Biblical Reasons For Dec. 25

[EastCoastRemnant]

You would be better looking in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically paragraphs 1350-1368 1373-1383 1406-1419.

Not sure why you state that the church is somehow different after Vatican II... we both know the Papacy doesn't change. All she did was put some lipstick on the harlot to make her appear more attractive to bring the daughters home.

 

[Dre Khipov]

We know that love originates with God because God is love... any love that we have in us is a gift from God not of ourselves.

John 5:42
But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

Jer 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh...

That doesn't really answer what I was asking. None of the above really says that we can't love unless "God's love is in us". I've also asked you to explain in it plain language as to what you mean by "God's love in us" without using metaphors.

What do you mean by "God's love in us" if you'd avoid using non-religious terms and language? Please, no quotes. I want to see if you how you understand that to work in reality.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I am not sure what you're asking... you said don't use metaphors so I provided scripture. Now you want me to paraphrase what I mean? I'll do my best but let me know if this isn't the format you want..

When we were created in God's image, we became a channel for His love, His character. Even after the fall, God still permitted man to experience His love whether we knew Him or not "rain falling on the just as well as the unjust".

If it wasn't for God's love in the universe then there wouldn't be love in the universe, correct? So, the love that we manifest for one another ultimately flows from Him. That is what I meant by stating we cannot love others unless God's love is already in us. We do not receive that love for God by loving others but because His love is in our hearts.

Hope that makes sense....

 

[ricker]

We are known (or at least were known) as the people of the Book. As such, we reject the idea of sunday sacredness and the transfer of Sabbath as it has no Biblical reference.

For those that celebrate Dec 25th, what are your reasons for doing so? Are they Bible based or tradition? What is the difference between the tradition of sunday and Dec 25th? Should we keep sunday as well?

Hmm, do Adventists have any traditions that don't have Biblical reference? How about Ingathering? Pathfinders? Camp meetings? Local conferences? Sabbath school? Quarterly Communion? Tithe to the General Conference? Church buildings? The list could go on and on.....

A day celebrating the birth of our Lord is a good thing. It brings the event to the forefront of public consciousness.

 

[Dre Khipov]

I am not sure what you're asking... you said don't use metaphors so I provided scripture. Now you want me to paraphrase what I mean? I'll do my best but let me know if this isn't the format you want..

The language precision problem is a very important problem when we are discussing issues like these. There are a lot of people who end up talking at each other using packaged terms that may mean different things to them than people who they are speaking to. That's why breaking these down into more precise language would benefit the discussion, at least on the level we can agree or disagree about some fundamental meaning of words.

Just because you quote scripture, doesn't mean that you communicate precise meaning. Scripture is written and translated from a more poetic language of the past. You have to be more precise about what you think it means, and not just quoting it as some sort of incantation. I hope we can agree on that.

When we were created in God's image, we became a channel for His love, His character. Even after the fall, God still permitted man to experience His love whether we knew Him or not "rain falling on the just as well as the unjust".

Again, you are using a lot of imprecise language in the above, so it's difficult for me to understand what you mean.

1) "Created in God's image"... what do you think it means in plain language?
2) "Channel for His love, his character", what do you mean by channel for love, and concept of love in general, what does it mean to you? When you would have to avoid using the word love and substitute it with other combination of words... which words would you use?
3) "Experience His love", again what do you mean? If you provide a phrase that we could use every time you use the word "love" or "God's love".... would your language make sense if we substitute that phrase in every single occurrence you use the word love in?

I'm just trying to understand how you think all of this really works.

If it wasn't for God's love in the universe then there wouldn't be love in the universe, correct? So, the love that we manifest for one another ultimately flows from Him. That is what I meant by stating we cannot love others unless God's love is already in us. We do not receive that love for God by loving others but because His love is in our hearts.

Again, you are using a lot of metaphors and packaged ideas. Love is a concept. When you say "Love flows", it's obviously a metaphor. What do you mean by that? What do you mean "His love is in our hearts"?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Dre, if you cannot understand what I meant with the above post then I am at a loss... I am not here to play semantic language games with you. If my friends 9 year old twins can get the concept, I am sure you can if you try...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Hmm, do Adventists have any traditions that don't have Biblical reference? How about Ingathering? Pathfinders? Camp meetings? Local conferences? Sabbath school? Quarterly Communion? Tithe to the General Conference? Church buildings? The list could go on and on.....

