• 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.

So confused on the Sabbath...

Status
Not open for further replies.

ThreeAM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2005
1,875
32
72
✟17,167.00
Faith
SDA



Remember the VERY OLDEST rocks in the world , zircon crystles, are found on or near the surface in Austrailia. Also remember that the geologic column isn't nearly as uniform as you suggest. I have seen supposedly millions of years old fossils of dinos taken from 30 foot of mud in the Trinity river bottom. In Dino National Park they have heavely scrambled dinos with no fossilation of the plants that the dino ate. Some reason for the geological column are.

How objects (including living, or once-living, bodies) sink through water is determined by a variety of characteristics of said objects. Denser objects tend to sink faster than less-dense ones (which may even stay on the surface, depending on how light they are); objects with smoother surfaces, hence less drag, tend to sink faster than objects with rougher surfaces, hence more drag; streamlined objects tend to sink faster than objects with ungainly protrusions; and so on.
In short: The quicker a life-form's body sinks, the deeper its specimens will be found in the geologic column.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere; some points of its surface are higher above 'sea level' than others. Environmental conditions vary for a number of reasons, and altitude is one of those reasons. Since any one life-form generally prefers a particular set of environmental conditions, it follows that life-forms will tend to live at a particular altitude.
In short: Creatures that lived at low altitudes will be found, in the geologic column, below creatures that lived at high altitudes.

When the Floodwaters rose, all animals would naturally have attempted to escape their doom by fleeing to higher ground. This would have been a futile effort, since the Flood drowned all Earthly life except what was saved on Noah's ark, but some animals would have avoided their inevitable deaths longer than others.

In short: Creatures with greater mobility will be found higher in the geologic column than creatures with low mobility.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
If the seventh day is really the Sabbath, then why does God the Father, and Jesus His Son, work during said Sabbath?

Do you also go to the bathroom, eat food and breath air during the 7th day sabbath?

You do them to sustain life. The Son and the Father work on sabbath, so we can still live.

Jesus said it's good to do good on sabbath. But everything that's not life sustaining and can be done on another day should be done on another day.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My apologies if I used language harsher than appropriate. I can be a very slow writer and, to keep the pace going, I sometimes choose my words too hastily.

I used the term "disdain" from the standpoint of what the women is likely to feel if she attended a church that believes as you seem to believe. In the quote above, you speak of the mom "breaking the sabbath." I, personally, don't think the word "disdain" (frankly) is harsh enough to encapsulate what this women might feel if you told her that working on Saturday to feed her hungry kids constitutes "breaking the commandments of God."

To recap, you basically said, "God doesn't mind if that man fixes his roof on the sabbath." I replied, basically, "Then He won't mind if a mom works on the Sabbath to feed her kids." I would have liked for you to have conceded, "Gee, never thought of it that way. You're probably right." Instead, you replied something like, "God will make sure she gets fed" (if I recall correctly). To me this is seemed (and still does) like a double-standard. This is a woman who may have just moved into town. She might not even HAVE a roof to fix as yet. She would like to work to GET a roof to cover her kids. But you seem to imply that it's ok for this man, who already HAS a roof, to fix it on the sabbath, but it's wrong for a poor woman, who doesn't even HAVE a roof as yet, to work on the Sabbath. In my view, when the Pharisees interpreted the law in ways that made it a burden rather than a blessing, jesus told them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath" - meaning, it was meant to be a blessing, it was meant to insure that man gets at least one day of rest, it was NOT meant to hinder the poor in their attempts to survive.

My apologies, however, for not clarifying that what I really meant was, those who teach sabbatarian doctrine would cause a woman to FEEL disdain (condemnation, guilt, etc), even though I can see how you feel that you yourself are not the one disdaining her.
 
Upvote 0
F

FijianBeliever

Guest
Could it be that what we think of as the Sabbath is not really what God stated as the Sabbath? As He is not at rest, and has been working from the beginning, I think the "sabbath" is not upon us yet.

ps...pity the person who views going to the bathroom as work.
 
Upvote 0

YeshuamySalvation

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2005
985
30
45
Miami Lakes
✟1,336.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
What book? The Torah was written in Scroll, yes we do have the bad habbit of calling it a book.. In answer to your question yes, that word that was handed to Moshe in Ten Declaration does speak about Yeshua as he himself said and he fullfiled it in full wqalked accordingly to what it said did not transgress against it as you accuse him.. Your accusals come from a lack of understanding of Jewish idioms and expressions.. If you yank scripture from a cultural and historical context you can make it say whatever you want it to say... Yeshua was Jewish and he lived walked, acted and talked like a Jew...


