So confused on the Sabbath...

[FijianBeliever]

Sabbath =Worship of the Creator> No work > Rest> no rat race

Pretty much in that order. How about you? Do you have a perfered day of worship? What do you do on that day.

I do, and on this day, I try to mediate on the fact that God created everything.

 

[JAL]

LOL Hmmmm JAL, Which is it, first you try to tell people I abstained from responding and somehow you were comforted by that fact. Now you say my response was unsatisfactory. I responded to your ridiculus post and you deem my response unsatisfactory [ the response that you said I abstained from making] then you say that you debunked my response [in your opinion] If I abstained from responding just then just how what in the world did you did you "debunk" in your opinion.????? Please be accurate at least.

I was quite accurate - and you know it. My challenge was rephrased as a Yes-No question later in the discussion, and you abstained from responding either Yes or No to that question - for the obvious reason that either response impugns sabbatarianism. And, incidentally, what you refer to as "your responses" (and I have mirrored the term at times for your convenience) often do not, in my view, constitute what I would NORMALLY deem a "response." Often it's an evasion of the question. If I dignified one of your evasions with the term "response", it was only a courtesy on my part.

 

[JAL]

[FONT=&quot]Not at all and please don't try to put works in my mouth. Women working in their home have just as much of a job as you or I do daily and probably more. The first 6 days of the week are set asside for our daily duties and work the 7th day is dedicated to God. [/FONT]

NLT Exo 20:9Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work, 10. but the seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God. On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you.

The translation "six days a week are set apart for your daily duties" is not a literal translation of the Hebrew. The words in boldface are simply not present in the Hebrew. Furthermore, if we read the passage as you apparently want to, a person who finished his work in one day could remain idle until, and through, the Sabbath. God was not instituting a doctrine of laziness. Adam Clarke’s commentary is relevant on this point: “Six days shalt thou labor - Therefore he who idles away time on any of the six days, is as guilty before God as he who works on the Sabbath” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Ex 20:9, Esword Bible software). That’s what the passage states – six days ye SHALL labor, and the whole question is whether we are to take the passage literally, YES or NO, and it is this Yes-No question that you abstained from.

 

[ThreeAM]

I was quite accurate - and you know it. My challenge was rephrased as a Yes-No question later in the discussion, and you abstained from responding either Yes or No to that question - for the obvious reason that either response impugns sabbatarianism. And, incidentally, what you refer to as "your responses" (and I have mirrored the term at times for your convenience) often do not, in my view, constitute what I would NORMALLY deem a "response." Often it's an evasion of the question. If I dignified one of your evasions with the term "response", it was only a courtesy on my part.

[/size][/font]

LOL Not at all:

Which post are you talking about perhaps I never even saw it. I responded to a couple of your post on this ridiculus line of "reasoning" on your part. I probably just didn't notice you made another post on it. I most scertainly did not abstain from posting on the subject though.

 

[ThreeAM]

The translation "six days a week are set apart for your daily duties" is not a literal translation of the Hebrew. The words in boldface are simply not present in the Hebrew. Furthermore, if we read the passage as you apparently want to, a person who finished his work in one day could remain idle until, and through, the Sabbath. God was not instituting a doctrine of laziness. Adam Clarke’s commentary is relevant on this point: “Six days shalt thou labor - Therefore he who idles away time on any of the six days, is as guilty before God as he who works on the Sabbath” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Ex 20:9, Esword Bible software). That’s what the passage states – six days ye SHALL labor, and the whole question is whether we are to take the passage literally, YES or NO, and it is this Yes-No question that you abstained from.

As I said I didn't abstain from the question I simply didn't see it previously. That was probably because I had 3 or more posters asking me questions at the same tme and I was trying to answer everone and at the same time participate on a sports car club forum at the same time. The Answer is Yes we should take the Ten commandments literally but No you have not correctly interpreted the literal meaning of the Verse. The Verse simply bisects the week into parts the first part days 1-6 are set apart for the purpose labor/work and the 7th day is set apart as a Holy day of rest.

Sorry there is no SHALL in the verse either.

Here is the Hebrew with the english directly from Strong's

shesh [six] yowm [days] `abad [to labor] `asah [to do, work, make, produce] m@la'kah [ occupation, work, business]


So there was no need to abstain from answering your flawed reasoning. Had I previously noticed your post we could have cleared up your misconceptions about the 4th commandment much earlier. We have 6 days to labor and to do all our work in and one day, the 7th, to set aside our labour and to remember the Sabbath.

