1. God rested on the seventh day, Gen2:1-3 not because God needed rest but God always led the example for mankind.
2. He sanctified the Sabbath- set it apart for holy use Gen2:3
3. He blessed the Sabbath day Exo20:11 Gen2:3 that no man can reverse because man is not God Num20:19-20
4. He named the seventh day the Sabbath and made it interchangeable Exo20:11 it is the holy day of the LORD Isa58:13 in God's own words.

God did not do this with any other day.

tall73 said:

We see the introduction of it to Israel in Ex. 16, and it had to be explained. And this was quite a while after leaving Egypt:

Exodus 16:1​

1 And they journeyed from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came to the Wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they departed from the land of Egypt. (NKJV)​

It was a sign with Israel:

Exodus 31:17​

17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ” (NKJV)​

Yes, repeated in stone to Israel, and spoken by God. But not before then, as the text makes plain:

2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive.​

Click to expand...

You are conflating a covenant which is an agreement with the law of God. God never made an agreement with an entire nation before Israel so of course it would be a different agreement, it doesn't mean God did not give His instruction for righteousness (right-doing) until Mt Sinai. We see plainly in Scripture that is not so.

Israel is just a name God gave and its never been only literal if so, God would have not called it His son. If it was literal it would mean Adam

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn.
Hos 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.

God promises through our faith everything He promised through Abraham

Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

tall73 said:

I have noted already that none of these days are done away with. The Israelite believers were zealous for all of them. But you don't acknowledge the statements in Acts about the feast of unleavened bread, the fast, Pentecost, etc. Because you don't do those.

And your reference to Isaiah shows more of your inconsistency. Isaiah indicates both the New Moon and Sabbath were occasions for worship. Both point to Jesus, per Col. 2.

Click to expand...

A New Moon can mean a new moon feast or can also mean just the new month.

Lets look at these more closely...

In Col 2:16 neomēnia (Key) it means †νουμηνία noumēnía, noo-may-nee'-ah; feminine of a compound of G3501 and G3376 (as noun by implication, of G2250); the festival of new moon:—new moon

In Col 2:16 Its connected to the feast day offerings.

In Isa 66:23 lets look at the meaning for that

חֹדֶשׁ chôdesh, kho'-desh; from H2318; the new moon; by implication, a month:—month(-ly), new moon.

Its connected to the month. No feast days.

Jesus fulfilled the feast days and offerings in Him, the New Moon simply means New Month since the Bible used the moons to know where they were in the month. In the New Heaven and New Earth, there will still be new months according to the Lord and will still be coming together before the Lord to worship Him on the Sabbath, but there will not be new moon festivals connected to animal sacrifices.

tall73 said:

I of course do NOT know it because it is not true.

Numbers 28:9-10​

9 ‘And on the Sabbath day two lambs in their first year, without blemish, and two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with oil, with its drink offering— 10 this is the burnt offering for every Sabbath, besides the regular burnt offering with its drink offering. (NKJV)​

The Sabbath sign with Israel included offerings.

No, there were specific offerings on the Sabbath in addition to the daily.

Numbers 28:10 this is the burnt offering for every Sabbath, besides the regular burnt offering with its drink offering.

And regarding sacrifice, the Jewish believers in Jerusalem kept offering them until the temple was destroyed--because they pointed to Jesus and His once-for-all Sacrifice.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if you read my post but I acknowledged that they offered animal sacrifices after the fall on the Sabbath, But according to God, the weekly Sabbath started at Creation before sin so no sacrifices Exo20:11 no sacrifices in the 4th commandment, the Sabbath continued on in the New Covenant without animal sacrifices because those were the shadow laws according to Scripture that ended at the Cross Heb10:1-15, not one of God's finger-written commandments.

tall73 said:

Acts 21:23-25​

23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.​

Click to expand...

These sacrifices were not atonement sacrifices nor does it say anything about them being about or on the Sabbath day.

tall73 said:

Of course, neither did I claim it ended. Just the opposite. And neither did the fast, or the days of unleavened bread, or Pentecost. They were all referred to in Acts. But you don't acknowledge those. The Jewish believers were zealous for the whole law. But that was not required of the gentiles.

Acts 15:5​

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (NKJV)​

​

Acts 15:24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NKJV)​

Click to expand...

Circumcisions is not required for Gentiles in the OT or NT. In the OT Gentiles could partake in the temple services for the forgiveness of sins through circumcision, but Jesus did away with that wall of separation at the Cross and anyone can go to Him at anytime without an animal sacrifice, but we should present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God and live holy lives as He asked of His people.

tall73 said:

You took Col. 2 out of its OT context.

Click to expand...

