• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Understanding the Sabbath

Status
Not open for further replies.

trucker

trucker
Dec 9, 2003
144
5
74
oklahoma
✟349.00
Faith
Christian
adam332 said:
Trucker are you going to respond to any rebuttals or will you continue to throw out quick responses to old comments while not defending them.? If so please do not waste everyones time here having to scroll through your comments that are simply wasting space. A discussion is two sided back.... and forth, get it?

Am working on it. I am a truck driver and can only access the web randomly. I am trying just to read through this discussion and ask questions as I go. I have noticed a lot of short tempers and personal attacks, of which I'm less than thrilled about. Sorry my very, no extremely different schedule is not convientient for you. As my understanding of how this site works thing will pick up. Thanks
 
Upvote 0

The Thadman

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2002
1,783
59
✟2,318.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
trucker said:
adam please where do you get that the sabbath was mentioned 2300 yrs before the jews? Gen 2 uses the word "sabat" and the word "Shabbath" does not occur until Ex 16. Also does gen also say that in the cool of the evening God visited with Adam. I did not find anything about God visiting Adam only on the seventh day.

Er, trucker, "sabat" and "shabbath" are two translitterations of the same Hebrew word. It's spelled Sheen-Beyth-Tau. In Hebrew, a Sheen can also be pronounced like an "S" (and it is translitterated as a Sigma in Greek). Additionally, the semitic letters Beyth (B), Dolath (D), Kof (K), Pe (P), and Tau (T) have asperated (or spirantalized) forms, which sound like V DH KH F and TH respectively.

Hence: Sheen-Beyth-Tau can be pronounced:

Shabat, Shavat, Shavath, Shabath, Sabat, Savat, Savath, or Sabath depending on diatric marks alone (not counting changes in vowels).

In the Greek, the word is "sabtha" which comes from the Aramaic form of shabath: "shavtha" (note how the Beyth is asperated, B -> V).

Shlomo,
(Peace)
 
Upvote 0

deu58

Senior Veteran
Dec 12, 2003
3,099
75
69
Philippines
Visit site
✟26,169.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hello Symes

Lets say the command has gone out to accept the mark or die and every one must worship the beast on Sunday. A group of Christians have been successfully eluding capture for a over one year. They are finally captured one Sunday in an abandoned building as they were worshiping Christ as
was there custom before the anti-Christ came to power. They are taken to a public area and before live television cameras are beaten and tortured to
try to force them to take the mark. All refuse and are executed on live television. So what is Gods Judgment on these people because they were not
Saturday Sabbath keepers?

You see Brother Symes, you Adventists Jump to the Conclusion that every true Christian will abandon their Sunday worship of Christ simply
because the anti Christ wants to claim the day for himself. what if it has the opposite effect and reinforces their belief that Sunday truly is the proper
day because Satan is always trying to profane the things that belong to God. Not man

yours in Christ
deu58
I was going to post this in Godswatchman discussion to you but it is more sabbath related so decided to post here but this question is in reply to what you posted there
 
Upvote 0

trucker

trucker
Dec 9, 2003
144
5
74
oklahoma
✟349.00
Faith
Christian
adam332 said:
Trucker are you going to respond to any rebuttals or will you continue to throw out quick responses to old comments while not defending them.? If so please do not waste everyones time here having to scroll through your comments that are simply wasting space. A discussion is two sided back.... and forth, get it?

Adam,

so sorry forgot to ask where is your response to my posts. you did say a discussion is 2 sided, correct? so far all i find is a chewing out, for what i certianly don't understand. me thinks the statment/s and or questions posed by me are not complete and are still open even if they are old posts. by-the-way just who gave you the function or the right to function as the moderator?
 