 

[ThreeAM]

Well, to begin with, your position really isn't substantially different from OEC. Since I'm an OEC myself, it might be hasty for me to regard your postion here as indefensible. On the other hand there is the larger issue that sabbatarians claim we are supposed to follow God's example set forth in Genesis. According to Sabbatarians, in regard to the "act of creating" God:
(1) worked 6 24-hr periods and rested
(2) and now He is resting from that act seven days a week.
Or, if you prefer, He is now working seven days a week in non-creative activities. Either way, this does not set an example that we should follow. It either has us resting seven days a week, or working seven days a week, but not resting one day a week. Whereas in my view, the six days are not 24-hours, the seventh day is eternal, and God rests ONE day of the week. Logically and exegetically, my view seems preferable.
Now, back to your "old material" theory. Substantially, then, you postulate an earth which is, in a sense, 4.5 billions years old - for what purpose would God do this? To systematically deceive us? To systematically confuse us? Your position is VERY confusing it seems to me. You said, " I simply believe that God made the earth from old material as old as 4,567 billion years old. " Ok, so how do you conclude that the material is 4.5 bil years old? Apparently, then, radiometric dating was reliable enough for you to reach that conclusion. Ok, this now creates for you a logical difficulty. If God made the earth from 4.5 billion year material, and if radiometric dating "works", then we should have only two categories of material
(1) material 4.5 bil years old
(2) material that looks either 0 to 6000 years old, or, perhaps, looks
to be 4.5 bill plus 0 to 6000 years old
but we would NOT expect to be able radiometrically identify a steady gradation of dated material RANGING from 6000 years old gradully (in the fossil strata, as we descend through layers) to an age of 4.5 billion years old - which is precisely what we find.

LOL

No we don't. The 4.5 billion years comes from zircon crystles from western in Austrailia. Please offer scientific proof of your claim. LOL

"Modern geologists, based on extensive and detailed scientific evidence, consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.567 billion years (4.567×109 years). This age represents a compromise between the oldest-known terrestrial minerals – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – ." Wikipedia

Radiometric dating alows us the estimate the age of rock. But since I believe that God from the earth out of ancient formless matter likely from the big bang it is not surprizing that we can find rocks that are millions or billions of years old because they predate the formation of the earth by God. Scientist just mistakenly assume that a rock on the Earth cannot have been in existence for longer than the Earth itself.

 

[JAL]

As I said I didn't abstain from the question I simply didn't see it previously. That was probably because I had 3 or more posters asking me questions at the same tme and I was trying to answer everone and at the same time participate on a sports car club forum at the same time. The Answer is Yes we should take the Ten commandments literally but No you have not correctly interpreted the literal meaning of the Verse. The Verse simply bisects the week into parts the first part days 1-6 are set apart for the purpose labor/work and the 7th day is set apart as a Holy day of rest.

Sorry there is no SHALL in the verse either.

Here is the Hebrew with the english directly from Strong's

shesh [six] yowm [days] `abad [to labor] `asah [to do, work, make, produce] m@la'kah [ occupation, work, business]


So there was no need to abstain from answering your flawed reasoning. Had I previously noticed your post we could have cleared up your misconceptions about the 4th commandment much earlier. We have 6 days to labor and to do all our work in and one day, the 7th, to set aside our labour and to remember the Sabbath.

Well, perhaps my reading is not as strongly based in the Hebrew as I had hoped (I'll look into this more at another time), but it's hardly necessary to make my point. The sabbatarian claim is that God set an example for ALL NATIONS, ALL GENERATIONS, which we are to follow VERBATIM. The non-sabbatarian position is that, in many things, including this one, we follow God's example not verbatim, but analogically, as we are led by the Spirit.

So who is correct? Does the sabbatarian follow his own advice? Does he insist upon following God's example of working six days? No, he does not follow God's example, but he points the finger accusingly at the non-sabbatarian who, like him, does not follow God's example. Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

You yourself admitted, several times in this discussion, that extenuating circumstances can often obviate a rigid observance of the Sabbath. But you, as a sabbatarian, want to define the limits of extenuation in such a s way as to uphold sabbatarianism, essentially you want to impose your rule-paradigm (go-to-church-on-Saturday) on others. In this sovereignty arrogated to yourself, you would allow a man to miss church to fix his roof on the Sabbat (as you stated), but you would disdain a woman's decision to work on Saturday to feed her kids. And yet such disdain for the decisions of our brother, or sister, is precisley what Paul warned us about:

"Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind." (Rom 14:4-5).

