Seventh day observance compulsory?

[SAAN]

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

reread out loud what you just posted....Obeying the commandments of God is saying that the blood of Jesus is ineffective???

So if i decide that I will not commit adultery, kill, steal, lie, covet, commit sexual immorality, worship other Gods, Love my neighbor, Love God......That, it is saying Jesus blood is ineffective.

God says if you Love him you will keep his commandments, so that is a requirement of God to follow his commandments if you are a believer, while you may not be perfect at it, you are still to try your best to keep the ones that do apply to you. There is no temple, Im not a woman, farmer, priest or king, so all those commandments will not apply to me, as they didnt apply to the people back then either if it was relevant to them. Jesus blood replaced the blood of animals, so that sacrificial system was fulfilled, so just about everything else can still be done.

 

[listed]

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.
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

We do find the NT (new covenant) to be different from the OT (old covenant) both by prophecy (Jeremiah) and sayings of Jesus not to mention Hebrews 8:6-13. The issues of the NT are entirely different from the OT.

 

[listed]

reread out loud what you just posted....Obeying the commandments of God is saying that the blood of Jesus is ineffective???

So if i decide that I will not commit adultery, kill, steal, lie, covet, commit sexual immorality, worship other Gods, Love my neighbor, Love God......That, it is saying Jesus blood is ineffective.

God says if you Love him you will keep his commandments, so that is a requirement of God to follow his commandments if you are a believer, while you may not be perfect at it, you are still to try your best to keep the ones that do apply to you. There is no temple, Im not a woman, farmer, priest or king, so all those commandments will not apply to me, as they didnt apply to the people back then either if it was relevant to them. Jesus blood replaced the blood of animals, so that sacrificial system was fulfilled, so just about everything else can still be done.

The reason you keep those commandments and the one you didn't mention do "trample the blood of Jesus" and make it ineffective for you.

About the commandment of God, I'm fairly certain 1 John 3:23 has been quoted often here.

 

[GingerBeer]

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.

In Acts 15 Christians find the decision of the council of Jerusalem. In its decision no mention is made of gentile Christians keeping the seventh day.

 

[SAAN]

In Acts 15 Christians find the decision of the council of Jerusalem. In its decision no mention is made of gentile Christians keeping the seventh day.

They also didnt mention any other commands, but that doesnt make them invalid due to the argument of silence.

 

[GingerBeer]

They also didn't mention any other commands, but that doesn't make them invalid due to the argument of silence.

It is true that few commandments are explicitly mentioned in the letter and that argument from silence is not sound in general. Nevertheless the letter is intended to tell gentiles what things are necessary in their situation (being among Jews and being taught by apostles whose up bringing was in Judaism). If seventh day keeping were necessary or if keeping the ten commandments were necessary then would it not be included in the letter yet it is not.

 

[SAAN]

The reason you keep those commandments and the one you didn't mention do "trample the blood of Jesus" and make it ineffective for you.

About the commandment of God, I'm fairly certain 1 John 3:23 has been quoted often here.

It is true that few commandments are explicitly mentioned in the letter and that argument from silence is not sound in general. Nevertheless the letter is intended to tell gentiles what things are necessary in their situation (being among Jews and being taught by apostles whose up bringing was in Judaism). If seventh day keeping were necessary or if keeping the ten commandments were necessary then would it not be included in the letter yet it is not.

The problem with that was the very next verse Acts 15:21, in which it said they will learn more each week, as they went to the synagogues the Sabbath. There was no such thing as Sunday worship back then, so the Sabbath would have been the only thing those new gentile converts knew about.

Acts 15:20-21
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”


So while it may make no mention of the Sabbath in Acts 15:20, it also doesnt say anywhere for them to not keep it, as that day was a very important part of their culture.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Norbet.

I disagree with your entire post.

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.

Jesus told people who He was.

John 5:18
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

Jesus proclaimed His equality with His Father.

Jesus also clearly stated that anyone who looked upon Him, was actually looking at the Father.

John 14:9
Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

No one can make the claim that Jesus did not assert His own divinity. Jesus never corrected anyone who worshiped Him.