Upvote 0

deu58

Senior Veteran
Dec 12, 2003
3,099
75
69
Philippines
Visit site
✟26,169.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
trucker said:
Am working on it. I am a truck driver and can only access the web randomly. I am trying just to read through this discussion and ask questions as I go. I have noticed a lot of short tempers and personal attacks, of which I'm less than thrilled about. Sorry my very, no extremely different schedule is not convientient for you. As my understanding of how this site works thing will pick up. Thanks
Hello trucker

I see you are still looking for info on jesus writing the 10 commandments. I will try to
post some thing for you tomorrow. It will take a little explaining and I hope I can get it
right.

My dad was a trucker from the mid 50's till 69 so I know what you you mean about about tough schedules. Me I am a sea man and I am gone for months. But like you gotta bring home the bacon. ooops sorry Symes I mean the lettuce

yours in Christ
deu58

I should add adam has not posted anything since just before xmas. I do not know what happened to him. he just disappeared. Maybe he went to visit family or something for the holidays.
 
Upvote 0

deu58

Senior Veteran
Dec 12, 2003
3,099
75
69
Philippines
Visit site
✟26,169.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
hello trucker

Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Notice here we see the Spirit of God {THE HOLY SPIRIT } is present at creation.

Ge 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Here we see God the father speaking his will and it is done.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

And here we see Jesus was also present at the creation. Notice that John 1:1 plainly states that the word was God and the word is also Jesus.
So we see that all three persons of the trinity are work together.

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.

Here we see God resting on the Sabbath day that he created and he has authority over.

Mr 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath

Jesus also claims the same authority telling us he made the Sabbath and he will do as he darn well pleases on with and what he chooses to do on his own day.

Ex 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Here God gives his name to Moses

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Here Jesus uses the very same name for himself That God gave Moses telling the Pharisee's in no uncertain terms that he is the one who commanded Moses to go to Pharaoh and it was by him that they had received the law in first place. When God came down on mount Sinai he came
as all three persons of the trinity. thus the finger of God was also the finger of Jesus.

People seem to think that just because all three are not specifically mentioned in every instance that they are separate from each other but in my own opinion I disagree. To me the bible teaches where one is the other two are present also. You have probably heard it said that Jesus limited by his flesh did not really have the full power of God but again I do not believe this is what the bible teaches.

Joh 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

Notice John clearly states that Jesus had the full embodiment of the Holy Spirit. Complete. Also we received from him the perfect will of the Father as to how we are supposed to obey that will so once again all three persons of the trinity are present.

Mt 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Notice that in his flesh he still had the power to destroy this earth if he wished to do so? Remember what one angel did to Egypt in one night in his spare time? What would 12 legions of angels do if their only orders were to destroy everything ? What would have been our fate if Jesus had chosen to destroy rather than save us? So we see that Jesus even in his flesh still had authority in heaven and what one person of the trinity does they actually do together as three. So in truth it was Jesus who gave the ten commandments.

If there is anything that you disagree with or something that still bothers you please post it. I am not always right so maybe you know something I do not. If this is the case then please share with us your thoughts. Brother Symes and I, even though of a different mind, are a little different than Adam. personally I do not care how many times you ask the same question over and over. If you are not getting the answer you want you should keep asking.
yours in Christ
deu58
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I appologize if I sound testy in this post, I have been trying to read every post before adding my two cents worth and quite frankly, I don't hear a whole lot of substance which I guess is what I come to the forums for. An actual Biblical discussion rather than theology and religious teaching.