As if that vere weren't explicit enough about warning us not to judge one another over a "sacred day", we have similar testimony in Colossians, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day." (2:16).

 

[JAL]

LOL

No we don't. The 4.5 billion years comes from zircon crystles from western in Austrailia. Please offer scientific proof of your claim. LOL

"Modern geologists, based on extensive and detailed scientific evidence, consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.567 billion years (4.567×109 years). This age represents a compromise between the oldest-known terrestrial minerals – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – ." Wikipedia

Radiometric dating alows us the estimate the age of rock. But since I believe that God from the earth out of ancient formless matter likely from the big bang it is not surprizing that we can find rocks that are millions or billions of years old because they predate the formation of the earth by God. Scientist just mistakenly assume that a rock on the Earth cannot have been in existence for longer than the Earth itself.

Oh, I see, and it's just a mere coincidence, that radiometric dating happens to show a gradation of dates as we descend through the fossil record.

If the fossil record was created by the Flood, as a single catclysmic event, I see no reason why radiometric dating should indicate a gradation, unless, as I stated, God is the Great Deceiver. My objection stands.

 

[JAL]

"And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day"
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the second day"
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the third day"
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the fourth day"
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the fifth day"
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day"
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the seventh day" - NOT!

The last one was omitted in Genesis. Why? Because the seventh day is the eternal Rest/Sabbath of God, as I have argued. It is an interminable day Light, with no evening, as I argued. The days of Genesis 1 are not 24 hour periods, wherefore God did NOT rest on a 24-hr period called "Saturday."

Gen 1 defines day as a period of darkness followed by a period light. In Gen 1, it is the divine Light from Christ's face, not the sun, responsible for the seven days (2cor 4:4-6) - compare this with the preceding chapter where Paul was discussing the Light shining in Moses' face (2Cor 3). The seven Light-days of God are merely analogical to the seven days of the week.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

So who is correct? Does the sabbatarian follow his own advice? Does he insist upon following God's example of working six days? No, he does not follow God's example, but he points the finger accusingly at the non-sabbatarian who, like him, does not follow God's example. Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

Please Jal, this is not true of all Sabbatarians... But you have made a huge point by pointing out that scripture does teach that one of those commandments in the decoulge requires us to work six days and rest the seventh.. I've mentioned this before in the past that is exactely were some Sabbatarians fall short!! They want to divide the law in sections when scripture makes no such distinctions... Another thing i've pointed out perhaps to your interest is that the TEN COMMANDMENT dont exist!!! The Hebrew calls them Assert Hadebarim, Ten Words, interestingly enough God created the earth by the Hebrew letter "hey" and he completed his creation with Ten Words.. If you read the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, you will see that there is more then Ten Commandments there, plus the Hebrew does not Call them Commandments by saying Assert Mitzvot or asseret Mitzvah, Ten Commandment or Commandments, but rather Ten Words.. Ten Commandments don't exist, God through Ten proclamations revealed his Torah to the nation of Israel.. I congragulate you for your point that remains unrefuted..

 

[JAL]

If Christ really demanded a rigid adherence to Saturday-rest even in post-exilic times, He sure has an odd way of so indicating. Not only did He allow the disciples to labor on the sabbath (to harvest grain) but He even cited pre-exilic passages in defense of it! I'm sure curious to know what I'm missing here, because the passage I'm referring to, as follows, seems so devastating to sabbatarianism that I cannot even fathom how this doctrine became prominent among born again Christians:

Mat 12:1 At that season Jesus went on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4 how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?
Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here.
Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.

Why in this passage does Jesus point out that "one greater than the temple is here"? The logic is simple. His argument as follows:
(1) The priests profaned the sabbath with innocence.
(2) Jesus is greater than the priests (He has more authority).
(3) Therefore to an even greater extent than the priests He has the right to deviate from Saturday-rest, and to command His disciples to do likewise.
(4) To sum it all up, Jesus is "lord of the Sabbath" (verse 8).

Now, does Jesus still retain that authority? Or, has He lost it? Is He no longer Lord? Is He no longer Lord of the sabbath? Has He lost His right to command His disciples, on an individual, municipal, or national basis, to deviate from the Mosaic/Israeli rite of Saturday-rest? To argue that He no longer retains this authority verges on heresy.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

"And there was evening, and there was morning, the seventh day" - NOT!

