Understanding the Sabbath

[Symes]

The judgement message of Daniel has been held by the SDA Church for over 150 years. That is long before the Clear Word came out. We do not depend on the Clear Word for verification of it, never have and never will.

Daniel 7:21-23
"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces."

The "same horn" being the Papacy made war against God's people until the "Ancient of days came" which was just before the "saints possessed the kingdom"

This all happened just before the Second Coming. This is from the KJV, long before there was a Clear Word.

 

[GodsWatchman]

What is "Clear Word" - you keep capitalizing it so it must have some specific meaning ?

Also - I notice the SDA folks are HARD. That is to say - they (most I've seen) are *not* subject to change on any given scripture. This is not a good thing. We must *ALL* be "soft" and "moldable" ...

Ho*10:12 Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.

The good seed cannot grow in heart earth - we must be "broken up" - soft and ready to recieve the good seed.

Hope I didn't insult you brother - I respect the SDA folks alot and consider the lot of them to be my brothers in Christ.

 

[adam332]

I'm willing to change on any scripture, that is if it is scriptural evidence that shows the error and not the doctrines of men. Then again I'm not an SDA.

 

[Symes]

What is "Clear Word" - you keep capitalizing it so it must have some specific meaning ?

Also - I notice the SDA folks are HARD. That is to say - they (most I've seen) are *not* subject to change on any given scripture. This is not a good thing. We must *ALL* be "soft" and "moldable" ...

Ho*10:12 Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.

The good seed cannot grow in heart earth - we must be "broken up" - soft and ready to recieve the good seed.

Hope I didn't insult you brother - I respect the SDA folks alot and consider the lot of them to be my brothers in Christ.

I suppose you are talking to me. Clear Word is a paraphrase of the Bible.

When the truth has been presented why should one be wishy washy about it.

God needs watchman who will stand for the truth though the heavens fall.

The Bible is clear, why compromise on what it says?

 

[CrossMovement]

hello crossmovement
Here is a comment I have from dr B,s dissertation Sabbath to Sunday.
the page number is not given.


In my dissertation FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY I have shown that the
Bishop of Rome did indeed pioneer the change in the day of worship, but he
did it without the help of the Roman government. What precipitated the need
to change the Sabbath to Sunday, was the anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath
legislation promulgated in 135 by the Emperor Hadrian.

*Notice the word pioneered. The bishop of Rome did not have the power
and authority the Pope has today. this was the beginning of the Roman bishops attempts to seize power over the church under the auspices that the Bishop of Rome inherited the authority of Peter. The church in Rome was beginning to be recognized as a central authority but it was far from the absolute authority that would later be manifested by the Papacy. Technically it is true that the Catholic church made the official decree to change the sabbath to Sunday through the Roman bishop due to persecution for there was no other church at that time. Even if it would have been the bishop of Podunck, still it would have been the Catholic church that made the change. It is in this manner that the Catholic church of today makes the claim that they are the ones who instituted the change

*We need to remember that the Catholic Church makes claims for everything
that ever took place in the history of the church for they also claim that Peter
is the first pope. Do you believe Peter was the first pope ? I do not. So then
it is left to us to sort through the many claims the Catholic Church makes to see which claims the church as it exists today truly has the right to make.

*What Dr B has a established is that the first record an official decree was made in 135 ad. But what remains to be established is when did the first Christians actually begin worshiping on Sunday.

Personally I believe the Bible is clear on this issue. It is simply the tendency of man to enforce his own personal doctrines and views on other men that makes the issue appear to be so confusing. I see people worshiping on both days in the early church.

Ro 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

This view brings these verses into proper context and in harmony with all the teachings of Paul and the Law of Liberty through Jesus Christ. For what Paul is saying is that those who would keep the Sabbath and other Jewish holy days should not judge those who do not do as they do. For we must remember this is the early church. The Pagans who were being converted to Christianity did not hold to things Jewish. At that time the early Christians
had only one holy day, that would have been the day they gathered together partake of the Lords Supper, but the Jewish Christians would have had other days that they still heldto being important. Thus leading to the admonitions Paul makes noted above

The important thing to note is he counsels neither group to stop what they themselves are doing and follow a certain prescribed manner but gives them permission to continue as they so choose but stop judging the other for not making the same choice. Which is essentially my very same position today.

