commandments of men

[graysparrow]

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: KJV

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: KJV

Considering Jesus teaching about giving that authority to Peter, wouldn't Paul's teaching mean not to let someone without authority command us?

Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." While most Protestants argue that the kingdom of heaven Jesus was talking about is the eternal state of glory (as if Peter is up in heaven letting people in), the kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth. In using the term "keys," Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom).

Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. Peter's "keys" fit into the "gates" of Hades which also represent Peter’s pastoral authority over souls.​

Indeed, look back in that chapter at this verse...

See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.​

According to human tradition and not according to Christ. The Church has authority of Christ, so the Church's rules are not traditions of men at all.

 

[Celticflower]

I think I will solve the whole problem and take Saturday and Sunday off.


Celtie

 

[2Timothy2]

The Sabbath is Saturday. That has never been officially changed except by Edict of Constatine, at the Nicean Council. The main reasons given for the change were because the Jews do that, so we won't.
The apostles met immediately after Sabbath, called havdalah, Saturday night.
And they would not collect money on the Sabbath, because this was against Torah, so they met at havdalah.
However, thankfully we live in grace. This not a license to sin, but if some are wrong about Sabbath, they are still "saved".
When Paul was writing to those regarding new moons and holy days, he was talking about their customs, not the customs of the Jews, because they were Gentiles.

Bruce

Bruce

I am wary of anyone calling Sunday the "new Sabboth". It isn't, it is the Lord's day, as in when we honor/celebrate/remember His resurrection. It is fitting we come together to worship on that day. So, to make it clear, I am not calling Sunday the Sabbath day.

However, as to that last bit in your post, I think Paul was refering to the Judaizers. That was a constant problem in the early Church, and the context seems to support this idea. See the verses immediately preceding vs 16, and see also vs 17. (Col 2:14-17)

 

[Veritas]

Yes I am fully aware of that. The speaker has mentioned several times that he does not hate Catholic believers... nor do I. I just happen to hold the historic viewpoint of end-times theology. I won't debate or discuss it here... but it's all to evident to me. That's all I'm going to say.

Blessings

If you hate or are against the Catholic Church or the pope, you are hate and/or are against me. The Church is a family and the pope is our "papa" (what pope means). I reject any notion that you can have a problem with the Church founded by Christ as His bride and not offend the members thereof. Amazing "Facts" and the SDA organization believe the Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon and the pope the anti-Christ. This is offensive to Catholics worldwide.

 

[Kepha]

I think all us Catholics should just sit back for awhile and watch all the different Bible only believers bicker amongst themselves trying to figure what "The Word of God" is reguarding the day of rest. It could be quite a show. It shouldn't be too hard right? Think about it now. Revelation is over. The Good news was given and taught to the faithful. If we are to read Scripture only, does it seem logical that we are to scratch and claw our way to the truth and yet still be unsure? What kind of a God do you think we have? A God that gets His kicks watching His followers struggle and argue amongst each other with His Word?

It still amazes me how protestants still cant see past this illogical mess they call the Bible only theory.

 

[MyLittleWonders]

Do you sacrifice bulls and goats? Do you stone those who transgress, according to the law? Do you keep all the feasts?

Let's see ...

No, because we have no standing temple.

No, because Jesus said that he who was without sin could throw the first stone. He's the only one I know of that fulfills that requirement.

Yep ... because they are commanded as God to be lasting ordinances for both the Jew and the foreigners who attaches themselves to the Jewish people (which is what we do when we come into faith in Jesus - the Jewish Messiah). What we don't do is keep easter or christmas.

 

[MyLittleWonders]

I am wary of anyone calling Sunday the "new Sabboth". It isn't, it is the Lord's day, as in when we honor/celebrate/remember His resurrection. It is fitting we come together to worship on that day. So, to make it clear, I am not calling Sunday the Sabbath day.

Actually, no where in Scripture is "The Lord's Day" used in reference to Sunday/the 1st Day. The "Lord's Day" is used in reference to the time of wrath when God's judgment rains down upon the earth.

 

[MyLittleWonders]

If the seventh day is saturday and we rest on sunday and the scriptures don't show a change of the day anywhere are we not following a commandment of men?

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

And yes, you are right ... by keeping the 1st day instead of the 7th, people are following the traditions of men instead of the Word of God.

 

[2Timothy2]

The pope is not my papa. He's just another guy to me, nothing more. If he has faith in Christ, he is my brother, but that is it, he isn't above me in any way. It's beyond me how RC's can say the words of a fallible man are equal with the inspired Scriptures.

Scripture is quite clear. It is we who are unclear. That is just one more reason for Sola Scriptura, although, Scripture gives us all the real reasons we need.

 

[2Timothy2]

Actually, no where in Scripture is "The Lord's Day" used in reference to Sunday/the 1st Day. The "Lord's Day" is used in reference to the time of wrath when God's judgment rains down upon the earth.

No, you are thinking of the Day of the Lord, a very differnt thing that.

The early Christians met on the first day of the week, in commemeration of His resurrection. However, if you choose to meet on Saturday, I have no problem with that. The important thing is not forsaking the assembling together.

 

[2Timothy2]

Let's see ...

No, because we have no standing temple.

No, because Jesus said that he who was without sin could throw the first stone. He's the only one I know of that fulfills that requirement.