First off, why are we being so legalistic? If we want to follow the legalistic aproach to scripture, then we must follow all the law. That is a hard row to hoe and since God freed us from the law, I dare say it would be a fruitless road to follow as far as our walk with God is concerned. Secondly, if you are going down the legalistic road, then why do we go to church on the "Sabbath" if you go to church, you are asking the pastor to work on the sabbath which is direct violation of the fourth? commandment. And believe me, when my husband was pastoring, it was definately work and not only for him but for the whole family as well as others working in the church. What kind of law would ask the people to follow one law and the leaders to follow another? The sabbath is a concept, idea, command to work 6 days and rest the 7th. Which scripture says that God started His creation on Sun. or MOn. If the pastor works 6 days and his work days start on Mon then I would expect that on Sun. he would rest! If his work day starts on Sun. then I would expect him to rest on Sat. But from most of the pastors I know, any day off is a rare thing and Sat. is no more rest than Sun. To keep the sabbath holy means to remew your body and soul, not just your soul. It is a time to walk away from the pressures and struggles and relax. Our current society has absolutely no concept of this and threads like this one encourage this type of abuse. To be healthy, (which is the bulk of the old law), one needs to rest from work. If my job does not allow that rest, there is a problem with that job that should appall every christian out there. Case in point, how many christians recieve the daily paper? The carriers of the paper work 7 days a week 365 days a year to get that paper to you. By getting the paper 7 days a week, you are demanding that the carriers break the sabbath commands. Want to get legalistic, why do "you" encourage others to sin. Most people who work in the resturant business do get one or two days off a week but seldom on Sat. or Sun. so that they can attend church and let us not forget about the police and nurses that work weekends too. If we are going to have a legalistic discussion then let us take it to it's completion by examining our own behaviors and what we can do to allow everyone the right to a sabbath.

By the way, the teaching in Matt. 12 about the sabbath, is a teaching against this legalistic approach to the sabbath.
 
Upvote 0

Symes

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2003
1,832
15
74
Visit site
✟2,069.00
Faith
Christian
deu

They are finally captured one Sunday in an abandoned building as they were worshiping Christ as
was there custom before the anti-Christ came to power.
You see it will not happen like you propose beceause it is all about Sabbath worship and that will be on Saturday not Sunday.
 
Upvote 0

Symes

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2003
1,832
15
74
Visit site
✟2,069.00
Faith
Christian
deu

So what is Gods Judgment on these people because they were not
Saturday Sabbath keepers?


I do not know exactly at what point in time ones probation will end but if after the decree from Revelation 13 takes place and then the announcement is made from Revelation 22 that "It is finished...." they will not have another chance to repent and will suffer the second death along with dragon and the false prophet at the end of the thousand years. During this time (thousand years) the earth is only inhabited by the devil and his angels. Those who are alive at the Second Coming and are not translated will be killed with the brightness of His Second Coming.
 
Upvote 0

Symes

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2003
1,832
15
74
Visit site
✟2,069.00
Faith
Christian
razzelflabben

First off, why are we being so legalistic?


I do not know of anyone that keeps the seventh day Sabbath to try and earn their way to heaven. It is not at all legalistic to keep God's commandments.

You have road rules, you keep them. Does that then become legalistic? Of course not. It is the same with the Sabbath.
 
Upvote 0

deu58

Senior Veteran
Dec 12, 2003
3,099
75
69
Philippines
Visit site
✟26,169.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Symes said:
deu


You see it will not happen like you propose beceause it is all about Sabbath worship and that will be on Saturday not Sunday.
hello symes

No it is not all about the Sabbath. It is all about Jesus Christ.
yours in Christ
deu58
 
Upvote 0

The Thadman

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2002
1,783
59
✟2,318.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
deu58 said:
hello thadman

Hope I am asking this question properly.

how does the different usage of the word affect the meaning of the verses they are used in?

I've really seen "Sabbath" as "week" or "seven days." Hebrew and Aramaic days of the week are counted from the Sabbath day.

Sunday is litterally, "First of Sabbath" Tuesday "Second of Sabbath", all the way up to Saturday: "Sabbath." (provided that my memory is serving me correctly).

Did this answer your question properly?

Shlomo,
 
Upvote 0

adam332

Deut. 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD t
Feb 10, 2002
699
3
Alabama
Visit site
✟23,422.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Deu,

I’m back for now…did you miss me? ;)

Let’s get back to business…

First of all yes, the Mishnah was not written for over a hundred years following Christ. But the laws that are found in the Mishnah were known orally and evolved over centuries prior to Christ. Where else was I to tell you that they could be found?