We have no farther to look than our own present time to see the meaning of these verses. The Messianic Jews who have accepted Christ today still practice their Christianity in the same basic manner as the Jews in Paul's daypracticed theirs. They still keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, Passover and other Jewish days . They still study Torah {the Mosaic
Law} as can be seen right here on this site for there are a couple of Torah discussions going on right now. And we still judge each other by these things claiming each should do as the other does. So in that respect there is nothing new under the sun.

In my opinion, and that is all it is, what is most significant thing of the 135 ad decree was that that the freedom of choice that Paul taught under the law of Christ was removed. Thus 135 ad was a major step in the long journey that has brought us so far away from the true scriptural teaching of worshiping in Spirit and Truth.

As to how Ellen White got involved in this discussion, whenever discussing Adventist doctrinal positions it is only a matter of time before she is discussed because the doctrines of the Adventist church are based on her so called prophetic gift and inspired counsels. The present day Adventist
sabbath position is grounded more in the visions of sister White see my post to Symes using her writings to show this. you will find it on page 16 Post 158.

yours in Christ
deeu58

On Ellen G White ,,, I will read your post 158 , but I can't truly come to a real conclusion if I have not study her book and things she said. I don't like to come to a conclusion with just a couple of verse (for example) because I like to look at the big picture , the entire chapters , the context of the chapters , rather than just a couple of verse that she wrote ... The same thing I do for the bible. All I know is that I have never heard an Adventist back up the Sabbath by talking to me about EGW (And I go to a SDA church , and let me tell you that I don't really heard about EGW , very rare that her name is mentionned , and when I was asking question about different subject , I never had EGW thought throwing to me so that their doctrine could be back up ... I always had Biblical example and study. But it is my own experience (I don't know everybody) . I will see for Dr.B ,, I will go to his seminar this year (he is suppose to come) And I'll see for myself after that , but your thought was appreciate.

I need to talk to you about a verse you quote , that I have read so many time , and I want to share my thought

You said :


*Personally I believe the Bible is clear on this issue. It is simply the tendency of man to enforce his own personal doctrines and views on other men that makes the issue appear to be so confusing. I see people worshiping on both days in the early church.*

***One of the Verse you quote***

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

**My Thoughts**

this has nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath or daily food or drink. This verse refers to ceremonial offererings and yearly Sabbaths like Passover.

Hebrews 9:7-10 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks , and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.


Ezekiel 45:17 And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings , in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths , in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

Note this does not speak of "the Sabbath or the Sabbath day (the weekly Sabbath).


God Bless

 

[adam332]

deu,
I'm very serious. I have been studying the Bible 2-12 hrs a day for over five yrs. I have written over a hundred Bible studies, some long enough to be a small book. I have taught at church and outside of church. Pastors with PHD's in theology often have come to me to understand areas of scripture more clearly. I have heard information and Biblical concepts I've shared preached from the pulpit. I have, (in efforts to understand contextual elements of the Bible), included in my studies research into, history, aramaic, hebrew, greek, science, cultures, denominational beginnings, origins of Biblical manuscripts, politics, and many more facets that I feel have bearing on a better understanding of the one Book which has become my obsession.

I'm not here to boast my credentials but anyone who is around me knows that I can quote, from memory, facts related to all these subjects and apply them in a systematic and logical manner at the drop of a hat. My life prior to this obsession consisted of dealing/doing drugs, chasing girls and playing Nintendo many of my new aquaintences think I'm fascinating and many of my old think I'm boring.

I spent the first 30 yrs of my life knowing nothing about the Bible and after I became a believer I began to ask around about certain items that I ran across while attempting to study. The first thing I realized is that everyone had different ideas about what areas of scripture meant and that 99% of Christians were taught what they know by their church and/or parents. This turned me off IMMENSELY, so I turned them off and all their doctrines that were taught or passed down to them. I made it my goal to study each subject until I had a firm grasp and then made my decision based on the weight of Biblical evidence. If I ran across something I had not studied for myself I would refuse to listen or read it for fear that it would taint my impression. I stand by that value. The holy word is my teacher, not men.

I will readily admit the areas I have not studied or come to a distinct conclusion...but I do not try to enlighten myself the easy way...by reading someone elses conclusion.