Yep ... because they are commanded as God to be lasting ordinances for both the Jew and the foreigners who attaches themselves to the Jewish people (which is what we do when we come into faith in Jesus - the Jewish Messiah). What we don't do is keep easter or christmas.

So are you saying if there was a temple you would sacrifice bulls and goats? Jesus took care of sacrifice for all time, this is the only reason we do not sacrifice bulls and goats and such.

 

[Kepha]

It's beyond me how RC's can say the words of a fallible man are equal with the inspired Scriptures.

And it is beyond me how you read a Bible written by men since you seem it is so impossible for the Holy Spirit to convey His Infallible Message and Truth through the Pope (who of course is a man) and the Magistrium of the Church. (who of course are men)

Scripture is quite clear. It is we who are unclear. That is just one more reason for Sola Scriptura, although, Scripture gives us all the real reasons we need.

Um, if you gave a reason for sola Scripture, i missed it. Obviously Scripture isn't quite clear since you can't agree on the matter. How can you say it's clear yet not understand it? Your trying to convince yourself of a lie you bought into. I'll tell you something. If i wasn't Catholic, i'd be Orthodox. If i wasn't Orthodox (who are the only non-Catholics with a valid Eucharist i might add) i'd be agnostic since i see way too many denominations of Christ who proclaim His message contradictively. This Sabbath or Sunday nonsense being one of them.

 

[Bon]

The original day of Sabbath was the Lord's. A day for which He rested. He later instituted this "rest" for Israel. This is the day(s) created by God to give man "rest from all his labors". Yet because of "unbelief", many did not "enter into that rest". Thus another day was set, which is called the Lord's day, or even, if you can accept it, "The Day of the Lord." We who believe now enter into that "rest". It is not an arbitrary day, but it is EVERY DAY that we live. We arise, go to prayer, read our Bible, and proceed to do the works which God has given us to do - IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.

Hi Dad Ernie,

Can you please tell me who set this other day ("Lord's Day)?

....and by what authority?

Shalom from Bon

 

[Bon]

So are you saying if there was a temple you would sacrifice bulls and goats? Jesus took care of sacrifice for all time, this is the only reason we do not sacrifice bulls and goats and such.

Yes! But isn't He a clever God....Things are going to plan.

No temple, no sacrifice.

And just as Yahshua said....."Not a JOT or TITTLE of the Law is done away until all is fulfilled".

Shalom from Bon

 

[Velcro]

So are you saying if there was a temple you would sacrifice bulls and goats? Jesus took care of sacrifice for all time, this is the only reason we do not sacrifice bulls and goats and such.

Do you, then, believe that Paul was in error in Acts when he took that Nazarite vow, which includes an animal sacrifice, then went to Jerusalem where the apostles advised him re the leaders claiming he had rejected the Torah and taught others to do the same? Do you believe that the apostles were in error when they encouraged Paul to prove these people wrong? Was the idea of the apostles, to have Paul pay for the sacrifice for four young men's Nazarite vow, in error, and was Paul in error to agree to it?

 

[graysparrow]

but, we are not jewish anyway. Those laws were given for the jews and not for the gentile.

 

[Velcro]

The sabbath rest in Heb. 4 is speaking of our rest in Christ, not a certain day of the week.

Read this Scripture in Greek -- you could be amazed.

We are in a new covenant, testated by the shead blood of Christ. To foist the old law upon us is to make His death of no effect.

Noah was also of the new covenant. So were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sara, Joseph, Moses, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel, and the prophets, if one understands the new covenant. Add to these Paul, Peter, Mary, Elizabeth, and many others. Oddly enough, all of these continued in Torah, and Messiah taught that Torah would not be abolished "until heaven and earth pass away." Has that happened yet?

Also, the Torah was only called "old" once in the whole Bible, and when it was called "old," it did not mean outdated, outmoded, obsolete, repressed, or anthing like that; it simply meant the Torah which continues from ancient times. How unfortunate the G-d's word has been divided and two sections have been labeled as "old" and "new."

 

[2Timothy2]

And Paul et al did not foist the Mosaic law upon gentiles. Could you show me where in the New Testament the apostles command the gentiles to follow the torah laws?

And it matters not what language you read Heb 4 in, the context very clearly shows that it isn't addressing the rest of the 7th day of the week, rather the rest as promised in Ps 95, that is, the rest we have in Christ through faith.

I beleive the OT saints are part of the New Covanent, but they hoped for it, they did not live under it. The torah was not did not "pass away", rather it was fulfilled by Christ. It was the shadow of what we have in Him now, it was the schoolmaster, but we are no longer under it.

Question: did you receive the Holy Spirit by works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Wherefore then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator...Is the law, then, against the promises of God? Absolutely not. For, if there had been a law given that could have given life, truly righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

 

[Velcro]

Well, Timothy, we strongly disagree.

The Torah we call "Moses' Law" was G-d's Torah, and He does not change.

Hebrews 4 is better understood in Greek than it is in English, because English loses the full meaning of the Greek text.

The new covenant is all about faith in the sacrifice of Messiah, and all the persons I named were in the new covenant as the first fruits of it, as were all who looked in faith toward Messiah, or the writer of the book of Hebrews was mistaken.

The Holy Spirit was certainly not absent before Acts 2. He was active and in the lives of those believers, or the texts you call the Bible are also mistaken.