A day celebrating the birth of our Lord is a good thing. It brings the event to the forefront of public consciousness.

Do any of the above examples you gave involve pagan symbols?... done on a pagan holiday?... does Dec 25th adhere to Biblical principle? It's not about reference so much as principle. Reference would be the letter... principle, the spirit.

Pathfinders.... teach the youth in the ways of the Lord.

Camp meetings... fellowshipping together, not forsaking the brethren.

Sabbath school... learning at the feet of Jesus.

Quarterly communion... a direct command from Jesus. Is every 4 months enough, according to the command? No, but the practice is Biblically sound.

Church buildings... I seem to recall that the early Christians gathered in the synagogues to be taught.

The ones I left out, I don't personally consider to be based on Biblical principles and therefore I do not do them...

The hierarchal structure of our church was not ordained by God and sister White spoke very much against it.

Tithing to the church may or may not follow principle but I choose to tithe to a self supporting ministry in Zambia where I can see the workings of God and how He blesses and increases the tithe for His glory.

Not sure what ingathering is, so I have no comment.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Dre, if you cannot understand what I meant with the above post then I am at a loss... I am not here to play semantic language games with you. If my friends 9 year old twins can get the concept, I am sure you can if you try...

You say things like "God's love flowing through us", but that's a metaphor. We can pretend that we can understand each other, so can your 9 year old, but without actually demonstrating that you understand what you are saying... I'm not really sure what you mean. A metaphor is broad-enough that it can mean whatever you want to if you try.

That's why I ask... to see if you actually understand what you are talking about enough to verbalize it without using metaphors.

 

[ricker]

QUOTE="EastCoastRemnant, post: 69011868, member: 273791"]Do any of the above examples you gave involve pagan symbols?... done on a pagan holiday?... does Dec 25th adhere to Biblical principle? It's not about reference so much as principle. Reference would be the letter... principle, the spirit.

Pathfinders.... teach the youth in the ways of the Lord.

Camp meetings... fellowshipping together, not forsaking the brethren.

Sabbath school... learning at the feet of Jesus.

Quarterly communion... a direct command from Jesus. Is every 4 months enough, according to the command? No, but the practice is Biblically sound.

Church buildings... I seem to recall that the early Christians gathered in the synagogues to be taught.

The ones I left out, I don't personally consider to be based on Biblical principles and therefore I do not do them...

The hierarchal structure of our church was not ordained by God and sister White spoke very much against it.

Tithing to the church may or may not follow principle but I choose to tithe to a self supporting ministry in Zambia where I can see the workings of God and how He blesses and increases the tithe for His glory.

Not sure what ingathering is, so I have no comment.[/QUOTE]

You may have reasons you do those things that contain vague Biblical principles, but they are not Bible mandated and as such are non-biblical traditions. Of course the Catholic and Protestant traditions you rail against are equally suggested, but not mandated, by Scripture.
I'm saddened that you seem to be antagonistic against the worldwide celebration of our Lord's birth.

Edit to add: Feel free to congregate at Jewish synagogues if you wish.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

You may have reasons you do those things that contain vague Biblical principles, but they are not Bible mandated and as such are non-biblical traditions. Of course the Catholic and Protestant traditions you rail against are equally suggested, but not mandated, by Scripture.
I'm saddened that you seem to be antagonistic against the worldwide celebration of our Lord's birth.

Edit to add: Feel free to congregate at Jewish synagogues if you wish.

Can you elaborate what you mean by 'vague' Bible principles... are you saying tithing is a vague principle? Is gathering in a religious place of worship another vague principle? Gathering with the brethren to share in fellowship and teaching is a vague principle too?

I guess I can now see why something like being obedient to God, keeping His Commandments, is a vague principle to you... why, the entire book probably falls under that description for you? But let's stand firm on man made tradition and hubris!

 

[Light of the East]

We are known (or at least were known) as the people of the Book. As such, we reject the idea of sunday sacredness and the transfer of Sabbath as it has no Biblical reference.

For those that celebrate Dec 25th, what are your reasons for doing so? Are they Bible based or tradition? What is the difference between the tradition of sunday and Dec 25th? Should we keep sunday as well?

You would be wrong on all counts.

1. The Sabbath was the covenant ceremony which looked forward to Christ. Exodus 31:16

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

When the covenant ended (Heb 8:13) so did the Sabbath observance. The celebration of Sunday as the day of the glorious and life-giving Resurrection replaces it. You celebrate a day which denies that Christ has come and obtained salvation for us. We celebrate the Resurrection on the day when it happened.