The last one was omitted in Genesis. Why? Because the seventh day is the eternal Rest/Sabbath of God, as I have argued. It is an interminable day Light, with no evening, as I argued. The days of Genesis 1 are not 24 hour periods, wherefore God did NOT rest on a 24-hr period called "Saturday."

Well, we are supposed to enter an eternal Shabbat rest when we reach eternity, our eternal Shabbat is coming after all is fullfiled.. I tend to agree with you, i cant limite God to my own understanding...

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

If Christ really demanded a rigid adherence to Saturday-rest even in post-exilic times, He sure has an odd way of so indicating. Not only did He allow the disciples to labor on the sabbath (to harvest grain) but He even cited pre-exilic passages in defense of it! I'm sure curious to know what I'm missing here, because the passage I'm referring to, as follows, seems so devastating to sabbatarianism that I cannot even fathom how this doctrine became prominent among born again Christians: Mat 12:1 At that season Jesus went on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath.

Ofcourse, alot of pharisees were attempting to impose there legalism on the desciples and on Yeshua himself.. Yet Yeshua being the Torah himself made flesh knew what was written much better then those legalist of his days, most of what they implemented that others keep were not commandments of God but dogmas and commandments of man...

Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him;

Mat 12:4 how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?

Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?

Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here.

Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.

Why were the priest guiltless yet they profaned the Shabbat? Why was David guiltless when he took of the show bread when only priests were allowed? We are talking about Old Testament here not the new!! Truely what the priests use to do was service, which is lawful on the Shabbat, so they were never considered Sabbath breakers.. Please notice that this was before the christian concept of grace even existed, yet we have Yeshua quoting from the Old.. This is noway refutes Sabbatarians on the contrary, it just shows your lack of understanding of Yeshua words.. Yeshua would never contradict his own words, he is the living word... God does not change Mal 3:6, nor does he alters what proceeds out of his lips Ps 89:34... Yeshua always quoted the Torah to prove his point, he was not against it because he could not be seperate from it or he wouldn't be who he is, he had to fullfil it but fully, he could not break it because he is not a different God then the word, he is the word the Torah..

Why in this passage does Jesus point out that "one greater than the temple is here"? The logic is simple. His argument as follows:
(1) The priests profaned the sabbath with innocence.

This is more to your lack of understanding, the priest was guiltless never considered a Sabbath breaker..

(2) Jesus is greater than the priests (He has more authority).

Ofcourse, there were fleshly limitation to the earthly priesthood thus Yeshua was far greater..

(3) Therefore to an even greater extent than the priests He has the right to deviate from Saturday-rest, and to command His disciples to do likewise.

Not true, you cant prove that Yeshua ever endorsed Shabbat breaking nor anyother sin.. You cant prove that he taught his desciples any suchthing when evidance shows that even ten to about fifteen years after Peter claimed to have never eaten anything common or unclean,.. Yeshua and his deciples observed the passover, Yeshua also observed traditional days as the day of dedication which was in comamoration to the restoration of the temple by Judas Maccabees.. So Yeshua according to scripture was a complete Jew observent of the Torah of Moshe.

(4) To sum it all up, Jesus is "lord of the Sabbath" (verse 8). [/quote]Did i say anything on a rigid and legalistic adherence of anything? Firstly, the desciples werent guilty of breaking the Shabbat just because they picked grain in the harvest.. There is no such prohibition in the law of God that forbids a hungry person from picking grain... Deut 24:23-24

24 When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.


25 When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.



Paul kept the Law, observed and kept the SHABBAT......and all the feasts....... Acts 18:4, 19, 17:1, 10, 17, 20:16....... In Act 21:26 We have Paul taking a Nazarite vow, undergoing an act of Purification, Shaving his head bold verse 24, and waiting for the offering to be offered, that is a sacrifice for everyone... Was Paul condmned by the Law?? Was he under it??? Was he not the Apostal of Grace??? Yeshua did not transgress the Shabbat commandment, because if he did he would have not been the perfect and sinless sacrifice.. Yeshua was the living Torah of God incarnate.. It is why he says Moses spoke of him, Yes, he is indeed that Torah that Tabernacalised and dwelt among us.. The ones that were sinining were some of the legalistic Pharisees, notice i said some, because not all pharisees where legalistic.. These people were trying to impose there dogmas and unbiblical traditions on others

Now, does Jesus still retain that authority? Or, has He lost it? Is He no longer Lord? Is He no longer Lord of the sabbath? Has He lost His right to command His disciples, on an individual, municipal, or national basis, to deviate from the Mosaic/Israeli rite of Saturday-rest? To argue that He no longer retains this authority verges on heresy.