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" (????)
When did i say this? I do say you have no understanding since i have already shown you scripture to the contrary that undermines your unbiblical position....



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.
Yet they were not accused under any circumstances breaking anything, just as Yeshua is not guilty of breaking the law as you accuse him.. Yeshua was showing them there error of legalism and how it doesnt jell scripturally by quoting the TORAH, the Torah does not teach that service is a breaking of the Shabbat, the Maccabees ofcourse were not guilty of breaking the law when they faught shabbat after shabbat to restore the Temple, a celebreation Yeshua as a Jew celebrated!!!

Sorry, but there is no scriptural evidance that God has a changing nature and characteristics.. God never changes, i will continue to abide by God's word that clearly say he is unchanging!!!

But you would point the accusing finger at a woman who goes to work on Saturday to feed her hungry kids? Please.
Sir, i think you have no idea what you are talking about.. Judaism does not teach criticsizm nor pointing the finger at anyone, we call that lashonhara which is the evil tongue.. A jew does not point the finger at another Jew it is not our business nor our relationship with God..


None did, you have no scriptural bases to say that anything in the law passed, Yeshua says that not even the decorations on the smallest letter in the hebrew alphabet which is the yod would pass till heaven and earth passes.. And yes i believe God is one hundred percent faithful to his word, if not how could i trust him?


The Mosaic Covenant was just a renovation of the Abrahamic Covenant, and the new Covenant is a renovation of the Mosaic Covenant, none have changed yes the covenant is eternal, the hebrew word hadash means renewed and it's the same word that Jeremiah uses to represent the new covenant.. Im really not concerned with your veiw i'm concerned with what scripture teaches.. I mean really what can i do with your veiw? Throw it to the garbage if it's unscriptural right?


This is one of the weakest arguments that i've heard in my life.. Did Paul have tow faces? He was an Isralite from the tribe of Benjamin!! Rom 11: 1 1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Acts 23:
6But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

What you are doing is dangerous be very careful please.. Paul was not some imposter with to faces, neither was God..


 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
ThreeAm, some preliminary remarks before I respond to your recent statement. Although all of us are biased, and thus are not likely to change our views, I think I'm objective enough to at least be capable of ESTEEMING a good defense (even though I may not be objective enough to acquiesce to it). I'm not like those intellectually dishonest debaters who, every time the opposition makes a good argument, they respond, "What a ridiculous argument! There is absolutely NO rationale in what you just said!" Trust me, I've seen PLENTY of that on these forums.

For an example of my posture, I was debating with an Arian a while back, and I couldn't help but compliment him on the surprisingly powerful arguments he gave against Christ's divinity. I don't agree with him, but at least I am capable of esteeming his apologetic.

Why have I mentioned the fact that I'm pretty honest about evaluating the opposition's arguments? Simply as a preface to saying that I think I'm being pretty honest with myself when I say that the sabbatarian defense exposes somewhat of a paucity of (didactic) NT evidence for sabbatarianism. Almost every (didactic) NT passage seems like a justification for NOT being concerned with the Israeli sabbath (for example Jesus has His disciples harvesting grain on the sabbath). This is not to say there is "no didactic evidence at all." But it's pretty sparse. Now admittedly there is a fair amount of HISTORICAL evidence adduced for sabbaterianism, namely the fact that the apostles apparently went to the synagogues on Saturday. But a good portion of this evidence is pretty dubious because it often looks as though evangelism to the Jews was the real apostolic motif in most of these cases.

Therefore even if sabbatarianism is true, the paucity of evidence leaves me dubious as to whether such a doctrine could have the degree of significance that some sabbatarians attach to it. How much significance do they attach to it? Here's two examples. (1) Many 7th day Adventists believe that Sunday-worship is the mark of the beast. (2) I was recently looking at an online debate where a leading sabbatarian spokesperson basically tried to blame the whole church's unsantification on neglect of the sabbath. I would respond, "Oh really? If the very success of the church pivots on this one principle, why can't I find even ONE clear didactic enjoinder in the entire NT to observe the sabbath?" Compare this conspicuous paucity with, for example, the number of enjoinders for us to pray. In my theology, prayer is the NUMBER ONE priority of the church.

