stone said:
I don't think anyone here has stated that the law is the road to righteousness.
However, the law(10 commandments)is righteous, and those who love God will keep it.
Upvote
0
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.
stone said:Jesus said to follow my commandments if you love me, he didn't say anything about the law being the road to righteousness. I think this is your interpretation.
BigNorsk said:I have a hard time believing these Sabbath thread are still going. I remember clearly answering about the Sabbath long long ago.
First Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Fulfilling it does not as the Sabbath keepers take it mean that nothing has changed, the law pointed to Christ, but it was not clear to us, now it has been clearly revealed and we should not again veil the revelation.
It is not that the Sabbath has been changed from Saturday to Sunday. No, the Sabbath as such now occurs "Today". The real Sabbath is the rest we receive from our works in Jesus Christ. We should not turn from his grace and attempt to perfect it by returning to the law, if they law could have brought rest there would have been no need for Jesus, but the law could not bring rest and so he came totally by grace and gives us rest.
Those who preach a Saturday Sabbath want to take people from their position of resting in Jesus from their works and again subject them to the law. The gospel fulfills the law, people shouldn't turn from the gospel and replace it with the law.
Could we have Saturday as our main day off for worship? Sure, except for one thing. The Sabbath keepers would see that as an affirmation that the keeping of Saturday as the Sabbath is indeed the correct position. Since we are told not to cause our weaker brother to stumble, it really wouldn't be proper for us to strengthen his belief in a mistaken position. Observing the law as the road to righteousness is very dangerous.
Marv
tall73 said:Sorry, there i no evidence . . . that the priesthood was continued. And there is much evidence that you don't need another man to approach God for you.
CaliforniaJosiah said:Thank you for that correction...
So, what is the Hebrew word for the 7th day of the week?
This passage has nothing to do with the 4th commandment. Please learn how to exegete a passage aright.seebs said:We are not required to form an opinion on this, nor are we required to agree.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 14, Verses 2-6
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
woobadooba said:This passage has nothing to do with the 4th commandment.
Please learn how to exegete a passage aright.
rstrats said:Normann,
re: "In The O. T. the Jews changed Sabbaths every time there was a Feast of Pentecost."
Could you elaborate on that, please?
CaliforniaJosiah said:Thank you for that correction...
So, what is the Hebrew word for the 7th day of the week?
seebs said:Begging your pardon, but what do you think it refers to? What is it to esteem one day above another, or to esteem all days alike? What is it to keep one day holy?
I am afraid that, while this is certainly a good piece of advice to offer, it stops short of telling me what to do. How will I know when my exegesis is up to your exacting standards? Could you recommend a starting point for this? Does one need to go to school? Are there specific books we must buy?
SeekingTheTruth0819 said:Other than the writings of every Christian author from that time until the 16th century.
Your brother in Christ
Normann said:The sabbaths of Israel were changing sabbaths, being observed on two different days each year because of an additional sabbath at Pentecost.
If the fifteenth day of Abib is when Israel left Egypt, which was on the sabbath, was Saturday, then the seventh-day sabbath would fall on Saturday for seven weeks or forty-nine days. The fiftieth day, Sunday, would be Pentecost. The next seventh-day sabbath after Pentecost would then fall on Sunday, and so on until Pentecost of the following year which would change the seventh-day sabbath again, this time to Monday. So there was no such thing as the sabbath always being on Saturday throughout the year, or perpetually.
We are using our calendar to explain this; understanding that the Calendar we use now was not designed until the middle 1500's.
I hope I have helped.
IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann
woobadooba said:It has already been disclosed that Sunday being referred to as the Lord's day, was not established until the late 1st century. Therefore, this passage is not referring to Sunday worship, because it was written prior to the fact. So Paul mustn't be referring to the idea that it makes no difference whether we deem the 7th day or the 1st day of the week to be the Sabbath.
Also, the word Sabbath doesn't even appear in the passage. That alone should be a strong indication that this passage is not referring to the 4th commandment. Hence, to say that this passage is referring to the Sabbath Vs. the so-called Lord's day, is to read something into it that just isn't there.
Finally, if it were referring to the Sabbath, Paul would have been way out of line, since Isaiah 66:23 speaks of the Sabbath in the sense of it being a continuum, even after the second coming of Christ. Thus it obviously does matter to God that we honor the 4th commandment, and that we do it His way!
Prayer and study are the key elements in ascertaining God's message for us. Hence we know what we must do. But the question that remains is: How then do we do it?
There is a forum that addresses the issues of exegesis and hermeneutics. Perhaps you should look into it.
seebs said:No, of course not. It has to do whether we must keep any day separate at all!
And what kind of "esteeming" do you think Paul was talking about?
Have you found that, in Paul's writing, he always uses exactly the same terminology for the same concepts that other passages do?
Hmm. Let's turn the prooftext knob back a few notches to "merely egregious" and look at at least a little bit of context.
The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Chapter 66, Verses 18-24
For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory. And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD. For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
This does not strike me as implying continuity, but rather, a very narrow window (one week) of conversion; further, it's very poetic language, and I don't think it's justifiable to draw any conclusion more than "it happens quickly" from this.
I value the illustration of eisegesis, but I was more interested in exegesis.
I spent a bit of time looking at the Bibliolatry forum, and found it unedifying.
I think I'll stick with Paul's fairly consistent teaching of Christian liberty, rather than an elaborate jump straight into the middle of a paragraph from Isaiah and straight back without so much as a polite nod to the context.
woobadooba said:There is no problem with my exegesis here. The only problem is that you, like the others, have been cornered, and instead of admitting that you are wrong, you shout "EISEGESIS", in hope that YOUR own eisegetical errors may be hidden from those who don't know any better!
You see, you are the one who is reading something into the texts that isn't there, not me. I'm just simply telling you what the text in Rom. 14 doesn't say (it makes no mention of the Sabbath, meaning the 4th commandment), and what the text in Isa. 66 does say, "From one Sabbath to another" = a continuum of the Sabbath!
And if it had been done away with there would be no sense in God inspiring Isaiah to say this!
But when you are willing to hear the truth, you will come to know that the 4th commandment is still binding for the Christian, as Isaiah implies.
tall73 said:Woobadooba, there is in fact some evidence that Isaiah 66 is not talking about the later heavenly kingdom. So he may have a point.
Note the nations being evangelised, and the existance of Levites, etc. Notice also that it is not only Sabbaths but new moon festivals, etc.
The indications are that this is speaking of the restoration after the destruction by Babylon, which would bring in an idealic time.
woobadooba said:Perhaps, but this very well could be one of those dualistic prophecies. You see, there is also evidence to support the idea that it is eschatological in verse 22 wherin it speaks of "new heavens and the new earth", and verse 24 could be referring to the destruction of the wicked which will result from the wrath of God.
In any case, there is no denying the fact that he is reading meaning into Rom. 14 that just isn't there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?