You will not see me in threads about subjects I haven't studied for myself, proclaiming the opinions of others or spouting taught doctrine. I was a clean slate when he found me and I will only allow his impressions to meet my heart on any subject. When I have come to my own conclusions based on his impressions, I feel that at that point I am able to assess the words of others, not before. If you want to believe what your pastor/church/parents/commentators etc...have put into your ear before you have let God speak to you, that is your choice. So yes I'm serious when I say that what I post is mine, and the only time you will see me post something that I have not written myself is after I have studied the subject but have not had the time to write about it.

This concept of keeping yourself objective appears to be very alien to you, it is because it is so alien to so many would be students of the Bible, that has prompted me to be so adamant about not being like you. My method of study is Biblically prescribed and commended, yours is condemned by the Lord and His prophets. If you read Gal. 4 and Col. 2 objectively not only would you see that it does not discard God's Sabbath but condemns men for judging others about it based on their own doctrines. The worldly elements have infiltrated our Lord's teachings and he is warning us, would you not heed him.

Try Psalms 118:8...it speaks volumes.

 

[adam332]

deu, please note what i'm about to say.....this is called objectivity.

Crossmovement,
I disagree with what you have said about Col. 2 not referring to the weekly sabbath. I do believe that is exactly what it is speaking of, but it still does not take away from it.

A couple of years ago I wrote a little piece applying scripture and terminology that showed how this was not the weekly sabbath...as my knowledge in scripture grew I realized that was much more to this chapter than met the eye. And although my study and conclusion appeared very strong with every appearance of proper study methods applied, there was more appropiate and more contextual applications that I was missing.

Here is what I had written...please tell me if this is the feeling that you now have....

Q. Wasn’t the Sabbath done away with and nailed to the cross, therefore no longer required?



A. This argument comes from Col. 2:14-16, but in the same verse it specifies "which" days it is referring to.

It tells us that these are handwritten ordinances.

It also says "the Sabbath which are a shadow of things to come" are included in these ordinances.

God wrote the commandments on tables of stone with his finger (Exo. 31:18), and they were placed inside the Ark (Deu. 10:5).

Moses wrote the "ordinances" by "hand" on leather (2Chr. 33:8), and were placed outside the Ark (Deu. 31:26).



Lamb sacrifices were a shadow of things to come, in the sense that the blood of the lamb was needed to cleanse us of sin until the true lamb of God appeared.



There were also yearly Sabbaths which needed to be kept until the lamb of God appeared.

This is why the verse specifies by using the words "handwriting", "which", "ordinances", and the phrase "shadow of things to come".

Christ is being symbolized as the shadow of things to come (Heb. 10:1).



If these verses had been speaking about the weekly Sabbaths as well, they would not have gone to such trouble to make sure we knew "which" Sabbaths it was speaking of.



To know more about these yearly Sabbaths see Lev. 23:24-39.

Also in Lev. 23:38,39 notice the word "beside" is used so that there would be no mistaking one type of these Sabbaths for another.

In Eph. 2:15 it also tells us that these were ordinances that were abolished, not the ten commandments.

 

[adam332]

Deu, a Sabbatarian who wants to hold onto their ideas that the sabbath is valid would see my conclusion above even if they had not studied it for themselves and find it very satisfying. This is the danger of taught doctrine, it can APPEAR very good and agree with your views in general...which only makes it a small leap for one to accept it.


I have written a couple of small items showing the truth of this matter. I would like to refine them a bit because they were thrown together a bit hastily. But I will tell you that I agree that Col. 2 and Gal. 4 is directly connected in meaning and subject, but I do not connect Rom. 14 with them.

 

[CrossMovement]

deu, please note what i'm about to say.....this is called objectivity.

Crossmovement,
I disagree with what you have said about Col. 2 not referring to the weekly sabbath. I do believe that is exactly what it is speaking of, but it still does not take away from it.

A couple of years ago I wrote a little piece applying scripture and terminology that showed how this was not the weekly sabbath...as my knowledge in scripture grew I realized that was much more to this chapter than met the eye. And although my study and conclusion appeared very strong with every appearance of proper study methods applied, there was more appropiate and more contextual applications that I was missing.

Here is what I had written...please tell me if this is the feeling that you now have....

Q. Wasn’t the Sabbath done away with and nailed to the cross, therefore no longer required?



A. This argument comes from Col. 2:14-16, but in the same verse it specifies "which" days it is referring to.

It tells us that these are handwritten ordinances.

It also says "the Sabbath which are a shadow of things to come" are included in these ordinances.

God wrote the commandments on tables of stone with his finger (Exo. 31:18), and they were placed inside the Ark (Deu. 10:5).