You said;

“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.

I am aware of what the passage says, that does not mean it is what Paul meant. I did not put the emphasis on the single word “handwriting”, you did. Let me explain…this was the ONLY use of that word to be found. Therefore we do not have a way of checking it’s contextual usage with other times Paul used it or other NT writers for that matter. What we do have is many scholars of ancient Greek will tell you that is an inferior translation. Todays scholars have much more material and resources to call from than did the translators of the KJV. As will be evident if you check various Bible translations of that passage. Even if you check Strongs definition it will be referred to as a certificate of debt. In our modern language English, an IOU.

One translation that puts it quite well is the NASB….

"having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

The oral laws (which became the Mishnah), were considered by the very influential Pharisees and other religious leaders to be as valid as the written laws. If my memory serves me correctly they even believed that they were passed down to Moses and so on and so forth down to them. Perhaps they felt that Moses ran out of material to write upon, who knows? The bottom line is I do not base my interpretation of that passage on a single word, but instead upon the context of the entire chapter, book, and the rest of all the scripture balanced together in harmony.

Thus, they deemed their personal ordinances to be a sin as much as God’s laws. Therefore where there is sin there is a certificate of debt that must be dealt with.

You said;

“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.”

I had not defined anything, I had not given my stance on the thrust of that chapter at all. You have sought to go into great lengths to avoid the issues that I have put forth in detail ahead of this one (Gal. 4), and then skip to this one and stuff a zillion ideas in my mouth. I told you I would get to this but obviously you couldn’t wait to attack before I actually said anything solid.

You said(Re: Gal. 4);

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

Did you actually read what I wrote? Please try to deal with a single statement and show me where and how you disagree and then move to the next statement, instead of generalizing and entire dissertation away with a seriously unlearned brush of your hand.

Let me be brief since your entire response is of the same horrible method of discussion and debate. The books of Galatians is dealing with the false gospel of works and the legalistic observances thereof. The only way of dealing with that is as Paul did throughout most of his books. He contrasts the true with the false! Nowhere did I say that Paul is applying the oral law exclusively! He is comparing and contrasting God’s spiritual truth with man’s worldly doctrines. It is a consistent method of teaching. Again, if you cannot recognize that Paul addresses their error while simultaneously showing them truth then most of his writings will tell you nothing at all.

Why don’t you look through your commentaries, which you rely on so desperately, and see if they apply any of Gal. 4 to legalistic observances. Do you think God’s law were ever intended to be kept legalistically or do you think he intended them to be kept in a spiritual manner? So Paul is obviously not condemning them for keeping it God’s way, think about it man!

I began to give you credit for your knowledge, but it appears that you are again trying to play stupid games again. If you are up for a real point for point discussion I will be here. But, I have not the time to goof off with you while you ignore the obvious as pure convenience. If you are scared of what a serious and learned discussion between two people with opposing views will do to your beliefs, then you are talking to the wrong person. I am a SERIOUS student and will go toe to toe with you when you decide to get serious. Either you start point for point on my comments from Gal. 4 like a real student, or do not waste my time by responding at all.
 
Upvote 0

adam332

Deut. 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD t
Feb 10, 2002
699
3
Alabama
Visit site
✟23,422.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Crossmovement,
here you go...enjoy.

~The Sabbath and Col. 2:16~

There is a widespread usage, (in Christianity today), of Col. 2:16 mention of the Sabbath as evidence that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer applicable as a command. Many believe that this mention somehow voids the one command which we are told to “remember” (Exo. 20:8-11), while strangely leaving the other nine commands intact.

In efforts to disprove such a theory, many Sabbath keepers have come up with a counter interpretation. In it they suggest that the Sabbath spoken of here is not the seventh day Sabbath at all, instead they insist that it is speaking of the ceremonial Sabbaths, (Lev. 23).

