Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath? (2)

[Montalban]

Now you come along and continue your lying saying I never said that Paul went to the temple. I thought you still recognized the other 9 commandments?

If you think insulting me is a way to continue discussion, than you are wrong.

I know you never said Paul went to the Temple. I cited evidence that he had. Thus you are wrong in your assertion.

 

[*Lu*]

sunday?

 

[Montalban]

sunday?

succinct!

 

[oldsage]

Ok, so if you believe it is the weekly, then why would you believe it is not done away with?

Incidentally, post a few of those texts. It is an interesting point the order.

Be forewarned, I just got up a little while ago, so my sentences my run on with disconnected thoughts.



1 Chronicles 23:31 and whenever burnt offerings were offered to the LORD on Sabbaths, new moons and feast days, according to the number required of them, regularly before the LORD.



2 Chronicles 31:3 The contribution of the king from his own possessions was for the burnt offerings: the burnt offerings of morning and evening, and the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the appointed feasts, as it is written in the Law of the LORD.



2 Chronicles 8:13 as the duty of each day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual feasts - the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths.



2 Chronicles 2:4 Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the LORD my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense of sweet spices before him, and for the regular arrangement of the showbread, and for burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths and the new moons and the appointed feasts of the LORD our God, as ordained forever for Israel.



Nehemiah 10:33 for the showbread, the regular grain offering, the regular burnt offering, the Sabbaths, the new moons, the appointed feasts, the holy things, and the sin offerings to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God.



Ezekiel 45:17 It shall be the prince's duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel.



Hosea 2:11 And I will put an end to all her mirth, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts.



Colossians 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.



In case you say the Sabbath isn't a feast I just want to point this out:



Leviticus 23:1 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the LORD that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts. 3 "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places



This type of the Sabbath is physical not spiritual, this is the typology that will be done away with at the resurrection. This is the one spoken of in Colossians 2:16. This type of the Sabbath still has not reached it fulfillment as can be seen in verse 17 which says it is still a shadow of something that hasn't happen yet. Hebrews is speaking of an eschatological fulfillment of the Sabbath and a spiritual fulfillment of the Sabbath. (fulfillment doesn't mean abolishment) In Hebrews it is talking about the world to come so, we can use that as an eschatological typology.



Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but letthe body of Christ judge. (My expanded translation)

In the greek the word [font=&quot]τις i[/font]s a pronoun in this sentence and there really isn't referent that can be shown near by, but we know that Paul is addressing asceticism which is trying to be forced on the church there. So, I would think this is who Paul is referring to when it speak of not letting anyone judge you. But in the last clause he is saying let the church judge. Furthermore in verse 16 it is saying for those not to judge them in how they are eating or drinking or keeping the feast, new moons and Sabbaths. It is showing they are keeping them already there in Colossae, but the oriental asceticists were telling them how to keep those days, tell them how to drink, and eat and celebrate those feast.



For example, if I were to tell you on Sabbath you need to kneel down and pray 4 times one to each direction on the compass, then stand up and recite a special prayer I made up, then wash you hands in a bowl for your cleansing. Then sit and wait for service to start. Otherwise you are not keeping the Sabbath correctly. Now I just introduced a heresy akin to what they did in Colossae, and it is something like this in which Paul was combating in his letter to them.



I know I may have run all over the place and I am sorry if I did, I am on medication for my back and it makes it hard to concentrate early in the morning, but I will get more clear as the day goes on



Chris

 

[BigDave]

6'10" and 300 lbs big here. We need to start a CF Basketball team!

So I am just BigDave and you are VeryBigDave

(oh man, I can't believe I just assumed somebody who is tall plays basketball..sorry...it is a stereotypical necessity).

Doesn't that just drive you nuts? I just tell them, "No I don't play basketball. I prefer theological disucussions."

Indeed, but the Sabbath came before Moses or his law. Just as we don't read about Adam receiving the law, but Cain knew it was wrong to murder etc. they clearly understood the law. It was internal before, and will be again.

Some assertions here that I haven't yet seen supported (maybe you have before I joined).
1) The Sabbath observance was a proscribed law before the Mosaic
2) The Sabbath observance was a practice at all before the Mosaic law
3) Since the law is written on men's hearts (Rom 2), it could be said that Cain knew murder was wrong without the need for a revealed law. The fact, that the penalty for murder is given *after* the fact of murder seems to imply that there was no revealed law before that (since the penalty and the law generally coincide). So it seems to be an unsupported assertion to say that a particular set of laws was revealed to Adam.

So my contention is simply that the Sabbath, being before the Mosaic law, which was certainly an agreement with the Israelites, is still an issue.

You haven't yet supported the assertion that the Sabbath was observed, much less commanded, before the Mosaic law. That it was understood that the 7th day was the day God rested is agreed, but this doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that therefore people knew this was a day to worship on. Without this, your contention remains unsupported and is merely based on string of assumptions - reasonable ones yes, but ones not evident in Scripture and also reasonably viewed in other ways.