God will be the Judge of this for both of us, I do not beleive Paul would be so careless against one of God's written and spoken commandments, God's Testimony. Why Paul was so careful with the context around these verses. Why Paul himself didn't even do what you claim he taught in these verses.

"Worshipping on Sunday instead of Saturday" feels a lot like "eating meat instead of vegetables" when what's presented is a full meal that includes steak, salad, and potatoes. It's not "instead of".

Sunday, historically, is the star of the show of Christian gathering--but Christians worship, gather, and honor God on every day of the week. Almost every church in every tradition and denomination that I've ever known or participated with has held services on Saturdays, Thursdays, Wednesdays, Fridays, etc. But the principle day, the chief day, is the Lord's Day. In the same way that when I sit down to a big family meal the roast or turkey is the star of the show--but I'm eating everything, because it's a full course experience of food, family, and blessing.

Perhaps some people are content to only eat fast food or they only want mashed potatoes and then pie, away from the rest of the family in their bedroom or something. But me, I want to sit at the family table and enjoy the whole meal with everything.

ViaCrucis said:

"Worshipping on Sunday instead of Saturday" feels a lot like "eating meat instead of vegetables" when what's presented is a full meal that includes steak, salad, and potatoes. It's not "instead of".

Sunday, historically, is the star of the show of Christian gathering--but Christians worship, gather, and honor God on every day of the week. Almost every church in every tradition and denomination that I've ever known or participated with has held services on Saturdays, Thursdays, Wednesdays, Fridays, etc. But the principle day, the chief day, is the Lord's Day. In the same way that when I sit down to a big family meal the roast or turkey is the star of the show--but I'm eating everything, because it's a full course experience of food, family, and blessing.

Perhaps some people are content to only eat fast food or they only want mashed potatoes and then pie, away from the rest of the family in their bedroom or something. But me, I want to sit at the family table and enjoy the whole meal with everything.

Click to expand...

The Israelites worshipped God on every day of the week, which included obeying His command to keep the 7th day holy, so the problem is not with someone worshiping on Sunday or on other days but with them doing that instead of obeying God's command to keep the 7th day holy. In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so we should not elevate our traditions above the commands of God.

Hentenza said:

Jesus can.

Click to expand...

If the Law of Moses has not been nullified, then it is still a valid way to know God that those who want to know Him should still follow.

Hentenza said:

The law of Moses is not required for the Christian (many verses including Galatians and Romans).

Click to expand...

In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which Paul also taught based on the Law of Moses (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23). Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), and to be imitators of Paul as he is of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). So both Christ and Paul taught to follow the Law of Moses by word and by example and being a Christian is about being a follower of what Christ taught, not about refusing to follow Him. Galatians and Romans should not be interpreted in a way that turns them against following what Christ and Paul taught.

Hentenza said:

Jesus nailed the law of Moses to the cross (Col.2:14).

Click to expand...

In Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten ordinance to Christ's cross that announced the charge that was against him, which fits perfectly with the concept of the handwritten ordinance that listed the charges that were against us instead being nailed to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with nailing any laws to the cross. The reason that Christ went to the cross was not in order to cause us to be free to do what God revealed to be sin through the Mosaic Law, but just the opposite. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Mosaic Law but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20).

Hentenza said:

As I stated on my post that you did not address is that the law remains to lead unbelievers to Christ. To show them that they need a savior.

Click to expand...

I did address that in the post #543 that you did not address, so please address it.

Hentenza said:

Maybe you can answer the question that the other posters keep avoiding. Can you provide evidence that the sabbath was kept before Moses?

Click to expand...

The Gospel that called for us to repent from our disobedience to the Mosaic Law that Jesus taught in Matthew 4:15-23 is in accordance with him being sent as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-36), which is the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), which he spread to those in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5).

The Hebrew word "yada" refers to intimate relationships/knowledge gained by experience such as with Genesis 4:1 where Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. God's way is the way to know (yada) Him and Jesus by experiencing embodying His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3). For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew (yada) Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know (yada) Him, in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His way through the Law of Moses, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Mosaic Law is to graciously teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life.

In Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the Heaven, to his children He will give all of these lands, and through his children all of the nations of the earth shall be blessed because he heard God's voice and guarded His charge, commandments, statutes, and laws. In Deuteronomy 30:16, if the children of Abraham will love God with all of their hearts by walking in His way in obedience to His commandments, statutes, and laws, then the will live and multiply and God will bless them in the land that they go to posses. So the promise was made to Abraham because he walked in God's way, he taught his children and those of his household to do that in accordance with spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, and because they did that in obedience to the Mosaic Law. So both Abraham and Moses spread the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace by teaching to walk in God's way.

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so the has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. In Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God, he was a righteous man, and he walked with God, so God was gracious to Noah by teaching him to walk in His way and he was righteous because he obeyed through faith.

rstrats said:

Why do you think that Colossians 2:16 is saying that?