The truth of the matter is that neither such interpretation is correct, for both fall short in applying the context of this book and more specifically this chapter. That said, we will begin this study with a look at the context, then we will address the specifics of the passage in question.

The Context

Paul wrote his epistle to the church at Colossae for this purpose…

Col. 1:9-11 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;

We see that Paul sought to enlighten them, so they may apply this imparted knowledge to their Christian walk in the spiritual manner that is pleasing to the Lord.

Paul emphasizes the concept of Christ’s supremacy throughout this book. He uses it in a comparative nature when dealing with the Colossian heresy issues that were made known to him. These heresy issues are repetitively given the same general labeling throughout the 2nd chapter.

Col. 2:4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Col. 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you…”

Col. 2:18 “Let no man beguile you…”

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. 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?

This gives us no doubt as to the common root of the heresy that Paul was dealing with, they were the worldly doctrines of men. He is contrasting the authority of Christ in all these matters, with that of mans. This alone dispels the idea that he was voiding the Sabbath command as issued by our Lord. Over and over we see Paul was denouncing men’s doctrines about these issues and correctly informing us that such authority for doctrine is in Christ alone.

The Passage

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;

Many view this as indicating that the seventh day Sabbath was nailed to the cross and therefore no longer binding as a command. But, the passage in no way indicates such a thing. It tells us plainly that, “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us”, is what was nailed to the cross. Two verses later when it informs us, “Let no man therefore judge you …of the sabbath”, this is shown simply as the result of what is nailed to the cross. Nowhere does this passage actually indicate that the Lord’s Sabbath was nailed to it.

Let us examine that idea for a moment. What exactly was nailed to the cross? There was the placard that read; “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS”, (Mat. 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:19). And, of course there was Jesus Himself which was nailed to the cross. There is no way one could construe that this sign that was placed on the cross, wiped away the ordinances that v.14 is speaking of. Therefore, this only leaves our Savior’s body as having the ability for “blotting out” these ordinances.

As mentioned in the beginning of this study, many Sabbath keepers will tell you that these ordinances are referring to the ceremonial laws of Moses. They maintain that they have become “contrary” to us since they are fulfilled with Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. But, let us read again, “which WAS contrary to us”. It tells us that they WERE contrary to us, in the past tense! It does give such application a future tense, which would be after His death on the cross. Never were the ceremonial laws contrary to us either before of after the cross.

This actually also works strongly against the interpretation of those who think the seventh day Sabbath is no longer a necessary command after the cross. Because we know for a fact that the Sabbath was written by the Lord with His own finger and given on tables of stone and was not contrary to us at all. This passage is quite clear, whatever these ordinances WERE referring to, they were contrary before the cross, because after the cross the Lord’s body had the ability to wipe them away.

The fact that he says they were “contrary” speaks volumes as for who these ordinances belonged to. Never did Paul use this word, or any word that had the same definition, when speaking of any of God’s laws, whether they were ceremonial in nature or part of the ten commands. However, he did use such language when speaking of men’s doctrines, (Rom. 16:17, Gal. 5:17, 1Thes. 2:25, 1***. 1:10). If one takes that into consideration along with the repetitive theme expressed in Col. 2, it becomes undeniable the ordinances being spoken of are man’s worldly doctrines.

This is where it gets interesting, because one may now wonder; “How did Christ, getting nailed to the cross, blot out these worldly doctrines of men?”. One must remember the context of Colossians, which is the supremacy and authority of Christ in all things. Christ had claimed He was the son of God and that the Father had granted him authority. He also publicly exercised such authority when He forgave sinners. His authority was challenged by the religious leaders, and they crucified him for blasphemy, (claim of divine title and/or authority). But, in their doing so they unwittingly played a part to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ crucifixion, (Psa. 22:1-19, Isa. 53:1-12), and thus aided in the establishment of His identity and authority!! With His authority established, the worldly doctrines of men held no value and all that was left for any true believer to consider, was the word of God!