I cited two didactic passages which cast considerable doubt on sabbatarianism. (If you tell me my argument is ridiculous, I won't be fooled, I'll just place you in the category of the intellectually dishonest debaters already metioned). These were the two passages I cited:


(Interesting that both passsages deal with judging one another). To this you responded:


You've got your work cut out for you on this one. After all, here is Paul finally using the term "sabbath" in a didactic passage. Here is his perfect opportunity to tell us how crucial it is for all of us to observe the sabbath. But instead, he wastes this great opportunity, he uses it to speak of a yearly feast day? That's your position? Furthermore, both the annual sabbaths and the weekly sabbath referred to the same concept - REST, and thus BOTH were shadows of the good things that are coming (the eternal rest of heaven). My logic is simple:
(1) Paul says these things are a shadow of the good things coming.
(2) What good things are coming? The eternal rest of God, among other things.
(3) Was the weekly sabbath a shadow of this rest? Yes, because the term means "rest".

Therefore any attempt to exclude the weekly sabbath from this passage's scope would seem arbitrary, gratuitous, and possibly suspect of a biased agenda to defend sabbatarianism. Frankly I don't think you have much hard evidence to make your case here. At best I think you can show your case POSSIBLE, but hardly overwhelming. Which brings us back to square one - the conspicuous paucity of NT evidence for a sabbatarian doctrine supposedly "pivotal in the Christian life."
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Your statement provides an opportunity to mention a serious epistemological weakness in the sabbatarian position. Why do you prefer to look to the Bible for truth, rather than to men? For a very good reason - men cannot be trusted, and even the honest ones are prone to error. Therefore God would be doing His people a disservice if the information necessary for spiritual success were accessible only from fallible men.

But this is precisely what sabbatarianism entails,as I will demonstrate in a moment. First of all, consider MY position, as follows, "Rest is apparently a biblical principle, but in order to KNOW what day of the week to rest, I must hear God, I must be inspired to the same extent as the biblical writers."

The sabbatarian position is this, "Just find out from the Bible what day to rest on." Ok, the Bible seems to indicate the last day of the week. Fair enough. But how do we KNOW (for 100% sure) that the last day of the week, as originally given in the day of Moses, is what we now call Saturday? How do we KNOW that earthly calendars suffered no damage or lapse in the heyday of the ancient world? The sabbatarian would reply - just check out the historical records. The trouble is, the records are a function of MEN. This is a man-based epistemology. As such, it can never be a 100% reliable source of truth. Unlike the books of the Bible, historical records do NOT qualify as inspiration. Since a responsible God would not base His ecclesiology on a man-based epistemology, the original assumption that landed us in this error is almost certainly false. That assumption was, "Just find out from the Bible what day to rest on."

You might ask me, how does one know - for 100% sure - that a voice heard is from God, for example a voice telling me what day to rest on. Because 100% is precisely how I DEFINE what it means to hear God loud and clear. If you don't have 100% certainty, don't insist that you heard Him loud and clear. (In my view, it is HIS responsibility to provide the 100% certainty and to prevent the devil from counterfeiting it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I want to discuss all that here).
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

I do not think that an action becomes holy merely because you consecrete it to the Lord. You also have to know it is His will, and the problem is that God doesn't even LIKE ceremonies. Remember, the voice of God and Christ speaking to prophets and apostles instiuted baptism. For THEM it was sacramental, the recipients received outpourings because it WAS the will of God, and they KNEW it was the will of God. But here we stand practicing ceremonies TWO THOUSAND YEARS OUT OF DATE without a loud and clear command from God? Please don't tell me that the average Christian hears God quite well. Most of us don't hear anything at all, rather we have these seemingly Godly thoughts and then PRESUME it is God speaking. When God speaks loud and clear, you won't have to presume ANYTHING.

Also, if you have lived with a fanatical Roman Catholic mother for 20 years, as I did, your perspective on ceremonialism might gravitate toward mine. She fills the house with symbolic materials PRESUMED to bring her a blessing if she simply "consecreates them to the lord" (which is basically your advice). You presume that if a ceremeony seems biblical, and we consecrate it to the Lord, we can expect a blessing. Well, don't we want the MOST blessings possible? This results in a multitude of ceremonies and materials such that one's life and one's household look NO DIFFERENT than that of a witch. See my point? Do you really think that God would espouse a perspective that so readily culminates in this kind of nonsense?