Click to expand...

It is good that you question the religious philosophy of the world God placed us in. From the very beginning, there were voices that "professed to know God", even quoted some of His Words, to deceive people. What happens, in my view, like what happened to Eve, is that people consume a lie, and then give it to others who, if they are caught unawares, will consume the same lie. It's not that they purposely try to deceive, but as Paul teaches, they are held by "the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

So it is good, in my view, that men "test the spirits" and "Prove all things" through Scripture.

Col. 2:16 is the perfect example of this very thing, and a good place to put the "prove all things" through Scripture, and Paul teaches is trustworthy "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" into practice and see the results.

In Colossians, Paul is speaking to the Faithful in Colossi. "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse". (Col. 1:2) So these are men who had "repented and turn to God, and were doing works meet for repentance." They were faithful men "who by patient continuance in well doing sought for glory and honour and immortality". They were faithful men who "yielded themselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and their members as instruments of righteousness unto God". They were faithful men who come out from among the the hypocrites who did their alms, and prayed to be seen and heard of men, and were become separate, as saith the Lord, and touched not the unclean thing".

These were faithful men who had not already attained, either were already perfect: but they followed after, if that they may apprehend that for which also they were apprehended of Christ Jesus. Men who counted not themselfs to have apprehended: but this one thing they did, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, they pressed toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Paul is reminding them who created "Everything" that was created, including but not limited to the Moon, Stars, Earth, People, Laws, Statutes, Judgments, All these things which exist in the world God placed us in were created by Him and for Him. (Col. 1:16,17)

Paul is warning them "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.

He knew that this world's religious voices would try to feed them deceit, and would specifically target those who placed their Trust in this Christ. (As Christ also warned about, both in the Law and Prophets, and the Testimony)

Therefore he told these faithful men, "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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

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,

Of course, if a person isn't partaking of the voluntary observances of these Shadows of things yet to come", they won't be "judged" for observing them.

Great question, good study for those who "present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is only our reasonable service. And have not conformed to this world: but have been transformed by the renewing of their mind, "that they may prove" what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Carl Emerson said:

Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

Click to expand...

The command to keep the Sabbath holy does not prohibit meeting on other days of the week, and indeed they did have the meal together in the Temple on every day of the week (Acts 2:46). Part of keeping the Sabbath holy is distinguishing between when it begins and when it ends, so Jews have a longstanding tradition of meeting on the 1st day of the week for Havdalah on Saturday at sundown in order to mark the transition between the end of the Sabbath and the start of the work week. So Paul did not speak from morning until midnight, but rather he spoke from sundown until midnight, then left to travel on Sunday morning. So Acts 20:7 does not establish the purpose of the meeting was to honor the resurrection, and even if it was, it does not establish that they met on Sunday morning, and even if they had, it does not establish that this was the start of a new tradition, and even if it was, it does not establish that they hypocritically set aside any of God's commands in order to establish their tradition, and even if they had, then this would not establish that we should follow their example of sin.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

I am with Prodromos here. But what I find irksome with the Regulative Principle is that is it wrong or worse, it is a sin to preach on Christ's birth on Christmas Eve or Day because there is no passage of Scripture explicitly allowing Christmas as a Christian holiday or special day. Mind you, the Regulative principle will allow you to preach on Christ's birth on any other day....but not Christmas.

This transgresses Paul's law of Christian freedom----Romans 14:5-6 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord.

Just because I believe in a Christian Day festive service.....I have that Christian Freedom to worship this way. The regulativists want all days everywhere alike.

Click to expand...

Interesting perspective. In my understanding, a person who is "weak" in the Faith, is still "in the Faith". An example of this, in my view, would be the Gentile converts in Acts 15. They had repented of Transgressing God's commandments from the heart, and received forgiveness which is evident in the claim by Peter that they received the Holy Spirit, that Peter said God Gives to those who obey Him. And yet the Apostle's found it necessary to tell them to abstain from eating that which God had forbidden His People to eat, and to engage in acts that God had forbidden His People to engage in. Knowing that they would hear Moses on the Sabbath Days being read by those who sat in Moses seat. The exact same thing Jesus instructed to the Multitudes and His Disciples in Matt. 23: 1-4.

So it really doesn't matter then, what day one man esteems as Holy, or if a man doesn't esteem any day as Holy. If this man has "Yielded himself to God, and his members as instruments of righteousness unto God", then God will reveal to him what Days that HE Esteems more sacred than others. And this through the Holy Scriptures that Paul teaches are trustworthy "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

As Paul said, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" whether to believe God or not believe God.

But as is written, "Many" are simply not persuaded to believe God. Jesus speaks to this in a Parable, in my view.

Luke 16: 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.