So i guess you would consider Paul a heretic for taking a nazarite Vow [JEWISH] Shaving his hair bold [JEWISH], letting his hair grow [JEWISH], undergoing purification [JEWISH], Waiting for a sacrifice at the Temple [JEWISH],In Act 21:20 - 26, he also kept the passover and all the feasts of the Lord 18:4, 19, 17:1, 10, 17, 20:16. So Paul must be this heretic you refer to right? That kept the Law Acts 21: 21And they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews among the nations apostasy from Moses, saying that they should not circumcise their children, nor walk in the customs.
22What is it then? a multitude must necessarily come together, for they will hear that thou art come.


23This do therefore that we say to thee: We have four men who have a vow on them;


24take these and be purified with them, andpay their expenses, that they may have their heads shaved; and all will know that [of those things] of which they have been informed about thee nothing is [true]; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law.


So again, according to you Paul was a heretic is that what you are saying???

 

[JAL]

YeshuamySalvation, I entered this discussion in post #159. Several of the things you charge me with result from your lack of understanding of my position. You might want to go back and read my posts before making these charges. For example, Paul's taking a Nazarite vow, or shaving his head, or walking around butt-naked as isaiah did, or offering animal sacrifices, or doing anything else for that matter would not necessarily, in my view, make him a heretic. I do not limit what Jesus can command His disciple Paul to do. You sabbatarians are the ones who place such limits on Him because you arrogate to yourselves the ability to discern the will of God from a book of rules known as the Law. Logically, this is impossible, as I argued earlier, because His will is specific to the situation of each individual, community, and nation. For example, suppose you read the Decalogue and conclude, "I should go to church this Saturday." Unbenkownst to you, a suicide bomber might have planned an attack on your temple. Thus you would die as a result of arrogantly presuming to have the know-how to discern God's will from Scripture. Whereas Jesus would have inclined his ear unto the Father who might have warned him, "Don't you dare go to church this Saturday - no matter what you THINK the Bible is commanding you." HTH.

 

[JAL]

Ofcourse, alot of pharisees were attempting to impose there legalism on the desciples and on Yeshua himself.. Yet Yeshua being the Torah himself made flesh knew what was written much better then those legalist of his days, most of what they implemented that others keep were not commandments of God but dogmas and commandments of man...

Category error. Jesus was the divine Word made flesh, He was not the written Word made flesh. Please don't deify a book. Was the book inspired, that is, orchestrated by God? Yes - precisely as the tabernacle and furnishings so insprired, but that doesn't make them divine.

Why were the priest guiltless yet they profaned the Shabbat? Why was David guiltless when he took of the show bread when only priests were allowed? We are talking about Old Testament here not the new!!

That's an interesting "justification" for it. Are you serious? The usual sabbatarian logic is "God set this ordinance in the OT as a paradigm even for the NT." And now you would have it as, "In the OT it was optional but now it is mandatory" (????)

Truely what the priests use to do was service, which is lawful on the Shabbat, so they were never considered Sabbath breakers..

No, you're missing the force of Christ's words. He didn't say, "the priests did the usual services." He said, they PROFANED the sabbath, and yet were innocent, just as He said David did the UNLAWFUL with innocence. Nice try, though.

Please notice that this was before the christian concept of grace even existed, yet we have Yeshua quoting from the Old..

Another argument for suddenly making the sabbath optional in the OT? Maybe it's time to rethink your understanding of "law". It's not the rigid regimentality that you imagine it to be. God is wise enough to be more flexible than that - in BOTH the OT AND in the NT.

Firstly, the desciples werent guilty of breaking the Shabbat just because they picked grain in the harvest.. There is no such prohibition in the law of God that forbids a hungry person from picking grain... Deut 24:23-24
24 When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.
25 When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.