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.

Are you referring to the Jews or the Gentiles?

The Jews were under the law, the Jews referred to the themselves as the circumcised.
Hence, the Jews under law were bound to keep the Sabbath. The Gentiles were not under the law, the Gentiles were called the uncircumcised. Thus the Gentiles never had to honor the Sabbath.

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.

Any attempt to obey the law is a work of the flesh.

Galatians 3
5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

A Christian is justified through believing in Jesus, a Christian is not justified by the self effort of legal observance.

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.

The apostle Paul said many times that we are not under the law.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

 

[Soyeong]

Hello Soyeong.

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

He didn't. God's Law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved and does not in require Jews to become circumcised for that expressed purpose, so doing away with that man-made requirement does not do away with God's Law.

 

[klutedavid]

He didn't. God's Law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved and does not in require Jews to become circumcised for that expressed purpose, so doing away with that man-made requirement does not do away with God's Law.

Hello Soyeong.

The Jews were called the circumcised, any Jew that refused to be circumcised was expelled from Israel.

Genesis 17:14
But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.

Circumcision was not a man made requirement, the Jews were commanded by God to be circumcised. Both Abraham and Moses were commanded by God to circumcise.

Gentiles are not Jews, Gentiles were never under the law, Gentiles were never commanded by God to be circumcised. Under the law of Moses circumcision is mandatory, yet Gentiles were not circumcised. Thus Gentiles cannot be under the law.

 

[Soyeong]

Hello Soyeong.

The Jews were called the circumcised, any Jew that refused to be circumcised was expelled from Israel.

Genesis 17:14
But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.

Circumcision was not a man made requirement, the Jews were commanded by God to be circumcised. Both Abraham and Moses were commanded by God to circumcise.

Gentiles are not Jews, Gentiles were never under the law, Gentiles were never commanded by God to be circumcised. Under the law of Moses circumcision is mandatory, yet Gentiles were not circumcised. Thus Gentiles cannot be under the law.

The OT required circumcision for Abraham's descendants, for those he purchased as slaves, and for those who wanted to to eat of the Passover lamb, but never required for everyone to become circumcised, and certainly not for the expressed purpose of becoming saved. If God didn't require circumcision in order to become saved, then that is a man-made requirement. On the other hand, if you can show me where God did require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, then can you explain why should we go with what the Jerusalem Council said on this matter rather than what God said?

 

[GingerBeer]

The problem with that was the very next verse Acts 15:21, in which it said they will learn more each week, as they went to the synagogues the Sabbath.

Acts 15 does not say that gentile Christians went to synagogues every week.

 

[GingerBeer]

So while it may make no mention of the Sabbath in Acts 15:20, it also doesnt say anywhere for them to not keep it, as that day was a very important part of their culture.

Seventh day keeping was a part of Jewish culture but it was not a part of gentile culture. The Christians in Antioch were a mixture of Christian who had been converted out of Judaism and gentile Christians. There was a large number of gentile Christians in the Antioch church. That is the background of Paul's visit to Jerusalem. He was sent to ask the Church in Jerusalem to resolve a dispute that arose because some Christians who used to be Jewish in religion wanted Gentile Christians to get circumcised and keep the law of Moses. Paul thought that was a gross sin. Paul's letter to the Christians in Galatia tells Paul's perspective on the matter. Acts 15 gives a short summary of the matter.

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni'cia and Sama'ria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. Acts 15:1-6​

The decision of the council regarding circumcision and keeping the law of Moses is given in the letter that the council sent out to the churches.

"The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 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, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Acts 15:23-29​

Since the letter is explicitly offered as the council's resolution - under the Holy Spirit's inspiration - to the question about gentiles needing to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses it is clear that gentile Christians were not asked to keep the law of Moses nor to be circumcised.

 

[Soyeong]

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

Instead of just reasserting the opposite position, you could try to interact with the reasons I gave and explain why they are wrong.