Moses wrote the "ordinances" by "hand" on leather (2Chr. 33:8), and were placed outside the Ark (Deu. 31:26).



Lamb sacrifices were a shadow of things to come, in the sense that the blood of the lamb was needed to cleanse us of sin until the true lamb of God appeared.



There were also yearly Sabbaths which needed to be kept until the lamb of God appeared.

This is why the verse specifies by using the words "handwriting", "which", "ordinances", and the phrase "shadow of things to come".

Christ is being symbolized as the shadow of things to come (Heb. 10:1).



If these verses had been speaking about the weekly Sabbaths as well, they would not have gone to such trouble to make sure we knew "which" Sabbaths it was speaking of.



To know more about these yearly Sabbaths see Lev. 23:24-39.

Also in Lev. 23:38,39 notice the word "beside" is used so that there would be no mistaking one type of these Sabbaths for another.

In Eph. 2:15 it also tells us that these were ordinances that were abolished, not the ten commandments.

I have pm you on this ,,, If someone wish to have what I have said ,, I can send it to the forum , with no problem

 

[deu58]

Hello all
got a whole house full of people now. big sda camp meeting here will
try to catch up later

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[adam332]

Yep, don't ya' love it. Especially when one Sabbatarian is non-SDA and they disagree with them! Man, I can't wait until this all comes forth!!!!

 

[deu58]

Adam
Ge 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Ge 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and
he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Ge 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from
all his work which God created and made.

At what time in the garden did this first Sabbath end?

 

[deu58]

KC4
I have sent you an email addressing my beliefs.

 

[deu58]

What is "Clear Word" - you keep capitalizing it so it must have some specific meaning ?

Also - I notice the SDA folks are HARD. That is to say - they (most I've seen) are *not* subject to change on any given scripture. This is not a good thing. We must *ALL* be "soft" and "moldable" ...

Ho*10:12 Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.

The good seed cannot grow in heart earth - we must be "broken up" - soft and ready to recieve the good seed.

Hope I didn't insult you brother - I respect the SDA folks alot and consider the lot of them to be my brothers in Christ.

hello Godswatchman
if you want to find out more about the Adventist clear word,
using msn search, type clear word, the very first pick should be a url millenium fortune city.
here you will find pictures and excerpts from the clear word. the clear word is an Adventist
publication that integrates the writings ellen white into the scripture. I went there before posting
this and the links there are still active.

 

[deu58]

Adam
below is what you claimed in a previous post*

"For your info, Col. 2 validates God's Sabbath immeasurably and discredits the legalistic additions that are found in the Mishnah."

I have the mishna but to save time I down loaded this from the internet.

"The Hebrew verb 'shanah' literally means 'to repeat [what one was
taught] and is used to mean 'to learn'. The term 'Mishna' basically
means the entire body of Jewish religious law that was passed down and
developed before 200 CE, when it was finally redacted by Rabbi Yehudah
haNasi (Judah the Prince). He is usually simply referred to as
'Rabbi'.

Prior to the time of Rabbi, all Jewish Law was transmitted orally; It
was expressly forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law, as any
writing would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation and
abuse. However, after great debate, this restriction was lifted when
it became apparent that it was the only way to insure that the law
could be preserved. To prevent the material from being lost, Rabbi
took up the redaction of the Mishna. He did not do this at his own
discretion, but rather examined the tradition all the way back to the
Great Assembly. Some of tractates preceded him; these he merely
supplemented.

During this time period (around 200 CE) the Mishna, as such, was never
published. Instead the main study of Jewish law was conducted in
memorized form, except for private letters and notes."

Now lets look at Colossians again,

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which
was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them
openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an
holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Paul plainly states THE HANDWRITING OF ORDINANCES, whereas you state that he was talking about the oral law, a law that would not be made into a written form until 200ad.

The Strong's is also in agreement with you that Col 2:16 includes the weekly sabbath.


savbbaton Sabbaton (sab'-bat-on);
Word Origin: Hebrew, *Noun Neuter, Strong #: 4521


the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work
the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week
a single sabbath, sabbath day
seven days, a week

The following is the Strong's for handwriting and ordinances.

ceirovgrafon Cheirographon (khi-rog'-raf-on);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Neuter, Strong #: 5498


a handwriting, what one has written by his own hand
a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at the appointed time

dovgma Dogma (dog'-mah);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Neuter, Strong #: 1378


doctrine, decree, ordinance
of public decrees
of the Roman Senate
of rulers
the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment
of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living

So by your definition Paul is saying ordinances that were actually written, not oral, that were blotted out because they were only a shadow was done to validate those very same shadows.