2. The earliest Christians used the earmarks in the Bible to come up with the 25th of December as the date of Christ's birth. They based it upon the time of Zacharias service in the Temple and Elizabeth's conception and birth, and then the conception of Mary and the visitation of Elizabeth to her.

Should you observe Sunday? I dunno. What does the Resurrection of Christ mean to you?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

You would be wrong on all counts.

1. The Sabbath was the covenant ceremony which looked forward to Christ. Exodus 31:16

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

When the covenant ended (Heb 8:13) so did the Sabbath observance. The celebration of Sunday as the day of the glorious and life-giving Resurrection replaces it. You celebrate a day which denies that Christ has come and obtained salvation for us. We celebrate the Resurrection on the day when it happened.

2. The earliest Christians used the earmarks in the Bible to come up with the 25th of December as the date of Christ's birth. They based it upon the time of Zacharias service in the Temple and Elizabeth's conception and birth, and then the conception of Mary and the visitation of Elizabeth to her.

Should you observe Sunday? I dunno. What does the Resurrection of Christ mean to you?

Where to start?

The Sabbath was instituted at creation not Sinai... it was reiterated at Sinai. Christ, through whom all things were made that were made created Sabbath for man, not the Israelites. Why do you suppose it states in Isaiah 66:23 that in the new earth we will be keeping the Sabbath?

The date of Dec 25th was not determined using Elizabeth's conception and Mary's visit to her... if you do that calculation, the time pointed to is Sept/Oct... at the time of the feast of tabernacles. Do you really thing something so significant as Christ's birth was not associated with the feasts that He set up?

The Dec. 25th date was agreed upon to appease the pagans coming into the newly minted Roman 'Christianity'. The had tradition of the mother/child counterfeit that Satan set up millennia before, so the 'church' clothed paganism with Christianity. The same way the Passover resurrection was co-opted by the pagan ritual of oester.

 

[Light of the East]

Where to start?

The Sabbath was instituted at creation not Sinai... it was reiterated at Sinai. Christ, through whom all things were made that were made created Sabbath for man, not the Israelites. Why do you suppose it states in Isaiah 66:23 that in the new earth we will be keeping the Sabbath?

The date of Dec 25th was not determined using Elizabeth's conception and Mary's visit to her... if you do that calculation, the time pointed to is Sept/Oct... at the time of the feast of tabernacles. Do you really thing something so significant as Christ's birth was not associated with the feasts that He set up?

The Dec. 25th date was agreed upon to appease the pagans coming into the newly minted Roman 'Christianity'. The had tradition of the mother/child counterfeit that Satan set up millennia before, so the 'church' clothed paganism with Christianity. The same way the Passover resurrection was co-opted by the pagan ritual of oester.

So in other words, I showed you the verse which says that the Sabbath belongs to the Old Covenant, but since it doesn't meet your requirements, you ignore it and come up with esoteric reasons that the verse does not apply?

As for the "pagan holidays" that Constantine supposedly set up -- you've been reading too many Chick tracts. Constantine was so concerned about the pagans attempting to take over the Christian faith that at one time he moved the headquarters of the Christian faith to a sleepy little town called Byzantium, after of course renaming it after himself. He thought by getting the headquarters of the Church out of Rome he would keep the worship pure.

And, as the other article shows, the Christians of that time celebrated Christmas before Constantine was even a gleam in his daddy's eye.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Let's talk about the quoted scripture... Heb 8:13.

The old covenant was a contract between God and His people, right?... they agreed to do what the Lord told them to do... except, they failed miserably in doing so, time after time after time because they were trying to do it in their own power... When God set up His new covenant, it was sealed, not by the blood of animals, but by the blood of Christ and in so doing, the Holy Spirit was given God's people so that they would be able to keep the covenant, not of their own doing, as the old covenant stated but through the Spirit working in them. The contents of the covenant were the same... obey God and give glory to Him. The mechanism to achieve that goal was what was done away with and replaced with a better one.