Col. 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

This verse re-iterates much of which was already explained. Over and over we see the spiritual leaders(“principalities and powers”), disarmed (“spoiled”, see Strongs#554), when they accused Christ of breaking their laws. Mind you, these were not God’s laws. Christ did not sin against the word of God, but he constantly sinned against their man made laws. Remember, this chapter is focusing on the contrast of man’s laws and authority with that of God’s, notice in v.10 it says that Christ “is the head of all principality and power”.

One of their favorite charges against our Lord of the Sabbath, was that they accused Him of breaking the seventh day Sabbath. Again, if you notice the context of these accusations they are not found in the Bible, but were found in the ordinances of the religious leaders. Christ did not hide His Biblical and spiritual manner of keeping the Sabbath, but instead He defied them “openly”. When accused He quoted from the scriptures and “triumphed over them”, leaving them nothing to charge Him with.

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 final verse sums up perfectly what he was trying to say. Since Christ’s authority has been established, as the head of all principality and power. Put aside your worldly doctrines of men for he has wiped away their authority, and therefore your debts away, with His own death. Therefore let no man judge you by the elements of the world, because these things are such that God has established, and it is by His word alone that we will be judged.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
64
Ohio
✟129,793.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Symes said:
razzelflabben



I do not know of anyone that keeps the seventh day Sabbath to try and earn their way to heaven. It is not at all legalistic to keep God's commandments.

You have road rules, you keep them. Does that then become legalistic? Of course not. It is the same with the Sabbath.
How odd that you choose to answer the post I made with this alone. I brought about many other points and would love to hear your response to those issues as well. In fact, even though I do not understand all the legalism over this issue, I am willing to accept your desire to make it so which is why I raised some of the issues in the earlier post that I did. For one moment, look past the issue of legalism and read and address the post as written if you would, please, I am anxious to understand the essense of this thread.

One of the first being, if the Sabbath can only be on Sat. or Sun whichever you hold too, then why do you attend services and ask your pastor and other workers in the church to do thier jobs? To force a certain day for the sabbath, either requires you to not go to church on that day, or else you require your pastor to break the law. This then, becomes legalism rather than a mear following of the commands of God. Does not the word say that we should serve and worship God rather than the law? Gal. 3 Even in Gal. 5 we see that this type of following after the law is fruitless. James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:12-13 explains how we can be free from this guilt.
 
Upvote 0

adam332

Deut. 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD t
Feb 10, 2002
699
3
Alabama
Visit site
✟23,422.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
razzle,
since you quote scripture that shows that one broken command is the same as any. Then answer me this....can you commit murder every week without repentance or intention to change and still be keeping the spirit of the law? How about lying? How about stealing?

How can you say that one command is ok to break every single week and the other nine are not. Is that what you really think the Bible teaches? Is it legalism if I tell you that you should not murder every single week and encourage others not to do it as well? Why are those that see the liberal breaking of a single command called legalists, but when if we say the same thing about the others it's ok?

Try some consistency with your application of His holy word instead of falling in line with the traditions of worldly men. It was prophesied that the little horn(the papacy) would think to change the Lord's times and laws. Do you stand behind the authority of the little horn or behind the authority of God?

What exactly do you think legalism is? Is it attempting to follow the comands of God in the manner he prescribed because you love him? No.

It has a twofold application, neither of which fit what you are accusing us of. Legalism is trying to apply works as a manner for salvation. It can also imply, the meticulous restrictions that were added to God's law by man's tradition, such as the accusations by the Pharisees when they accused Him of breaking the sabbath according to their own laws.
 
Upvote 0

deu58

Senior Veteran
Dec 12, 2003
3,099
75
69
Philippines
Visit site
✟26,169.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
adam332 said:
razzle,
since you quote scripture that shows that one broken command is the same as any. Then answer me this....can you commit murder every week without repentance or intention to change and still be keeping the spirit of the law? How about lying? How about stealing?