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[deu58]

The judgement message of Daniel has been held by the SDA Church for over 150 years. That is long before the Clear Word came out. We do not depend on the Clear Word for verification of it, never have and never will.

Daniel 7:21-23
"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces."

The "same horn" being the Papacy made war against God's people until the "Ancient of days came" which was just before the "saints possessed the kingdom"

This all happened just before the Second Coming. This is from the KJV, long before there was a Clear Word.

Hello brother Symes
I have never heard of an Adventist teaching that the second coming has already happened. I am I reading you wrong or is this something I have missed?

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[Symes]

This all happened just before the Second Coming. This is from the KJV, long before there was a Clear Word.

deu

Sorry about giving the wrong impression. It should read, This all happens....The Second Coming is future. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

I was trying to point out we do not and have never relied upon the Clear Word to support the judgement message.

 

[deu58]

Hello Brother Symes

This is actually in reply to your posts on Gods Watchman's discussion 1316. You are correct on the crusades and the Inquisition, but the protestants have done a lot of killing also. Being an Austrailian you probably do not know much about the history of the American west or black slavery in the south. The bible teaches that even harboring anger and Judgment in your heart is considered murder.

Mt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

And that is one of my major problems with the Adventist sabbath position. It was not taught in love, mercy, kindness. It was not taught in a Godly manner but in the way of anger, hatred and judgment.

mr 5 pg 204 1850
*Then I saw Laodiceans. They will make a mighty effort. Will they get the victory? One who has the truth will chase a thousand, and two will put ten thousand to flight. They are coming to conclusions that bring them into close quarters and they cannot tell where they be themselves, for they are lost in the foggy, terrible fear that takes hold of them. Anguish of spirit will seize them. Dare they admit that the door is shut? The sin against the Holy Ghost was to ascribe to Satan what belongs to God, or what the Holy Ghost has done. They said the shut door was of the devil, and now admit it is against their own lives. They shall die the death.

Early Writings, p. 261.
I saw that as the Jews crucified Jesus, so the nominal churches had crucified these messages [of the Investigative Judgment], and therefore they have no knowledge of the way into the most holy, and they cannot be benefited [sic] by the intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews, who offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left; and Satan, pleased with the deception, assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed Christians to himself .

Everything sister White taught between1844 and the fall of 1851 was rooted in hatred and judgment. Including the Sabbath. There was no Adventist salvation doctrine between these years. In fact the message was the opposite. There was no longing for the salvation of sinners but a yearning for there death and destruction.

Sister White was not a woman of mercy and compassion. Have you ever read her testimonies?
yours in Christ
deu58

 

[deu58]

Adam

Again, It would appear, you are trying to apply the oral law to Galatians as you have also tried to do with Colosians.

Ga 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Where did the commandment of circumcision come from? The mouths of men or the mouth of God?

Ga 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

And for what purpose? To redeem us from the Oral law?

Ga 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the
promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

What then? Shall I follow your method of interpretation? If I do I would have to conclude that the oral law was ordained by angels to Israel through Mose because of trangression.

Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

And again we see he speaking of the written and not the oral. And all these verses are the preemptory verses he uses to make the statement

Ga 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly
elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ?

Ga 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years

Ga 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

So what is Paul afraid of here? That they will return to the oral law or that they will return to the written law?

As to weak and beggarly how much strength does a shadow have? For In Colosians is he not saying the very same thing.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Now why would Paul call the written law the commandments and doctrines of men? Because these things that once were backed by the power and authority of God no longer had that power and authority.

2co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ

This is why Paul says the Jewish law is now the commands of men. Because it has no authority from God.

And again, If any of these days taught in the written law had any binding on the believer today, why did not Paul tell them Yes it is good to observe the day but you are not doing it right. this is what should be done. In every situation where Paul chastised people for doing wrong or holding an incorrect belief he went to great lengths to give proper instruction on how they should conduct themselves. Every thing that is except the Sabbath.

And considering that Col 2:14 plainly states that Paul is speaking about written ordinances and not oral ordinances that would not appear in written form until long after Paul's martyrdom I feel it is your argument that has been voided not mine.