Let me ask you this... if the substance of the old covenant was done away with, which included the ten commandments, why did Jesus spend so much time teaching how they were to be kept in the spirit and not just the letter? Why did Jesus reiterate most of the Decalogue specifically in His teachings. The big question is, if the Commandments, which according to 1 John 3:4, the breaking of which is sin, were abolished, then what is now sin and why did Jesus need to come to earth to die? Seriously, think about this for a minute... the only reference for what sin is, for what Jesus came to rescue man from, is the breaking of the Commandments. Without the Commandments in play, be they nailed to the cross or just discarded in a back alleyway, what is now sin? When a man cheats on his wife, is that sin? says who, or more specifically, what? What makes stealing wrong or anger or desiring what someone else has?

 

[Light of the East]

Let's talk about the quoted scripture... Heb 8:13.

The old covenant was a contract between God and His people, right?...

Wrong. A covenant is a relationship, not a contract. That is why in the Scriptures the covenants are spoken of in marital terms. In Hosea, God speaks of national Israel as His wife. In the New Covenant, the Church is called the Bride of Christ.It is relationship, not contract.

they agreed to do what the Lord told them to do... except, they failed miserably in doing so, time after time after time because they were trying to do it in their own power... When God set up His new covenant, it was sealed, not by the blood of animals, but by the blood of Christ and in so doing, the Holy Spirit was given God's people so that they would be able to keep the covenant, not of their own doing, as the old covenant stated but through the Spirit working in them. The contents of the covenant were the same... obey God and give glory to Him. The mechanism to achieve that goal was what was done away with and replaced with a better one.

Sort of. The contents stay the same but there are major changes between the Old and New Covenants. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Covenant. For instance, the Passover Meal pointed forward to the Eucharist. Both of them fulfill the same function, that of a covenant meal.

There are Jewish civil laws which no longer apply to God's people in the New Covenant. For instance, I don't have to worry about not eating ham or bacon. I don't worry about mixing types of cloths. The various Jewish civil laws simply do not apply.

The religious laws changed also, as I said. Circumcision, the ritual of covenant making, became baptism (Col. 2: 12-14) The Passover becomes the Eucharist and the true Lamb of God is eaten by the faithful for eternal life (John 6: 53-54). The high priesthood is ended on earth because it is fulfilled in Christ, who is the eternal Great High Priest (Heb.7-10)

Let me ask you this... if the substance of the old covenant was done away with, which included the ten commandments, why did Jesus spend so much time teaching how they were to be kept in the spirit and not just the letter? Why did Jesus reiterate most of the Decalogue specifically in His teachings. The big question is, if the Commandments, which according to 1 John 3:4, the breaking of which is sin, were abolished, then what is now sin and why did Jesus need to come to earth to die? Seriously, think about this for a minute... the only reference for what sin is, for what Jesus came to rescue man from, is the breaking of the Commandments. Without the Commandments in play, be they nailed to the cross or just discarded in a back alleyway, what is now sin? When a man cheats on his wife, is that sin? says who, or more specifically, what? What makes stealing wrong or anger or desiring what someone else has?[/QUOTE]

The 10 Commandments are the moral Law of God, with the exception of the Sabbath Commandment. As I showed you, the Sabbath is a covenant commandment (Jewish religious law) which does not apply to us. But the moral law, that is, the rest of the commandments, applies to all people at all times.

Jesus reduced the 10 Commandments to just two, and if you think about it, that makes sense. He said the greatest of all commandments is to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, soul, and being. The second is to love our neighbor as ourselves. The essence of sin is that we act in ways towards God and others which lacks this love.

Just as the Passover becomes the Eucharist, the Sabbath is also changed in the New Covenant. My question is why you don't believe Exodus 31:16, which stats that the Sabbath belongs to the Jews?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Wrong. A covenant is a relationship, not a contract. That is why in the Scriptures the covenants are spoken of in marital terms. In Hosea, God speaks of national Israel as His wife. In the New Covenant, the Church is called the Bride of Christ.It is relationship, not contract.

A contract has provisions, such as the blessings and cursing in Lev. I will agree with you that this contract had a relational component to it. Pure relationships are flexible whereas contracts are inflexible in their terms. Just ask poor Uzza whether the provisions were contractual or relational.

There are Jewish civil laws which no longer apply to God's people in the New Covenant. For instance, I don't have to worry about not eating ham or bacon.

The dietary laws were not only for the Israelites but for mans health. God made us and knows what is best for us to eat, right? That's why we see this premise in the story of the flood... the clean animals by sevens and the rest by two's.

The 10 Commandments are the moral Law of God, with the exception of the Sabbath Commandment. As I showed you, the Sabbath is a covenant commandment (Jewish religious law) which does not apply to us. But the moral law, that is, the rest of the commandments, applies to all people at all times.

