Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Honor has CARM confused with a different website that CFians go to in order to vent about CF...uberchristians.
Indeed, there they swear like it is going out of style. But the accusation was that someone who frequents the Adventist area was doing it. They were characterized as "she." So who was this person referred to? I don't remember seeing many from Adventist land there.
Without naming names, can you think of anyone that used to go to the Adventist forum that uses uberchristians to drop the "F" bomb like it's going out of style?
Is it in your capacity to have a conversation without the jabs, AT?
How many times does Colossians 2:14-17 get taken out of context to try to prove the opposite conclusion about Sabbath observance? I'm taking the SAME verses and trying to present an alternative view, and I think that's acceptable.
I've said several times, in this thread alone, that I have recently been convicted to explore the keeping of some of the feasts. For instance, NO ONE to date has proven to me how the Feast of Trumpets was fulfilled by Christ. In fact, I am having trouble finding where ANY of the fall feasts were fulfilled.
Some of the feasts were centered around a new moon (Psa 81:3).
The word "are" is translated to "IS" throughout the Bible...but since it was several things being mentioned, the word "are" was used in proper grammatical order. Present tense at the time it was being written.
The Colossians were Christians, AT. They weren't Jews and Paul was telling them not to let anyone judge them for the observance of Sabbath. Does that tell you anything?
That little word "but" can also mean AND. AND the body of the Christ. It's talking about the Christ's church....His people.
Individuals cannot judge, but the church CAN. There are other verses that say that in scripture as you well know.
The Colossians were Christians...let me prove that with scripture so there's no argument: Colossians 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
They were Christians and Paul told them not to let anyone judge them for the observance of Sabbath. Interesting, no?
[/size]
They were in Christ!! Read Colossians 1:2 again.
There ya go! Ignore the commandments of MEN and obey the commandments of God!
They followed shadows until the first coming of Christ (sacrifices, Hebrews 10:1) and we have shadows that assure us of His second coming.
Shadows are a good thing brother....Psa 36:7 How excellent is Thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of Thy wings.
Psa 63:7 Because thou hast been my help, therefore in the shadow of Thy wings will I rejoice.
[/size]
I have not thrown a punch at you.
AT said:The text supports that Sabbath observance is not valid for those who have found rest in Christ. To suggest its still binding you must ignor or twist the context.
AT said:If you are having trouble finding how any of the feast are fulfilled, then perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. Just as a suggestion if you need it...don't ever think you are beyound biblical helps.
AT said:Many scholars believe 81:3 refers to the begining of their civil year in the month of Tisri. All things where new of the redeemed of the Lord.
AT said:Well then I take it that you never understood what I was saying...that I was basically in agreement with you here. The word "are" is in the present tense third person.
I know they where Chirstians...I never said they where not. Pauls point is that those things are shadows to those who are not in Christ. But being in the body, they have the reality. Being outside you have shadows and have not recieved the Reality of the shadows...we are of the body and have no need for the shadows. Thats Pauls point.
AT said:Pehaps you need to read with a little more understanding of what I wrote. I know they are Christians but you fail to lay aside your bias that you can comprhend. Pauls whole point here is that shadow serves no purpose to those who are of the body. So why live as if you are subject to ordinaces and laws, Paul asked.
AT said:Kindly go over the text with that in mind and it will become clear to you. THere where those judging them for not keeping the shadows, but Paul told them that the body is of Christ, not the shadows.
AT said:The Commandments of God at this point have no jurisdiction over those who are in the body of Chirst, But you had those who continued to teach that the shadows spoken of above are still binding on the people of God. Thus they have become the comandments of men to those in the body of Chirst. THis is what Paul is teaching in that passage. Others where wrongly teaching the rudements of the world, which was the ordinances of a worldly jewish sanctuary, their rites and cerimonies....the state of the Jews , in contrast to the gospel dispensation and the first coming and death of Christ. All of the above of the Jewish dispensation where shadows in light of the work of Chirst upon His life and blood. (verse 22).
AT said:And what might these shadows be? Kindly answer that please.
AT said:But this shadow is not an ordance of the law...is it? Kindly answer that!
Regarding the feasts, new moon, etc. The Acts council of chapter 15 makes it very plain that Gentiles did not need to keep them.
Some Christians who were of the pharisee party wanted the gentiles to be circumcised and keep the whole law of Moses.
Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."
But the church did not agree with that. They only outlined a few basics for them to keep:
Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
Act 15:25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.
Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."
There is nothing in there regarding keeping feasts. They did not have to keep it. So if your position is that it is the body that decides, the body did decide. Gentiles do not have to keep the whole law of Moses or the feasts. Only a few items were outlined. If some were urging them to keep the feasts they need only remember the council where the church body decided it was not necessary.
In any case the UC guidelines are nothing like CARM.
UC started as a grand experiment without rules of any kind. They still have no warnings, no staff bans, etc. They had a ton of people leave due to fights but even then refused to put in some simple disciplinary measures.
Here are their current guidelines:
Staff will not ban members.
Staff will not issue warnings of any kind.
Staff will not attempt to control discussions in any way by using their staff status.
Staff will not remove any posts save commercial spam.
Essentially UC was Seebs' and Flesh's attempt to avoid the sort of heavy-handed moderating they saw other places.
There's nothing in there about not murdering either.
I keep saying that none of you anti-Sabbath Christians agree with each other, but actually you and Eila agree on this one. She gave me those verses as well once.
