Seventh day observance compulsory?

[bugkiller]

That is what Hebrews 10 is all about. Paul called their practice of still offering sacrifices "trampling on the blood of Jesus" and willful sin. Isn't that a slap in the face to what Jesus did on the cross? What I'm saying is, if the sacrifice that Jesus represented was considered trampling on His blood, then what about still observing the Sabbath, the shadow, when the substance of the Sabbath has died for you so you could trust in Him. THAT is what I'm calling a slap in the face. Both are venerating the shadow, instead of the substance.

I would say "trampling the blood of Jesus" is requiring the keeping of the law to get or prove one is a Christian. It is saying Jesus blood is ineffective.

bugkiller

 

[Steve Petersen]

I always thought so too, but even if you willfully sin, you can still repent. So, that's not it. The context was they were saying they believed in Christ, but were still sacrificing animals for their sins.

Read five chapters for the context.

No. What the Hebrews writer was doing in this passage was making an a fortiori argument. This was a common form of argumentation and is found throughout the Bible. It goes like this: Is something is true for a lighter circumstance, how much more for the heavier circumstance.

In this case. the writer is saying overtly 'If even the slightest sin was punished without mercy under the Mosaic law, how much more so if we forsake the source of forgiveness (Jesus) by willfully sinning and trampling his blood under foot.' The author seems to be indicating that it is possible to sin so willfully that a person can be destroyed (Heb 10:39)

This comports with Jesus' words that some sins are never forgiven (i.e., blaspheming the Holy Spirit)

 

[1stcenturylady]

I would say "trampling the blood of Jesus" is requiring the keeping of the law to get or prove one is a Christian. It is saying Jesus blood is ineffective.

bugkiller

Yes, and sacrifice was one of the things in the law, and, specifically what that verse is about. But if this was so great a sin, I would say the same thing about them keeping the shadow of the Sabbath, rather than the substance, Jesus. They were venerating the shadows of things fulfilled by Christ.

 

[1stcenturylady]

No. What the Hebrews writer was doing in this passage was making an a fortiori argument. This was a common form of argumentation and is found throughout the Bible. It goes like this: Is something is true for a lighter circumstance, how much more for the heavier circumstance.

In this case. the writer is saying overtly 'If even the slightest sin was punished without mercy under the Mosaic law, how much more so if we forsake the source of forgiveness (Jesus) by willfully sinning and trampling his blood under foot.' The author seems to be indicating that it is possible to sin so willfully that a person can be destroyed (Heb 10:39)

This comports with Jesus' words that some sins are never forgiven (i.e., blaspheming the Holy Spirit)

When you read the verse in context, it TELLS you what it is referring to, namely animal sacrifice.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Yes, and sacrifice was one of the things in the law, and, specifically what that verse is about. But if this was so great a sin, I would say the same thing about them keeping the shadow of the Sabbath, rather than the substance, Jesus. They were venerating the shadows of things fulfilled by Christ.

The sacrifices were called 'eternal statutes' by God himself. Jews could not opt out of the system. In Acts we read that 'many priests were obedient to the faith.' Is there any indication that they left the priesthood when they became believers from Acts? No, there is not. I think it is safe to say that they didn't see things the way you do about the sacrifices.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The sacrifices were called 'eternal statutes' by God himself. Jews could not opt out of the system. In Acts we read that 'many priests were obedient to the faith.' Is there any indication that they left the priesthood when they became believers from Acts? No, there is not. I think it is safe to say that they didn't see things the way you do about the sacrifices.

I don't understand. Were those Christian priests still offering animal sacrifices?

 

[Steve Petersen]

I don't understand. Were those Christian priests still offering animal sacrifices?

There is no evidence from history or the Bible that they ever ceased. Not until the Temple was destroyed anyway.

Some scholars think that the 'Theophilus' that Luke wrote to was the High Priest in the Temple starting in 41 AD.

Most Excellent Theophilus

 

[Soyeong]

True. We look to the principle in each of the rules. That's what the new covenant is all about.

And what the Mosaic Covenant is all about (Romans 7:14).

 

[Soyeong]

The law also said to sacrifice animals.

Indeed, though it doesn't say anyone should do it.

You are following the Old Law of the letter, NOT the new law of love and all that Jesus accomplished.

Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to love God and for how to love your neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40), so the Mosaic Law precisely is the Law of love.

By not recognizing what Jesus fulfilled, you slap Him in the face.

Rather, by not recognizing what Jesus fulfilled, it is you who slap him in the face.

Pleroo: to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and the proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by causing God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be. He also said those who obeyed the Law and taught others to do so would be great in the Kingdom, while those who relaxed the least of the commands or taught others to do the same would be least in the Kingdom, yet you would have me believe that it is not who obey God's Law and teach others to do the same who are slapping him the face.

When Galatians 6:2 says that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, do you think that means that it does away with the Law of Christ? Or when Romans 15:18-19 says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, do you think he did away with it?

 

[bugkiller]

Yes, and sacrifice was one of the things in the law, and, specifically what that verse is about. But if this was so great a sin, I would say the same thing about them keeping the shadow of the Sabbath, rather than the substance, Jesus. They were venerating the shadows of things fulfilled by Christ.

Does Jesus declare He is the sabbath rest in Mat 11:28-30?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The sacrifices were called 'eternal statutes' by God himself. Jews could not opt out of the system. In Acts we read that 'many priests were obedient to the faith.' Is there any indication that they left the priesthood when they became believers from Acts? No, there is not. I think it is safe to say that they didn't see things the way you do about the sacrifices.

Now a Jew can opt out of the system because of the new covenant. Jesus is the high priest now which could not happen under the law - Heb 7.