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

Jesus was sinless, so he taught obedience to the Mosaic Law by word and by example, and I see no reason to think that the Law of Christ is something other than what he taught by word and by example, which includes the Ten Commandments. Jesus said that his teachings were not this own, but that of the Father (John 7:16) and that anyone who does not love him will not obey his teaching, which is not his, but belongs to the Father (John 14:24), so I see not reason to think that his teachings departed in the slightest from the Mosaic Law.

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

The Law is spiritual in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principles of which the written laws are just examples. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faith are the weightier matters of the Law, so the Law a purpose of the Law has always been to teach us how to act according to these spiritual principles or in other words, to teach us how to reflect to the world the attributes of God.

 

[klutedavid]

The Mosaic Law required circumcision for Abraham's descendants, for those he purchased as slaves, and for those who wanted to to eat of the Passover lamb, but was never required for everyone and certainly not for the expressed purpose of becoming saved, and if God didn't require circumcision in order to become saved, then that is a man-made requirement. On the other hand, if you can show me where God did require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, then can you explain why should we go with what the Jerusalem Council said on this matter rather than what God said?

Hello Soyeong.

The covenant God made with Abraham enforced the circumcision of all Jews (the descendants).

The covenant God made with Moses once again enforced the circumcision of all Jews.

Circumcision is not a man made requirement for salvation, the Jews were bound by God to be circumcised.

Genesis 17:14
But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.

Circumcision was a commandment, a commandment common to both covenants.

Jesus was circumcised, Soyeong.

The apostles were all circumcised, including Paul.

Galatians 5:3
And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

To obey even one law in the law of Moses requires that you first be circumcised. Circumcision is the law, disobedience to the law is sin. Both Paul and God have told you, Soyeong, that you must be circumcised to practice the law.

No one could ever say that circumcision is a man made stipulation for salvation.

Have you received the circumcision of Christ?

Philippians 3:3
For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.

We are the true circumcision.

 

[bugkiller]

reread out loud what you just posted....Obeying the commandments of God is saying that the blood of Jesus is ineffective???

The issue is what commandments is the Christian obligated to? You insist they are the 10 Cs (the law). I Jn 3:23 nor Jn 15:10 agree with your stance.

So if i decide that I will not commit adultery, kill, steal, lie, covet, commit sexual immorality, worship other Gods, Love my neighbor, Love God......That, it is saying Jesus blood is ineffective.

No, because of the new commandment Jesus gave in Jn 13:34 which is not found in the law (OT). Jesus also taught us to do to others what you want them to do to you - Lk 6:31. I do not want other to do those things you listed to me and mine. Do you?

God says if you Love him you will keep his commandments, so that is a requirement of God to follow his commandments if you are a believer, while you may not be perfect at it, you are still to try your best to keep the ones that do apply to you. There is no temple, Im not a woman, farmer, priest or king, so all those commandments will not apply to me, as they didnt apply to the people back then either if it was relevant to them. Jesus blood replaced the blood of animals, so that sacrificial system was fulfilled, so just about everything else can still be done.

What does that do to the argument of Mat 5:17-18? No jots or titles can pass, including animal sacrifice for sin.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

We do find the NT (new covenant) to be different from the OT (old covenant) both by prophecy (Jeremiah) and sayings of Jesus not to mention Hebrews 8:6-13. The issues of the NT are entirely different from the OT.

I have always advocated the same.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

They also didnt mention any other commands, but that doesnt make them invalid due to the argument of silence.

But it does not establish them ether.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The problem with that was the very next verse Acts 15:21, in which it said they will learn more each week, as they went to the synagogues the Sabbath. There was no such thing as Sunday worship back then, so the Sabbath would have been the only thing those new gentile converts knew about.

That is not what the Scripture says nor implies. The statement is about the past and not a current or future requirement.

Acts 15:20-21
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”


So while it may make no mention of the Sabbath in Acts 15:20, it also doesnt say anywhere for them to not keep it, as that day was a very important part of their culture.

Part of Jewish culture yes. Part of gentile culture, no.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

He didn't. God's Law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved and does not in require Jews to become circumcised for that expressed purpose, so doing away with that man-made requirement does not do away with God's Law.

That is not a man made law.

bugkiller