The only sure way of COMPLETELY eliminating witchcraft is to avoid all ceremonialism except where the divine Voice has commanded it loud and clear.

On the other hand, conscience rules. If your conscience currently has you bound up in a ceremony, and it won't release you, looks like you are stuck with it for now. I got free of all that deadweight a LONG time ago.

 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
ThreeAm said:
Also remember that the geologic column isn't nearly as uniform as you suggest.
My understanding is that scientists have found reasonable explanations for the non-uniformity of strata-altitudes across the earth. They seem satisfied that they can still identify a particular strata even it is not at the same altitude as it was in other parts of the world. And they maintain that there is a consistency of strata throughought the world in the sense of a consistent order of layers. It is my understanding that only in a handful of places, at most, is the entire geologic column available.

Remember the VERY OLDEST rocks in the world , zircon crystles, are found on or near the surface in Austrailia.
I suspect that scientists would not classify this "surface" as the uppermost surface of the earth for our generation. My guess is that the crystals are found in formations deemed to have shifted upward, or in areas of land relatively low-lying and therefore closer to the earth's core than most other "surfaces." What I am saying is, I don't think your observations would prove disturbing to modern geologists. I imagine you'll respond that modern geologists are biased, but this sort of accusation, if voiced to me, would fall on deaf ears.

While I do believe that a considerable amount of bias exists in regard to evolution, I don't believe that much bias remains in the domain of geology and dating. My (admittedly surface) impression of this field is that it is very rigid, testable, and objective. There was a time I trusted YEC scientists and distrusted geologists. The converse is now true and I'm fairly sure I'll never go back.

Ok, I'll admit that I don't know enough science to evaluate your theories so I can't dismiss them. But I now have a considerable amount of faith in the scientific community. Therefore it would take exceedingly powerful data to influence me in this regard. For example if, in the fossil record, we saw human bones regularly mixed with dinosaur bones, then you'd have my interest.
 
Upvote 0

Sleaker

Victory of the People
Sep 9, 2006
534
26
41
Portland, OR
Visit site
✟23,288.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others


Hmm? Nowhere in my post did I suggest that something that is made Holy brings blessing. I'm merely reminding everyone here that Holy is quite simply, Set Apart. And When you do something for God with a right Heart then it is made Holy. Simple enough, why is it made Holy? Because it is done for the Lord and unto Him alone. This is a heart condition and has nothing to do with rituals. I didn't say one thing about continuation of action in the same thing either. Maybe I didn't make that clear, in no way did I suggest that doing something over and over makes it Holy. No, the reason an action or thing becomes Holy is because it is set apart for God, this is seen throughout all of scripture.

Yah.. in your post you say I said a lot of things which I never did...

As far as God not liking ceremonies, that's a fairly large covering statement you might want to think more about.. Baptism, Marraige, and Comunion all fall under that category..
 
Upvote 0

Sleaker

Victory of the People
Sep 9, 2006
534
26
41
Portland, OR
Visit site
✟23,288.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As far as the whole YEC/OEC discussion is concerned, it really comes down to what scripture says, I don't think a YE or OE really makes any difference as to the validity of the sabbath as a creation ordinance, length of time doesn't matter.

I suggest this because if it is a literal 7 days, cool we know that line of thought and most people will agree that if the bible is speaking literally then the 7th day was indeed a resting day and everyone can be fine and dandy with that reference to a Sabbath.

The thing though with an Old Earth view is we tend to lean toward not thinking of the Day of Rest as implemented yet since it wasn't in fact a day. But this is a poor argument, because the writer of the book purposefully put down, the word Day. This shows me that no matter if the earth is young or old, there is a correlation being made to the time God took to create and the days we have in our lives. So literal or not there is a metaphor being presented of a week, to show that resting on the seventh day is good.

Now from there you can go on to show why or why not this is still observed in the NT.
 
Upvote 0

ThreeAM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2005
1,875
32
72
✟17,167.00
Faith
SDA

EVERY single member of my church is a sinner. The place is FULL of them. We each have our own issues. Should my church not mention that lieing is a sin just becasue it MIGHT make someone who has lied uncomfortable???? Sould we not speak against aduterly because there my be and adulter in the congregation??? Should we accept someone profaning God's name because it MIGHT offend them to point out in a sermon that profaning God's name is sin?? Should we ignore idol worship because the idol worshipper MIGHT feel disdain if we preach that idol worship is wrong?? I think not.