Can you show me where in the Bible that the 7th day Sabbath command was not included with the rest of the Decalogue, that was written with God's finger and stored inside the ark? By what authority do you have to separate them? The 7th day Sabbath was instituted at creation where it was sanctified and made holy and then reiterated in the Decalogue with the same wording. Also, the 4th Commandment is the only one that identifies the name/title/dominion of the Law giver... the other ceremonial sabbaths were annual Sabbaths that pertained to the Mosaic law.

Jesus reduced the 10 Commandments to just two, and if you think about it, that makes sense. He said the greatest of all commandments is to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, soul, and being. The second is to love our neighbor as ourselves. The essence of sin is that we act in ways towards God and others which lacks this love.

Jesus was giving a synopsis of the Decalogue... the first four Commandments are dealing with our relationship with God, including the Sabbath commandment, it is central to our relationship with Him. The last six are dealing with our relationship with each other.

My question is why you don't believe Exodus 31:16, which stats that the Sabbath belongs to the Jews?

It belongs to the Israelites, God's people.... we are grafted in to that body through Christ.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Also, Jesus clearly said that the Sabbath was for man, not the Jews alone.

Mark 2:27
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

 

[Light of the East]

A contract has provisions, such as the blessings and cursing in Lev. I will agree with you that this contract had a relational component to it. Pure relationships are flexible whereas contracts are inflexible in their terms. Just ask poor Uzza whether the provisions were contractual or relational.

Pure relationships are flexible? Hmmm.....suppose you cheat on your wife and then try to run that nonsense past her? You don't understand covenant, sir. Covenant relationships are made in public with witnesses. There are vows (promises) which are made by both parties, and keeping the vows results in blessings, while breaking them results in curse.

The dietary laws were not only for the Israelites but for mans health. God made us and knows what is best for us to eat, right? That's why we see this premise in the story of the flood... the clean animals by sevens and the rest by two's.

Uh huh. So now I'll turn the tables on you. Where in the Bible does it say that?

Acts 10 kind of works against that. God told Peter to rise up and eat the unclean animals.

Can you show me where in the Bible that the 7th day Sabbath command was not included with the rest of the Decalogue, that was written with God's finger and stored inside the ark?

I gave you the answer. Apparently Exodus 31:16 is not good enough for you.

By what authority do you have to separate them? The 7th day Sabbath was instituted at creation where it was sanctified and made holy and then reiterated in the Decalogue with the same wording. Also, the 4th Commandment is the only one that identifies the name/title/dominion of the Law giver... the other ceremonial sabbaths were annual Sabbaths that pertained to the Mosaic law.

The authority of the Church, which you deny. By what authority does Ellen White speak and make you subservient to her interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures? Paul spoke of the Church as the "pillar and ground of truth." (1 Tim. 3:15). Jesus said that those who would not listen to the Church were to be treated as heathens and pagans. (Matt. 18:17) Paul said that those who teach heresy and foment schism will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (Gal. 5: 19-21)

Jesus was giving a synopsis of the Decalogue... the first four Commandments are dealing with our relationship with God, including the Sabbath commandment, it is central to our relationship with Him. The last six are dealing with our relationship with each other.

Not what He said. Love how you read into the Scriptures that which you wish to see. Go back and read that part again. Jesus was asked "What is the greatest commandment?" I would surmise that the one who asked him this was looking to see which of the Ten that Jesus would pick. (Or maybe which of the 613 of the Jews). Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord thy God with everything we have. In other words, He gave a new commandment which we are to follow.


It belongs to the Israelites, God's people.... we are grafted in to that body through Christ.

Nope. It belonged to the JEWS. National Israel, who were thrown out of the Kingdom by the action of God for killing His Son (Matt. 21: 33-46) Israel is the term or name for all those who are God's people. At one time, to be Israel also meant to be a Jew. Now to be Israel means to be of the Church which is composed of Jew and Gentile. Romans 9:6 is proof of this, where Paul says this:

Rom 9:6
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

How could one be not of Israel if one is of Israel, unless the verse means this: For they are not all of God's people (Israel) who are of national Israel (Jews). This verse shows that the words Israel and Jew are not synonymous and have different meanings.

Also, Jesus clearly said that the Sabbath was for man, not the Jews alone.