How can you say that one command is ok to break every single week and the other nine are not. Is that what you really think the Bible teaches? Is it legalism if I tell you that you should not murder every single week and encourage others not to do it as well? Why are those that see the liberal breaking of a single command called legalists, but when if we say the same thing about the others it's ok?

Try some consistency with your application of His holy word instead of falling in line with the traditions of worldly men. It was prophesied that the little horn(the papacy) would think to change the Lord's times and laws. Do you stand behind the authority of the little horn or behind the authority of God?

What exactly do you think legalism is? Is it attempting to follow the comands of God in the manner he prescribed because you love him? No.

It has a twofold application, neither of which fit what you are accusing us of. Legalism is trying to apply works as a manner for salvation. It can also imply, the meticulous restrictions that were added to God's law by man's tradition, such as the accusations by the Pharisees when they accused Him of breaking the sabbath according to their own laws.
hello Adam

What ever makes you think the command has been broken in the first place? Because people no longer interpret it the way you do?

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

your argument that we can now murder and lie is so old and lame. you think God is static. he is not. The priest hood was part of the law and yet we are told it has been changed from Levi to Judah and the law was changed also.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The law has been changed and whether you like or agree with the changes has no bearing on the matter what so ever. So if the the law has been changed how is it that you think you can take certain portions of the old that suit you and attempt to make them binding on the believer today. It is not even neccesary for the beleiver today to know anything about the old testament and if they apply the New Testament to their lives they will be saved.

Ac 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses

Your position is not new. in fact it is two thousand years old. You are a spiritual child of that beliving sect of Pharisee's that is still commanding us to keep the law of moses
yours in christ
deu58
 
Upvote 0

The Thadman

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2002
1,783
59
✟2,318.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
razzelflabben said:
First off, why are we being so legalistic? If we want to follow the legalistic aproach to scripture, then we must follow all the law.

Isn't that what we really do as Christian anyways? Only within grace we follow and do God's will, but we can never be perfect in any observance.

That is a hard row to hoe and since God freed us from the law, I dare say it would be a fruitless road to follow as far as our walk with God is concerned.

Freed us from the Law? NO. It was fulfilled, not abolished. Jesus, himself, said to keep his commandments and do the will of his father, correct? On the cross, our Messiah became the atoning sacrifice for all of our sins, abolishing the sacrificial system for forgiveness. We're bought and payed for at such a steep price. :) Now we live under grace, and do our best to follow God's will, and his will alone.

Remember that Jesus did not introduce any new teachings to the world. He merely quoted from the Old Testament and gave interpretation. Many people do not realize this. For example, some believe that he came up with "Love your neighbor as yourself" when in reality it is a direct quote from Leviticus 19:18. His teachings on divorce are explicitly what is found in Deuteronomy 24, but the priests at the time had oral traditions that allowed divorce for something so little as burning food. Nothing he taught was anything different that what God had revealed. :)

If you follow the words of Jesus by "loving your neighbor as yourself" are you being legalistic? It is in the Law, yet meny people do not see it as such.

Secondly, if you are going down the legalistic road, then why do we go to church on the "Sabbath" if you go to church, you are asking the pastor to work on the sabbath which is direct violation of the fourth? commandment. And believe me, when my husband was pastoring, it was definately work and not only for him but for the whole family as well as others working in the church. What kind of law would ask the people to follow one law and the leaders to follow another?

It depends on if you count "Do not make any graven images" and "do not bow down" to said graven images as one or two commandments :)

Worship was never meant to be "work" although many modern pastors make it their livlihoods. :) Of course, the idea of ordained clergy is something that was never meant to be after Jesus' sacrifice. There is supposed to be a servant relationship between all believers, and "elders" selected specifically for that purpose: serving the community. But I digress.