But you would point the accusing finger at a woman who goes to work on Saturday to feed her hungry kids? Please.
You keep saying that God would never have His people violate the regulations of His law. You use this as a justification for sabbatarianism. But you are only being inconsistent. If God is as loyal to His Torah as YOU suppose, then NONE of the OT regulations should have ceased. Your argument is self-defeating.
I'm not saying that God has no loyalty to His law. The essence of the law is love which, in my opinion, never changes. But the implementation of the law is specific to each individual, community, and nation. Consequently, although He is fully loyal to the ESSENCE of His law (love), He has never had, and never will have, an unconditional allegiance to a given implementation of His government (such as the Mosaic covenant). At least my view easily avoids the sort of contradictory conclusions that you just espoused. Nor am I suggesting that there is no such thing as an eternal covenant. In my view, the Abrahamic covenant is an eternal covenant DEFINED as a personal relationship with Christ harmonious with any given implementation of His government.

So again, according to you Paul was a heretic is that what you are saying???

Paul said, "I became like a Jew to win the Jews...and am all things to all men, that I might save some." Because God is not bound to a given implementation, He can have Paul standing on His head and turning cartwheels, for all I care. That's HIS decision - NOT YOURS. Clear?

 

[Sleaker]

Category error. Jesus was the divine Word made flesh, He was not the written Word made flesh. Please don't deify a book. Was the book inspired, that is, orchestrated by God? Yes - precisely as the tabernacle and furnishings so insprired, but that doesn't make them divine.

Thank you for clarifying, I have known a lot of Christians that tend to replace the Holy Spirit with the Bible, and/or to incorporate the scripture into Christ. This usually stem from a misunderstanding on what the Word of God is referred to in the new testament, usually people assume when Word of God is mentioned it is a direct reference to scripture which is totally untrue.

 

[Sleaker]

Ofcourse, alot of pharisees were attempting to impose there legalism on the desciples and on Yeshua himself.. Yet Yeshua being the Torah himself made flesh knew what was written much better then those legalist of his days, most of what they implemented that others keep were not commandments of God but dogmas and commandments of man...

Subtle shuft here, Yeshua didn't know the Law any better than the Pharisees did in the sense of knowing something in the mind. This would be contrary to scripture as Paul tells us in Philippians that God came into the world as Jesus, and gave up all rights to his Divinity, he became a man. Still being God, but not clinging to His rights as God. Thus Jesus had no supernatural ability to know any more than a Pharisee what the Law said. What Jesus understood more than the Pharisees was God's heart, and why the Law's were given, what they were designed for, and what they were intended to do. And He knew these things because He saught to be in constant communion with God. Seek the relationship with the Creator and you will come to understand the ways in which He works. This is the key element that was missing from the Pharisees, for they had much knowledge of God, but they didn't understand God's heart.

 

[JAL]

As I have emphasized, my view is that Christ, rather than written law, reigns. Trouble is, in our spiritual immaturity (mostly due to lack of prayer in my opinion) we can't hear Him as loud and clear as Moses, Paul, Elijah (et. all) did. So how do we form an opinion as to His will for us? Naturally our conscience directs us to examine the Bible - but we can only form tentative opinions. Only in this sense do I agree with Sabbatarians about the need to look to the Bible for rules of daily living. But I believe that, in this biblical endeavor, ALL the denominations, including the sabbatarians make a fundamental mistake.
The mistake, in my opinion, is to insuffiiciently appreciate the fact that God is NOT a God of ceremony at heart. He couldn't care less about ceremonies. You make a necklace and roll the beads until the cows come home, but He is not impressed. He created you for two reasons (1) fellowship with God and (2) fellowship with man.
This tells us several things. First, when God insitutes a ceremony, it MUST be sacramental, since He would never do a ceremony merely for the sake of ceremony. By sacramental I mean that He institutes it with an infusion of the Shekinah Glory (as seen in Moses' face, for example) because His REAL purpose is fellowship of man with God. The main purpose of the ceremony is to occasion an act of obedience whereby God can reward man with more of His presence. Trouble is, if God withdraws all the Presence as a result of disobedience, the ceremony has now become USELESS.
Secondly, if we recognize that God is a God of fellowship rather than ceremony, we should eliminate all ceremonies from our lives for fear of witchcraft. When we perform a ceremony under the PRESUMPTION that we thereby invoke God's blessings, we are really engaging in witchcraft (viz. rubbing anointing oil on the sick and EXPECTING results - the very sort of thing a witch would do).
I should engage in a ceremony only if the divine Voice has commanded it "loud and clear" to me (just as He spoke to Moses) so that I have the assurance that God will infuse His Presence for purposes of fellowship rather than ritual. This means that the church is better off eliminating water baptism, Eucharist, anointing oil, prayer shawls, and all other ceremonial materials and activities.
It is my contention, furthermore, that the Mosaic Sabbath is a cermonial ordinance. Why so? Because a given day is no better than another. To say that a day is INHERENTLY holy is pretty much as questionable as saying that God loves us on Mondays but not on Tuesdays. In what sense, then, did God hallow His seventh day? And in what sense was it hallowed for Israel? I've already answered that question. Because He is not a god of ceremony, He hallows a ceremony by outpouring the divine Presence so that it comes to REST upon His creatures in fellowship. Thus on the "seventh day God rested (physically upon his creation) and made it holy." And the "Tabernacle will be sanctified by my glory" (etc). God did the same thing for Israel each Sabbath day. Remember, a ceremony is warranted if God commands it to YOU loud and clear, giving you the assurance that it will invoke an outpouring.
Rev 15:4 says, "God alone is holy." Man can be holy only to the extent that the divine Presence has come to rest upon him in a controlling sense. God is everywhere, but He deigns to send special outpourigns to assume control - this is holiness. For example, the pillar of cloud turned to Fire at night, said Moses, because cloud doesn't radiate light, and Israel needed Light to travel at night. In other words God's fire radiates Light. Thus when the burning bush appeared to Moses, it radiated holy Light-quanta even at Moses' feet. Hence the ground become holy, "Take off thy sandals, Ye stand on holy ground." This is holiness. There is no INHERENT holiness in "Saturdays", nor in water baptism, in Eucharist, anointing oil - etc.