The Sabbath was made for man to rest, to worship God, and to take time off from the rigors of life. I am old enough to remember a time when Sunday was that holy day of rest, long before Capitalism, the real religion of this country, bumped it into obscurity. The day of rest changed with the change of the covenant.

Also, you are taking that out of context of the rest of the chapter and the incident which came to Christ's attention. The issue was of having mercy on the Sabbath, something that the Pharisees did not comprehend. They would let people starve to death before breaking their imposed rules of Sabbath. Jesus shows them that mercy is what the Sabbath is about (remember the issue of pulling an oxen out of a well on the Sabbath?) What He said there, in the context of the rest of the story, is not giving the meaning that the Sabbath is intended for all times. You are really reading into the verse what you wish to see.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Pure relationships are flexible? Hmmm.....suppose you cheat on your wife and then try to run that nonsense past her?

I can ask for forgiveness and she can grant it too me and give me another chance... not bound to a black and white consequence.

Uh huh. So now I'll turn the tables on you. Where in the Bible does it say that?

Genesis 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Acts 10 kind of works against that. God told Peter to rise up and eat the unclean anima

ls.

Not really, read the context of the passage... it is a reference for Peter to not call any man unclean. It was an allegory..

I gave you the answer. Apparently Exodus 31:16 is not good enough for you.

Exodus 31:16,17
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

This passage actually works very well for me.. it says that Israel is to keep the seventh day Sabbath perpetually, forever. We are the Israel of God as promised in Galatians 3:29

The authority of the Church, which you deny.

By that logic, the church could say anything contrary to scripture and you'd believe it. Kind of like the removal of the second Commandment...

By what authority does Ellen White speak and make you subservient to her interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures?

She spoke of the scriptures as God's messenger... there is a reason she is one of the most published females in history. All her writings uphold and magnify the scriptures... not reinterpret them. I have read through almost half of her published works and there is nothing that contradicts the Bible or that doesn't lead the reader to Christ. As far as my beliefs, I am not subservient to anyone but Christ and His Word...

In other words, He gave a new commandment which we are to follow.

If Jesus could change the Commandments, the breaking of which is sin according to 1 John 3:4, why did Jesus need to die to free us from sin? Couldn't He have just changed them to suit us so that we wouldn't sin?

Nope. It belonged to the JEWS.

Just to be clear, we are discussing Exodus 31:16... please show me where it says Jews in that passage. The Israelites of the OT were the heirs to Abrahams promise which was forfeited but they were still heirs until they grieved God.

Rom 9:6
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

How could one be not of Israel if one is of Israel, unless the verse means this: For they are not all of God's people (Israel) who are of national Israel (Jews). This verse shows that the words Israel and Jew are not synonymous and have different meanings.

It means that just because you are of Israel (Jew), doesn't mean you are a part of God's people, Israel... this was said after they had lost their birthright by rejecting Jesus but it is the same context according to the promise given Abraham.


Also, Jesus clearly said that the Sabbath was for man, not the Jews alone.

The Sabbath was made for man to rest, to worship God, and to take time off from the rigors of life. I am old enough to remember a time when Sunday was that holy day of rest, long before Capitalism, the real religion of this country, bumped it into obscurity. The day of rest changed with the change of the covenant.

Surely there would be a 'thus sayeth the Lord' for this change, right? I mean, the institution of the Sabbath was sanctified and made Holy at creation and was restated at Sinai. Why wouldn't Jesus have spoke of this if he were to change something He sanctified and hallowed?

What He said there, in the context of the rest of the story, is not giving the meaning that the Sabbath is intended for all times.

Exodus 31:16-18
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

 

[Light of the East]

I can ask for forgiveness and she can grant it too me and give me another chance... not bound to a black and white consequence.

Okay. I think I see what you are getting at, even though I am stunned at you saying that you would treat your wife in such a cavalier fashion. You are saying that contracts are non-negotiable and non-breakable and if you do break them, the cookies hit the fan big time. That as opposed to a relationship where things can be worked out.

Well, that understanding is exactly why I reject Calvinism - because they treat the covenant like it is a contract.

Genesis 7:2

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

I have to say that the more I read your quotes, the more I wind up shaking my head. This verse is not talking about diet or eating. It is referencing the taking of animals into the ark, and the reference to the clean animals can be understood in light of the sacrifice which was made at the end of the journey.

Not really, read the context of the passage... it is a reference for Peter to not call any man unclean. It was an allegory.

