So confused on the Sabbath...

Status
Not open for further replies.

ThreeAM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2005
1,875
32
71
✟9,667.00
Faith
SDA
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.



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
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
ThreeAm said:
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. :confused: I'm a sinner myself why would I disdain a fellow sinner????:confused: 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.
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
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.
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
44
Miami Lakes
✟1,336.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
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.
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!!!

Nice try, though.
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.
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..


[/size][/font]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.
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?


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.
Paul said, "I became like a Jew to win the Jews...
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?


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?
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
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
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:

JAL said:
"Who art thou that judgest?...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). "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, which are shadows...." (Col 2:16)

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

ThreeAm said:
"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."

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
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
ThreeAm said:
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.

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
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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?

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
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
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
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sleaker

Victory of the People
Sep 9, 2006
534
26
40
Portland, OR
Visit site
✟15,788.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.



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
40
Portland, OR
Visit site
✟15,788.00
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
71
✟9,667.00
Faith
SDA
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.

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. :doh: 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
71
✟9,667.00
Faith
SDA
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.

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.

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
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

YeshuamySalvation

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2005
985
30
44
Miami Lakes
✟1,336.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
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.
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..

Here's two examples. (1) Many 7th day Adventists believe that Sunday-worship is the mark of the beast.
And ofcourse that is false, there is not one passage in scritputre that would even indicate any suchthing.. You can be 100% sure your salvation does not rely on a day you worship... Worship freely brother everyday.. I've always said it and i'll say it again, if i did not have a congregation in the area i live and the only Sabbatarian congregation around were S.D.As, i wouldn't attend the S.D.A church, i'll probably go to a baptist church instead.. And if there was no evangelical church and i had the S.D.A church or the Catholics to chose from.. Id take the Catholics before the S.D.A chruch...


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:
No, actually none of your arguments are ridicules, difference is that it casts doubts on those who are manipulated by some organization or another into believing things just because some person said it and wrote it in a book...

"Who art thou that judgest?...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).
Rom 14:1-2

1 Receive ye him that is weak in the faith, but not to judge his doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things, while another who is weak eateth herbs.
Yeshau My Salvation >
The context of these passages revolves on these first two verses, there were some people that were afraid to eat meat because of a weak concious, as we know certain meats were being offered to idols. So these folks that were weak in the faith were afraid to eat meats that had been offered to idols, that is why they only eat herbs.


1 Cor.8:1-13

Verse 1 this is how Paul introduces the passage by saying: > 1 ¶ Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

in verse 4 he saids this so there will be no misunderstanding:
4 ¶ As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Verse 7
7 ¶ Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Verses.9-13
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


Yeshau My Salvation > The issue here is whether or not its wrong to eat meats that were offered to idols. Now just because one may eat meats sacrificed to idols does that mean that he is participating in idol worship, absolutly not for Paul says in verse 4 -
we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Yeshau My Salvation > So if our liberty is a stumbling block for a brother which is of a weak concious its better not to eat any meats that are offered to idols so we wont offend there weak conscience. Paul speaks in context of doubtful disputations, Sacred days are not doubtful, thus Paul does not mention them, if he was speaking about the feasts and the Shabbat then why does he not mention them?







"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, which are shadows...." (Col 2:16)
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?
Exactely, why would anybody believe that Paul was repeating himself? If Paul said Holy Days he is speaking about the yearly, later he says New Moons so he speaks about the monthly, and lastely he says Sabbaths so he speaks about the weekly Shabbat! Yes what Paul deals with in these passages is the feasts and the Shabbat.. Below is the greek word Sabbaton, everytime this word appears in the New Testament is in referance to the weekly Shabbat and not monthly nor yearly festival!!


sabbaton
sabbaton
sab'-bat-on



of Hebrew origin (shabbath 7676); the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications:--sabbath (day), week.

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.
Correct, he says they are a Shadow that have present significance not that they were "Shadows" as many take this to mean.. Are Shadow not were shadows.. You should study typology before making these statements... Typologically not everything in the Old Testament came to a conclusion... Take [Yom Terua] for instance, the blowing of the shofar, Yom Terua refelects God's longing for us [his people the Jews, and later Jews and Christians] to come to repentance so that he can vandicate us on the day of Yom Kippure when the books are opened.. The day of Judgement will be the last Yom Kippure... This ofcourse is a Shadow and still has present significance..


(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".
It's not all about a spiritual rest.. Why should we spiritualize everything when there is also a physical rest which is a shadow of the spiritual rest? For instance the hebrew author puts it like this...

Hebrew 4:10
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

How did God cease from his work? By not working on the 7th day, so we should also cease from our works as God ceased from his...

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."
I agree, there is no evidance whatsoever that Paul was just talking about feasts and not the weekly Shabbat, this is an S.D.A claim and is one of the weakest arguments that exists...
 
Upvote 0

ThreeAM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2005
1,875
32
71
✟9,667.00
Faith
SDA
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.

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.


(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."

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

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
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
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
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
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Eben Abram

Member
Sep 3, 2003
706
35
67
Visit site
✟8,548.00
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.