 

[ThreeAM]

Well, perhaps my reading is not as strongly based in the Hebrew as I had hoped (I'll look into this more at another time), but it's hardly necessary to make my point. The sabbatarian claim is that God set an example for ALL NATIONS, ALL GENERATIONS, which we are to follow VERBATIM. The non-sabbatarian position is that, in many things, including this one, we follow God's example not verbatim, but analogically, as we are led by the Spirit.

So who is correct? Does the sabbatarian follow his own advice? Does he insist upon following God's example of working six days? No, he does not follow God's example, but he points the finger accusingly at the non-sabbatarian who, like him, does not follow God's example. Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

You yourself admitted, several times in this discussion, that extenuating circumstances can often obviate a rigid observance of the Sabbath. But you, as a sabbatarian, want to define the limits of extenuation in such a s way as to uphold sabbatarianism, essentially you want to impose your rule-paradigm (go-to-church-on-Saturday) on others. In this sovereignty arrogated to yourself, you would allow a man to miss church to fix his roof on the Sabbat (as you stated), but you would disdain a woman's decision to work on Saturday to feed her kids. And yet such disdain for the decisions of our brother, or sister, is precisley what Paul warned us about:

"Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind." (Rom 14:4-5).

As if that vere weren't explicit enough about warning us not to judge one another over a "sacred day", we have similar testimony in Colossians, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day." (2:16).

God set aside the 7th day and proclaimed it HOLY. Can you show me another day of the weekly cylcle that God has specifically set asside as Holy? Christ kept the Sabbath and God Kept the sabbath by resting. So there is your example from God. If I have work to be done that work is done on days 1-6. Those days were set asside for days that work can be done on. The sabbath was specifically set asside for rest. I'm not in the position to judge anyone about the sabbath. God alone is the judge. I am in the position to comment on what I think God expects from Man and from me as a Man.

Where did you get off say I would disdain a single mom for woking on the sabbath?????????

What I have I even said to you that supports your unfounded accusation? Please show me the quote or with draw your comment. I did say that I don't believe that God or his church would let a single mother suffer who stands on her convictions to observe the sabbath. I still think God and the Church would help her find other non conflicting employment, pay the rent ect. etc. I'm a sinner myself why would I disdain a fellow sinner???? That makes no sense to me.

As I have said in this thread the sabbath is like any other of the ten commandments you break one you break them all. If I break another commandment and the single mom breaks the sabbath we are both the same. I have no righteousness of my own any righteousness that I have comes from Jesus Christ the same place a single mom gets hers. The point is we need to have the desire through the Holy Spirit to change our lives. We need to repent our sins we need to follow Christ's example. We all change at our own rate and that is sanctification.

The verses you quote are of course out of context. If examined in full context with proper exegesis we can see that Paul was talking about yearly ceremonial feast day. Sabbaths that were shadows of the first comming of Christ and not the 7th day Sabbath which is a memorial of Creation.