The definition of work, however, is something that has been pinned down to a precise science amongst Jewish Oral Law (one part of the Talmud says that you can carry a bundle, provided you only do so with one hand and it is under a certain weight), but is still something that is rather broad in the Old Testament. All of the instances in the Tanak that were forbidden or punished had to do with one's livlihood (reaping crops, kindling (but not maintaining) fires, going out of one's place).

The sabbath is a concept, idea, command to work 6 days and rest the 7th. Which scripture says that God started His creation on Sun. or MOn. If the pastor works 6 days and his work days start on Mon then I would expect that on Sun. he would rest! If his work day starts on Sun. then I would expect him to rest on Sat. But from most of the pastors I know, any day off is a rare thing and Sat. is no more rest than Sun.

The Sabbath has always traditionally be held on a Saturday. It "changed" to Sunday due to the political problems inflicted upon early Christians.

To keep the sabbath holy means to remew your body and soul, not just your soul. It is a time to walk away from the pressures and struggles and relax. Our current society has absolutely no concept of this and threads like this one encourage this type of abuse. To be healthy, (which is the bulk of the old law), one needs to rest from work. If my job does not allow that rest, there is a problem with that job that should appall every christian out there.

I completely agree. We're meant to be an antithesis to the masses :)

Case in point, how many christians recieve the daily paper? The carriers of the paper work 7 days a week 365 days a year to get that paper to you. By getting the paper 7 days a week, you are demanding that the carriers break the sabbath commands. Want to get legalistic, why do "you" encourage others to sin. Most people who work in the resturant business do get one or two days off a week but seldom on Sat. or Sun. so that they can attend church and let us not forget about the police and nurses that work weekends too. If we are going to have a legalistic discussion then let us take it to it's completion by examining our own behaviors and what we can do to allow everyone the right to a sabbath.

I don't see how it gets to be a legalistic approach. American society is not based upon God, but upon capitalism (mammon). We've got to follow God's will fullest extent possible, love him more than anything here on this dim reflection. The Sabbath was made for man, remember, not the other way around, and in today's society it is being neglected.

If you're really that concerned about the faith of your paper delivery boy (I, personally, do not get a paper, I use the internet), invite him in and talk to him about God. Eat with your friends at home on Saturdays. It will be a fun experience, and make you grow closer.

What downsides are there to celebrating (note celebrating) the Sabbath?

By the way, the teaching in Matt. 12 about the sabbath, is a teaching against this legalistic approach to the sabbath.

Yes. It was teaching a Biblical approach to the Sabbath, out against the Oral Law of the chief priests.

Shlomo,
 
Upvote 0

deu58

Senior Veteran
Dec 12, 2003
3,099
75
69
Philippines
Visit site
✟26,169.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
adam332 said:
Deu,
I don't need you to police my behavior, surely I know when I am being rude or aggressive just as that fellow knew he was gonna' perform a hit and run. I am here to discuss as you also appear to be, I don't care who it is, Sabbatarian or Sunday advocate, I don't have much patience for those who want to be heard but refuse to listen.

Also, you mentioned Rom. 14 again...as you and I have pointed out, that area is expressing a Biblical principal. The only thing that stands left with regards to it is; should we apply that principal to the Sabbath or shouldn't we. There is no point lingering on it since we have not discussed the other areas which we hold in opposition. The application of that principal can only be determined after said discussions are finished and then we will see whether it should or should not be applied. To try and discern it as applicable before the serious issues have even been touched upon is backwards and holds no value for either of us.

That said...lets move on to discussing Gal. 4... take your time and by no means do not put this forum before time with your wife. I will be here and regardless of my impatience I completely understand. I too have a wife who expresses the same and I might have to ask you to hold on from time to time for the same reasons.

:bow: ADAM :bow:


You must be running out of patience with yourself then to eh?


yours in christ
deu58
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.