What you want is just surgar coat every thing so we can a feel good as we sin? Right???

You act as if we place a scarlet letter S on those who don't observe the sabbath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I doubt anyone would say a word to your hypothetical single mom's concerning working on the Sabbath allthough the issue of Sabbath observace is GENERAL for all members would likely be mentioned in a sermon by the pastor from time to time. But all forms of sin are discussed in sermons the single mom's weakness may be Sabbath related but mine may be another issue. I certainly don't want the preacher to stop speaking on a subject that might speak to my flaws and failures, my toes should be stepped on if I'm still not following God's will. Nor do I want him to stop giving sermons on the issue of sabbath observance.


Helping a neighbor nail plastic over his roof for a few minutes for free before a rain storm before going to church in a singular emergency situtation is a lot different from working every Sabbath and not gathering with the Church body. We go to church to help strengthen our faith by whorship and fellowship. Those who don't attend church regularly and participate frequently backslide to a point of have little or no relationship with God. Satan is very good at placing obsticals in our way and God is good at over coming those obsticals.

I guess it comes down to who do you have more faith in God's ability to provide for your needs of your own ability to provide for those needs. We are told that it is our faith in God that saves us.
 
Upvote 0

ThreeAM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2005
1,875
32
72
✟17,167.00
Faith
SDA

You can have faith in a scienticfic community that constantly changes and frequently disagrees among themselves.....just read a few old science books and compair them to the most recent books science is constantly proving themselves wrong and coming up with new theories...I'll keep my faith in the word of God which never changes. Scientists aren't going to save you...but God will.
 
Upvote 0

YeshuamySalvation

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2005
985
30
45
Miami Lakes
✟1,336.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I agree that you have very good arguments wont deny, ofcourse against some of the false arguments some Sabbatarians raise as we will examine, not all Sabbatarians believe these arguments you appropriate to them..

 
Upvote 0

ThreeAM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2005
1,875
32
72
✟17,167.00
Faith
SDA

Then there is also evidence that Saul went from synagoge to synagoge to persecute those that believed In Christ. And when Gentiles asked Paul to preach to them the next Sabbath that is exactly what Paul did preached on the Sabbath rather than Sunday. And Paul was recorded preach to Lydia by a river on the Sabbath and baptising Her. And then there was Paul himself that is recorded worshipped God on the Sabbth more than 80 times. Then there is the historical evidence that the Jerusalem church that fled to Pella to escape the siege of the Romans as Christ had warned them to do. They worshiped on the Sabbath for more than 350 years after Christ.



Therefore even if sabbatarianism is true, the paucity of evidence leaves me dubious as to whether such a doctrine could have the degree of significance that some sabbatarians attach to it.

And which day of there week do you attend worship sevices on and where is the abundance of evidence for that day?


How much significance do they attach to it? Here's two examples. (1) Many 7th day Adventists believe that Sunday-worship is the mark of the beast.


LOL The Mark of the Beast has not fallen yet. There will be many many sunday keeping christians in heaven. I sure hope to be reunited with my uncle who was a wonderful Baptist. The Mark of the beast has not yet fallen. No one who worships on sunday currently has the mark of the beast at this time. The Mark of the Beast involves concious rebellion to God's will after the Sabbath issue has been made very plain to people by God. Clearly if you read about the MOB it is given over an issue of worship.

Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

But this thread is thread about why whe should observe the Sabbath not one about what the MOB is and who shall recieve the MOB. We observe the Sabbath because we love God and want to keep his commandments.



Let's examin those verses in my next post.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I agree that you have very good arguments.
Thanks, YeshuamySalvation. You made several encouraging compliments about my posts. And you expounded several verses in ways that helped me to feel more confident about some of my own views.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My apologies for misunderstanding you - but I don't see how your next set of statements was any more clear?
You write:
Hmm? Nowhere in my post did I suggest that something that is made Holy brings blessing. I'm merely reminding everyone here that Holy is quite simply, Set Apart.
So it is possible for a Christian to conduct himself in a holy manner WITHOUT invoking a blessing? I'm having a hard time understanding that. I think that you are saying that holiness can connote separation without connoting any moral quality. Well, yes, perhaps in a few cases in Scripture the word is so used, but probably rarely and certainly I find it hard to see what relevance this would have in our "moral" discussion. If you are speaking of an amoral act of separation, what relevance does it have for a debate on whether the sabbath is a moral obligation?