 

[Sleaker]

As I have emphasized, my view is that Christ, rather than written law, reigns. Trouble is, in our spiritual immaturity (mostly due to lack of prayer in my opinion) we can't hear Him as loud and clear as Moses, Paul, Elijah (et. all) did. So how do we form an opinion as to His will for us? Naturally our conscience directs us to examine the Bible - but we can only form tentative opinions. Only in this sense do I agree with Sabbatarians about the need to look to the Bible for rules of daily living. But I believe that, in this biblical endeavor, ALL the denominations, including the sabbatarians make a fundamental mistake.
The mistake, in my opinion, is to insuffiiciently appreciate the fact that God is NOT a God of ceremony at heart. He couldn't care less about ceremonies. You make a necklace and roll the beads until the cows come home, but He is not impressed. He created you for two reasons (1) fellowship with God and (2) fellowship with man.
This tells us several things. First, when God insitutes a ceremony, it MUST be sacramental, since He would never do a ceremony merely for the sake of ceremony. By sacramental I mean that He institutes it with an infusion of the Shekinah Glory (as seen in Moses' face, for example) because His REAL purpose is fellowship of man with God. The main purpose of the ceremony is to occasion an act of obedience whereby God can reward man with more of His presence. Trouble is, if God withdraws all the Presence as a result of disobedience, the ceremony has now become USELESS.
Secondly, if we recognize that God is a God of fellowship rather than ceremony, we should eliminate all ceremonies from our lives for fear of witchcraft. When we perform a ceremony under the PRESUMPTION that we thereby invoke God's blessings, we are really engaging in witchcraft (viz. rubbing anointing oil on the sick and EXPECTING results - the very sort of thing a witch would do).
I should engage in a ceremony only if the divine Voice has commanded it "loud and clear" to me (just as He spoke to Moses) so that I have the assurance that God will infuse His Presence for purposes of fellowship rather than ritual. This means that the church is better off eliminating water baptism, Eucharist, anointing oil, prayer shawls, and all other ceremonial materials and activities.
It is my contention, furthermore, that the Mosaic Sabbath is a cermonial ordinance. Why so? Because a given day is no better than another. To say that a day is INHERENTLY holy is pretty much as questionable as saying that God loves us on Mondays but not on Tuesdays. In what sense, then, did God hallow His seventh day? And in what sense was it hallowed for Israel? I've already answered that question. Because He is not a god of ceremony, He hallows a ceremony by outpouring the divine Presence so that it comes to REST upon His creatures in fellowship. Thus on the "seventh day God rested (physically upon his creation) and made it holy." And the "Tabernacle will be sanctified by my glory" (etc). God did the same thing for Israel each Sabbath day. Remember, a ceremony is warranted if God commands it to YOU loud and clear, giving you the assurance that it will invoke an outpouring.
Rev 15:4 says, "God alone is holy." Man can be holy only to the extent that the divine Presence has come to rest upon him in a controlling sense. God is everywhere, but He deigns to send special outpourigns to assume control - this is holiness. For example, the pillar of cloud turned to Fire at night, said Moses, because cloud doesn't radiate light, and Israel needed Light to travel at night. In other words God's fire radiates Light. Thus when the burning bush appeared to Moses, it radiated holy Light-quanta even at Moses' feet. Hence the ground become holy, "Take off thy sandals, Ye stand on holy ground." This is holiness. There is no INHERENT holiness in "Saturdays", nor in water baptism, in Eucharist, anointing oil - etc.

I like the direction you take here, but I wouldn't pre-suppose that no one hears God like people did in the OT. That's an oversight that suggests that we can't hear God today as well as we heard Him before. I believe our ability to hear God has a lot to do with how many distractions we have, how good our relationship is with God, and also how much we submit to the Holy Spirit. I might even suggest that some people alive today can hear God better than Moses did, we have the Holy Spirit all the time.

Now while things may not be inherently Holy, God has given us the Holy Spirit and much like the Ground that God occupied was made Holy, we are made Holy. Also with that we have the ability to set things apart for God, or to make them Holy.

So while dunking someone in some water may not be considered Holy, baptism may be Holy because of the significance it brings, it is an action to set one apart from the world. While eating bread and drinking wine may not be considered Holy it becomes Holy by doing it unto the Lord and in remembrance of Him. When God touches something and breathes life into it, it has been set apart and made Holy for Him.
Something isn't Holy because of itself, it is Holy because of what God has designed it to be and made it into.
Yes/No? Thoughts?