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[deu58]

deu,
I'm very serious. I have been studying the Bible 2-12 hrs a day for over five yrs. I have written over a hundred Bible studies, some long enough to be a small book. I have taught at church and outside of church. Pastors with PHD's in theology often have come to me to understand areas of scripture more clearly. I have heard information and Biblical concepts I've shared preached from the pulpit. I have, (in efforts to understand contextual elements of the Bible), included in my studies research into, history, aramaic, hebrew, greek, science, cultures, denominational beginnings, origins of Biblical manuscripts, politics, and many more facets that I feel have bearing on a better understanding of the one Book which has become my obsession.

I'm not here to boast my credentials but anyone who is around me knows that I can quote, from memory, facts related to all these subjects and apply them in a systematic and logical manner at the drop of a hat. My life prior to this obsession consisted of dealing/doing drugs, chasing girls and playing Nintendo many of my new aquaintences think I'm fascinating and many of my old think I'm boring.

I spent the first 30 yrs of my life knowing nothing about the Bible and after I became a believer I began to ask around about certain items that I ran across while attempting to study. The first thing I realized is that everyone had different ideas about what areas of scripture meant and that 99% of Christians were taught what they know by their church and/or parents. This turned me off IMMENSELY, so I turned them off and all their doctrines that were taught or passed down to them. I made it my goal to study each subject until I had a firm grasp and then made my decision based on the weight of Biblical evidence. If I ran across something I had not studied for myself I would refuse to listen or read it for fear that it would taint my impression. I stand by that value. The holy word is my teacher, not men.

I will readily admit the areas I have not studied or come to a distinct conclusion...but I do not try to enlighten myself the easy way...by reading someone elses conclusion.

You will not see me in threads about subjects I haven't studied for myself, proclaiming the opinions of others or spouting taught doctrine. I was a clean slate when he found me and I will only allow his impressions to meet my heart on any subject. When I have come to my own conclusions based on his impressions, I feel that at that point I am able to assess the words of others, not before. If you want to believe what your pastor/church/parents/commentators etc...have put into your ear before you have let God speak to you, that is your choice. So yes I'm serious when I say that what I post is mine, and the only time you will see me post something that I have not written myself is after I have studied the subject but have not had the time to write about it.

This concept of keeping yourself objective appears to be very alien to you, it is because it is so alien to so many would be students of the Bible, that has prompted me to be so adamant about not being like you. My method of study is Biblically prescribed and commended, yours is condemned by the Lord and His prophets. If you read Gal. 4 and Col. 2 objectively not only would you see that it does not discard God's Sabbath but condemns men for judging others about it based on their own doctrines. The worldly elements have infiltrated our Lord's teachings and he is warning us, would you not heed him.

Try Psalms 118:8...it speaks volumes.

Adam

No man lives in vacuum. from where ever we gain knowledge, we gain it from previous knowledge that someone else has acquired. all of mans religion, history, science etc. is biased. Consider that all the great Scholars have and do go to the same schools, read and study the same books and yet look at all the different conclusions they come to. Knowledge means nothing with out the wisdom to apply it.

I understand your concern about commentaries. The mistake many people make is they use the commentary to interpret the scripture rather than let scripture interpret the commentary. Also what I stated above also applies to commentaries, many do not agree with each other.

You refer to logic and reason. Logic and reason although useful can become impotent in many areas of the Bible for we are dealing with a type of logic far beyond our limited human capabilities. A being that has no beginning and know end, the dead returning to life, creating everything out of nothing, things visible are shadows and things invisible are substance. many who try to use logic and reason come away believing it is all fairy tales and myths built upon other fairy tales and myths. To often logic fails. To understand these things requires the Holy Spirit and Faith. And even then look at all the different ideas people come up with. This is why Jesus is a personal savior. He deals with each one of us individually.

1co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

As to preachers and theologians asking questions I have had the same experience. I do not think that is because we are so smart but because the average person never really challenges their authority with any kind of knowledge that they can respect. people seem to forget that good teachers like a challenge and they like to learn. Like us they to are still learning.

As to all the things that you are studying, you have a job, a wife, a family,this means your time is divide between many things and seeing you have no teacher no one to show you your mistakes or to properly test your knowledge I would be careful relying to heavily on your own opinion. I say this because the subjects you have chosen to study even individually take years to study even with proper instruction. With due respect, 5 years of part time study simply means to me you have just gotten started
yours in Christ
deu58