The problem I see, though, is that circumcision was given to Abraham in promised covenant, before Moses. So the towrah that Abraham kept....was it the same one that Moses later wrote down?
If you don't do any of those things...abstain from blood, etc...aren't you still "under the law" to an extent?
It's really just a drop in the bucket of life, no? Honor was just confused as to which website it was. I don't feel the need to rat anyone out for cursing like a sailor on a site without rules.
It's still offensive to most Christians to hear/see that type of language...even though it's not in Acts 15, eh?
What does a Christian do that breaks one of those in order to be forgiven?
A. Romans 14 does not even mention idols. But I agree it is likely related. Some were eating NO meat, probably to avoid meat sacrificed to idols.Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 says that we can eat the food offered to idols, so I'm a little confused.
The NT has many commands. Some of them reiterate commands similar to those of Moses. But they made it plain that gentiles are not under the law of Moses as a whole.
Tall said:Now what does that mean? The feasts, part of the law of Moses, which no one denies. Therefore no gentile is required to keep the feasts. So any interpretation of Col. 2 that would be urging feasts on the gentiles is incorrect. The church already made a decision on that.
Tall said:By the way, all you pro-Sabbath folks are on different pages too apparently. Some of you are keeping feasts, some thinking about it, some keep the whole torah as much as possible, some keep only the 10 commandments. So that argument can be put to rest. We need to look at the merits of the various positions. It is not enough to simply dismiss them because there are more than one.
Indeed the NT does contain many commands, but when you ask a former which ones exactly that we're supposed to keep...the answer is different every time.
And as to Abraham keeping the same covenant, you have twice already ignored a plain text that says otherwise.
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.
Gal 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
Abraham had commands from God. And he was aware of the sacrificial system, at least in a simple form. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac references such sacrifices. But they make no reference to a temple, temple requirements etc, Abraham was given circumcision. But he was not given all the Mosaic law as Paul says that was put into effect 430 years afterward.
Obviously - and judgment of others for obedience to dietary and sabbath ordinances can only conclude that those ordinances don't have any jurisdiction over the recipients of this epistle.Well then you have the pesky problem of "food and drink" in that verse as well. Is IT not necessary today? Or is it just not necessary for Christians to eat anymore because Christ is the bread of life and the living water?
Obviously we need to eat, we just shouldn't let any MAN judge us for what we eat!
Where do you get the idea Psalm 81 is referencing Trumpets or Tabernacles? Read it again:I'd say biblical helps are necessary for everyone wouldn't you? Do you personally know of anyone that has all truth? Do any of the scholars you relied on for Psalms 81:3 have "all truth"?
Can you consult one of those scholars and tell me with scripture how the Feast of Tabernacles has been fulfilled and what it pointed TO?
Obviously you don't consider communion in its context of a Passover seder.Quick observation...to say "those things" are shadows for those that are NOT in Christ includes communion since Jesus called it meat and drink. Would anyone that was NOT in Christ partake in holy communion?
They did?So let me get this straight. The Commandments of God had jurisdiction over Christ Himself while here on earth, but you say they have absolutely NO jurisdiction over those that are in Christ's church now?
I rest my case.He kept the commandments so we shouldn't even try to at all?
Hmmmm.I'm a believer of/in Christ, and at the very least I know that He told us to obey the "Big Two" that He gave to the Pharisees when they questioned Him about the commandments.
So let's consider where the Big Two came from, okay?
Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Try climbing the shadow of a mountain while claiming that you have arrived at that mountain. Colossians 2:16-17 declares in no uncertain words that the dietary laws and various sabbaths are the shadows of the reality that has already come: Jesus Christ.Being under the shadow of His wings? No, it's not an ordinance. But it proves that shadows are not a bad thing. If you're in the shadow of a mountain you don't have to SEE the mountain to know it's there, you just have faith and some proof that it is....and you keep going toward the light until there is no more shadow.
All the way down to "we're not under the law but under grace", yet they'll quote laws that we're supposed to keep, while at the same time saying "if you keep ANY, you're under the WHOLE law."
You have a new testament. You can read the imperatives.If there is law(s) for new covenant Christians, shouldn't we know exactly what those laws are?
I don't think there is any confusion on that point. The commands given in the NT to gentiles are the ones for gentiles to keep. The church said that they did not have to keep the whole law of Moses.It's fine that you disagree with Adventists, Tall, but instead of asking us what we think those laws are, isn't it imcumbent upon you as well to tell us exactly what New Testament commands we're supposed to obey if we're wrong?
Red herring again.You can't quote Acts 15 and say that we shouldn't keep ANY of the Law of Moses. Jesus was very clear that He came to fulfill everything in the Law of Moses that concerned HIM. How did HE fulfill the Feast of Tabernacles?
The division you first made was non-Sabbatarian Christians, ,not just Adventists.Us crazy Adventists are on the same page about the Sabbath written on stone, though right?
The ones that don't agree that it's part of a New Covenant Christian's life have a lot of scripture to deny, including Luke 23:56.
I never mentioned EGW in that statement.You'll get no argument from me on this actually. I will never understand the people that rely on EGW for some things but not others. Someone quoted her telling us to keep the fall feasts. Some do, some don't. I was already convicted to study it out long before I saw the quote anyway and as you know, I've never read any of her books.
Can YOU tell me how the Feast of Tabernacles was fulfilled by Christ, even if you don't agree with keeping it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?