And When you do something for God with a right Heart then it is made Holy. Simple enough, why is it made Holy? Because it is done for the Lord and unto Him alone. This is a heart condition and has nothing to do with rituals.
I don't see how I can agree with you because the problem is that most people PRESUME to know the will of God. Presumption is an evil, for instance a muslim who presumes that it is God's will to conduct holy war. My point was that most people, likewise, presume that ceremonies such as water baptism are approrpriate. I disagree.

Yah.. in your post you say I said a lot of things which I never did...
As far as our areas of disagreement, which i have just reiterated, I don't see that I was dreadfully far off the mark? I don't know.

As far as God not liking ceremonies, that's a fairly large covering statement you might want to think more about.. Baptism, Marraige, and Comunion all fall under that category..

Baptism and communion I categorically reject. Excellent point about marriage. Is marriage just a ceremony in my view and, as such, rejectable? My reading of Scripture is that premarital sex is immoral. Consequently my conscience would obligate me to perform the ceremony of marriage if I intend to lie with a woman.

This is a conscience issue more than a moral one. I don't think that Adam and Eve needed the ceremony of marriage to be "married."
 
Upvote 0

Eben Abram

Member
Sep 3, 2003
706
35
69
Visit site
✟23,548.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Shalom Alecheim

Newbie here.......

Seems as though Exclusivity, the excluding of one people over another for the sake of Dogma not doctrine was wrestled with in Acts with the now famous inclusion of Gentiles being accepted in the "Church" and subsequent domiantion of influence which we all owe gratitude and grace applied for the amount of time and effort many sincere Theologians and "fathers" of thier sects have challenged, added and possibly erred in dileanating what may have been heresy or possble preference for a alternative way of approaching God.

Sabbath/Shabbat day, as specific as........... we can easily detail historically the Lords Day and the Chritian Way and the Saturday and every WaY we have played with and sought to excude and seperate ourselves from others by legalizing relgious institutions to designate adamant adherence as some have done and seem to have left off the merciful parts of salvation.

Imagine an Orthodox Jew absolute adherent person keeping the Law of Shabbes in such a regimented way that not even an action could be misconstrued as to be imagined as infringement upon Torah and more so that a Safety Net if you will were created and debated so as to add a "Wall " to keep even the very thought and intent so distant from the actual action that to Keep Kosher would be to be so far from the Law that no possible infringement could occur and if it did.......then there was a Dogma, a halachic ruling to nullify the broken wall that maitained the Pure Torah Law of Sabbath from being violated.....

Lets Just Say Jesus threw out the baby with the bathwater over that one and Judaism had to reject Him as Messiah else it would become .........What? Christianity?

Some say in not coming to abolish but to fufill, we are to to fufill every LAW also.....

So now you see Paul's dilemma.

Sincere people needing a base legal system to form a community to govern themselves that the very gentiles themselves allowed even adultery to occur and seemingly still had some fellowship with God....., So we have a Orthodox Jew (Pharasee) now telling a bunch of people whose conscience is NOT steeped in Judaism and Law of God that they need to do some rethinking about thier approach to God.

Enter Jerusalem and a bunch of civilized folk who find out and argue should we give these guys a hermaneutic and homiletic to get them up to speed so they can know God and receive the Holy Spirit after they have already received the Holy Spirt and know God?

Whoops

Worse yet, Paul decides to treatise the whole subject in Hebrews and show the fallacy of adherence in a pure logic format and the war begins over grace versus law which should be choice over knowledge.

Enter if you will to the begining when a fully assimilated slave gets freedom to party and decides they have enough of culture and laws after serving Egypt and really haven't a clue what God wants so enter a well educated man who sees a rabble and God says lets start a society that will last all time and influence all nations and before the shebang gets started God is already to wipe them out and start over.

Many who are debating the moral ethical sabbath ought to adhere as they know for it may be protecting them form worse ills, and yet, if they are so doing without knowing God it is not what is was designed for.

A rest is a rest and if you have to decide if you are fully persuaded you aren't resting.

Most aspects of diferentiation of application of consideration to others can in included in love, if it's not done as emergent but influent of a greater goal than a day of adhering to God, and that is the knowledge of Him.....if you have found Him.....You can ask and HE will lead you.

Some call that a personal God.

Alecheim Shalom
Eben Abram
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.