In fact opting out of the system is the only way to secure salvation. Gospel of John in several chapters.

bugkiller

 

[1stcenturylady]

There is no evidence from history or the Bible that they ever ceased. Not until the Temple was destroyed anyway.

Some scholars think that the 'Theophilus' that Luke wrote to was the High Priest in the Temple starting in 41 AD.

Most Excellent Theophilus

Paul preached against animal sacrifice. Or maybe it was Barnabas if he wrote Hebrews. Personally, my vote is on Barnabas as Hebrews is similar to the Epistle of Barnabas.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Does Jesus declare He is the sabbath rest in Mat 11:28-30?

bugkiller

That is a good source, buggy, plus Hebrews 4. Entering His rest, is entering into total trust and faith in God.

 

[klutedavid]

Indeed, though it doesn't say anyone should do it.



Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to love God and for how to love your neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40), so the Mosaic Law precisely is the Law of love.


Rather, by not recognizing what Jesus fulfilled, it is you who slap him in the face.

Pleroo: to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and the proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by causing God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be. He also said those who obeyed the Law and taught others to do so would be great in the Kingdom, while those who relaxed the least of the commands or taught others to do the same would be least in the Kingdom, yet you would have me believe that it is not who obey God's Law and teach others to do the same who are slapping him the face.

When Galatians 6:2 says that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, do you think that means that it does away with the Law of Christ? Or when Romans 15:18-19 says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, do you think he did away with it?

Hello Soyeong.

On the subject of discarding the law, how was Paul able to discard the law of circumcision?

 

[Norbert L]

But the above is not really a matter directly connected to seventh day keeping. It is a side issue related to it indirectly. The main issue in this thread is to discover if the new testament contains any commandment for gentile Christians to keep the seventh day.

Rather than get side tracked I'd like to add something to the main issue, in a round about way.

You could be aware that anti Christ apologists for Islam like to use the argument, show me where Jesus says He is God and should be worshiped. By that they mean and only want to hear a literal quote from the scriptures where Jesus says "I am God". You won't find it. One major blow to their argument for this is when a Christian apologist responds by, show me where in the Bible Jesus says, "I am only a prophet, do not worship me". You won't find that either. So take that approach and understanding into the question you use to frame the main issue.

Will you find a commandment in the NT that requires to keep the seventh day? No, but at the same time you will not find a commandment to stop keeping the seventh day either.

That is why I view such a question as one part of the two opposing sides of the same coin. The answer is not going to be found in the manner it is being asked. What you will find are the actions by those who we hear from which are recorded for us in the NT. It was Jesus' custom Luke 4:16, Paul preached the gospel on that day Acts 18:4 and the women rested on it while Jesus' was in the grave Luke 23:56. I believe a Christian has the freedom to worship on the seventh day. I see the instruction mentioned in Romans 14:5 as relevant in this issue.

If a body of Christians want to worship on the seventh day who is any other Christian to decide for them not to do this.

I can't comprehend why anyone would want to teach the OT in light of the NT. All the proofs are found in the NT. ... That includes warnings to stay away from the law.The 7th day of the week has no meaning for the Christian. If anyone want to argue for that, Jesus offered what 7th keepers didn't have in Mat 11:28-30.

Paul tells us through writing to Timothy, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully," 1 Timothy 1:8 ESV. Such a thing also implies it can also be used in a wrong manner. The use of the NT is not exempted from such things too. This exact thing is mentioned in 2 Peter 3:16. Without the OT you won't have a complete picture and understanding of who Jesus Christ is as the LORD God of Israel. There are theological reasons found in the OT why Thomas would say, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28 ESV. Not all the proofs are found in the NT, they can also be found in the OT, "And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24:27

 

[listed]

You do realize that when you read the NT, all of those writings are when there was no such thing as a New Testament and ALL of Jesus, the disciples and Paul's teaching are being quoted and taught from the Old Testament.


Even this verse here is quoted when there was no such thing as a NT

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

SO you cant just ignore 66% of the bible.

You quote from the NT. Why do you want to ignore it so badly? Your post sounds like the NT is not part of the inspired Word of God. Of course the NT characters quoted the OT. I don't think your statement is valid about the new covenant revealed in the NT. The NT is like the reading of a will in probate.

 

[listed]

And what the Mosaic Covenant is all about (Romans 7:14).

How do you relate that verse to a purpose of the law?

 

[SAAN]

You must be trying to say Jesus, His disciples and the Apostles were teaching the law. How? JN 1:17, LK 16:16

bugkiller

Considering the Torah was all they had, it is 100% accurate they were teaching from that, as no where in the Prophets did God say he was going to abolish his commandments in the future.

 

[listed]

Indeed, though it doesn't say anyone should do it.



Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to love God and for how to love your neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40), so the Mosaic Law precisely is the Law of love.

By not recognizing what Jesus fulfilled, you slap Him in the face.

Rather, by not recognizing what Jesus fulfilled, it is you who slap him in the face.

Pleroo: to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and the proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by causing God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be. He also said those who obeyed the Law and taught others to do so would be great in the Kingdom, while those who relaxed the least of the commands or taught others to do the same would be least in the Kingdom, yet you would have me believe that it is not who obey God's Law and teach others to do the same who are slapping him the face.

When Galatians 6:2 says that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, do you think that means that it does away with the Law of Christ? Or when Romans 15:18-19 says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, do you think he did away with it?

Are you calling the ten commandments the law of Jesus Christ?

 

[SAAN]

You quote from the NT. Why do you want to ignore it so badly? Your post sounds like the NT is not part of the inspired Word of God. Of course the NT characters quoted the OT. I don't think your statement is valid about the new covenant revealed in the NT. The NT is like the reading of a will in probate.

I see the bible as 1 book of different covenants, NOT as 66% of it to be irrelevant in light of the last few books, so both the OT and NT are the inspired word of God.