Okay. Fair dinkum. I just find it odd that there is so little said about diet in the Bible other than the verses which say that we are not to judge one another in matters of food and drink.

This passage actually works very well for me.. it says that Israel is to keep the seventh day Sabbath perpetually, forever. We are the Israel of God as promised in Galatians 3:29

Ah ah ah!! No, no, no (*wagging finger at you). You cannot take this verse out of context and try to superimpose it upon the New Covenant. This is directed specifically and only at the Jewish nation - theocratic Israel - and not at the New Covenant at all.

And it doesn't say "forever." The translation there is atrocious. The proper translation would be "age long." In the New Covenant, the corresponding Greek word is aeonian, which means "age long." Unfortunately, the translators of the text, not being familiar with Greek but with Latin, translated it as forever, which is not the meaning.

By that logic, the church could say anything contrary to scripture and you'd believe it. Kind of like the removal of the second Commandment.

So in other words, Jesus lied when He promised to keep the Church from error? And when Paul stated that the Church (and not the Bible) is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) he lied also? And what has ignoring the Church gotten all you non-Catholics? Thousands of churches, all preaching something different, all disagreeing with each other, and yet declaring that they base their "truth" on "sola scriptura."

Sir, that's not the Holy Spirit. That is chaos.

She spoke of the scriptures as God's messenger... there is a reason she is one of the most published females in history. All her writings uphold and magnify the scriptures... not reinterpret them. I have read through almost half of her published works and there is nothing that contradicts the Bible or that doesn't lead the reader to Christ. As far as my beliefs, I am not subservient to anyone but Christ and His Word

That's exactly what has been claimed by so many thousands of other "messengers," with their visions, interpretations, dreams, etc. And like I said, none of them agree with each other, therefore, either the Holy Spirit has lost His mind and is schizophrenic, or these people were not speaking for God, but were deceived.

If Jesus could change the Commandments, the breaking of which is sin according to 1 John 3:4, why did Jesus need to die to free us from sin? Couldn't He have just changed them to suit us so that we wouldn't sin?[/quote

Now that was an interesting question and it gave me pause to think a second. Here's what I thought of in response:

the commandments are based on the reality of who God is. God is love. The commandments therefore are not some arbitrary law which can be changed according to the whim of people or even of God. They are the expressions of love, and therefore they remain what they are.

Thou shalt not commit adultery does not change because to do so, that is, to commit adultery, is an act of extreme selfishness, which is contrary to love. You can try to make it (or any other sexual act outside the union of one man and one woman for one lifetime) to be something else by renaming it ("But Bob and John are so in love....we must have gay marriage to accommodate them," whines Lucy Liberal) but it is not love. The Law sets definition for us of what love is. Love does not change, therefore, neither do the commandments.

Just to be clear, we are discussing Exodus 31:16... please show me where it says Jews in that passage. The Israelites of the OT were the heirs to Abrahams promise which was forfeited but they were still heirs until they grieved God.

I showed you the passage that makes it clear. Romans 9:6 is nonsensical unless you understand that there are two distinct versions of Israel being spoken of in that passage - natural Israel, which is the Jews, and spiritual Israel, which is all of God's people throughout the ages.

Also, Jesus clearly said that the Sabbath was for man, not the Jews alone.

Let me type that into my Bible word search program.....

Nope. Maybe you'd like to give me the verse that says that word for word. Or are you reading into another verse again?

Surely there would be a 'thus sayeth the Lord' for this change, right? I mean, the institution of the Sabbath was sanctified and made Holy at creation and was restated at Sinai. Why wouldn't Jesus have spoke of this if he were to change something He sanctified and hallowed?

I showed it to you, you reject it. Can't do more than that for you. There is no Old Covenant, therefore, there is no Sabbath. Easy equation for those who have "eyes to see."

Exodus 31:16-18
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Children of Israel is the Jews. It is a covenant sign. The covenant is over. You need to accept that fact and move on to the New Covenant.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

We are known (or at least were known) as the people of the Book. As such, we reject the idea of sunday sacredness and the transfer of Sabbath as it has no Biblical reference.

For those that celebrate Dec 25th, what are your reasons for doing so? Are they Bible based or tradition? What is the difference between the tradition of sunday and Dec 25th? Should we keep sunday as well?

If the people of God actually kept God's Holy Days, instead of Pagan Holidays, this wouldn't be an source of contention.
Instead of embracing the 7 additional annual Sabbaths, people reject them and instead follow the traditions of men.