Moreover, while the 10 commandments were put in terms they could understand, they transcend those particular terms and are enduring principles. The Sabbath is simply a principle to remember our Maker. Romans 1 records that men knew God as Creator, that it was obvious to all, but they willfully turned away from it. The Sabbath is the opposite, it is remembering and giving thanks.

Things like this make me think we agree more than is readily apparent. I agree that the Sabbath is simple a principle to remember our Maker. What I contend though is that viewing the Sabbath in terms of a weekly day of worship falls far short of what it really represents, just like the rest of the 10 Cs. So, for instance, the 10 Cs says not to murder. As a Christian, this is NOT the law we are to follow. Instead, we are command not to even hate our brothers or even be angry with them without just cause. We are commanded to love them as Christ loves them. The 10 Cs say not to commit adultery, but Christ commands us not to even lust after a woman in our hearts. The command for believers is so much higher than the law of the 10 Cs that they are barely worth being compared. The 10 Cs are merely a shadow of what the true law is. The 10 Cs are good and holy, but, being shadows, they fall far short of reality.

So, the Sabbath law found in the Mosaic law is *not* what we are supposed to be looking at for our conduct. It has been replaced, along with the rest of the Mosaic law, with a higher law. No longer is the law "worship on the Sabbath", but instead it is "worship EVERY MOMENT".

What about the fact that God rested on the 7th day? Shouldn't we continue to make worship on the 7th day special because of that? No, again, while that principle is good, it is incomplete. Yes, God rested on the 7th from His work of Creation...but then he kept on resting after the 7th and continues to do today. The rest of God is not merely every 7 days but is continual. If we are to make merely the Sabbath a special day, then that means we are not recognizing the rest of God on the other 6 days. The rest we have, the rest the Sabbath represents, is the rest which comes through faith. This is to be a continual and constant rest - an eternal rest. So, just as God ceased from His labors on the 7th day and did not take return to them, so also are we to enter His rest and continue in it. Again, the *true* fulfillment of the Sabbath rest is found to be much higher than the command found in the Mosaic law.

However, please note that the sacrifices too came before Moses. They were already in place and were not themselves the covenant, though keeping them was certainly part of it. They were a means of pointing to the Savior. The covenant was the agreement to keep God's law, be a part of that special relationship, and to thereby be blessed, drawing all nations to marvel at the power of God.

And my contention is that, regardless of when the Sabbath law was given or practiced, it, like the sacrifices, is fulfilled in Christ. Reverting to Sabbath worship would be just as wrong as reverting to animal sacrifices. Both were good and holy, but both have been fulfilled in Christ and superceded by a higher and more complete law.

It clearly states God promises to write the law on the hearts. So the purpose hasn't changed. But the means have. The relationship is still the point, and the guiding principles of that relationship are still the moral principles of the law. But now it is internal, willing, "not burdensome" as John says. And now we clearly see the forgiveness of God when we violated those principles.

Agreed. My contention is that the moral principles of the law are not found in the weekly worship of the Sabbath, but in the true spiritual fulfillment of entering Gods rest. Instead of worshipping once a week, the moral requirement is that we worship constantly. That being the case, the whole question of 'what day are we to consider the Sabbath' becomes totally moot. Since we are to worship constantly, pray without ceasing, and not neglect the gathering of ourselves together, the particular day we choose to observe as a congregation doesn't really matter. We can do it on Saturday in memory of the Jewish practice, we can do it on Sunday to commerate the Resurrection, or we can do it on Friday because it is the most convenient for our congregation. Any insistence of a particular day, timing, or particular practices is a REVERSION to a law which was never more than a shadow.

 

[tall73]

If you think insulting me is a way to continue discussion, than you are wrong.

I know you never said Paul went to the Temple. I cited evidence that he had. Thus you are wrong in your assertion.

How am I wrong? Go look at post 83 and post 86.

 

[tall73]

Be forewarned, I just got up a little while ago, so my sentences my run on with disconnected thoughts.



1 Chronicles 23:31 and whenever burnt offerings were offered to the LORD on Sabbaths, new moons and feast days, according to the number required of them, regularly before the LORD.



2 Chronicles 31:3 The contribution of the king from his own possessions was for the burnt offerings: the burnt offerings of morning and evening, and the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the appointed feasts, as it is written in the Law of the LORD.



2 Chronicles 8:13 as the duty of each day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual feasts - the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths.



2 Chronicles 2:4 Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the LORD my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense of sweet spices before him, and for the regular arrangement of the showbread, and for burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths and the new moons and the appointed feasts of the LORD our God, as ordained forever for Israel.



Nehemiah 10:33 for the showbread, the regular grain offering, the regular burnt offering, the Sabbaths, the new moons, the appointed feasts, the holy things, and the sin offerings to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God.



Ezekiel 45:17 It shall be the prince's duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel.



Hosea 2:11 And I will put an end to all her mirth, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts.



Colossians 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.



In case you say the Sabbath isn't a feast I just want to point this out:



Leviticus 23:1 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the LORD that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts. 3 "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places



This type of the Sabbath is physical not spiritual, this is the typology that will be done away with at the resurrection. This is the one spoken of in Colossians 2:16. This type of the Sabbath still has not reached it fulfillment as can be seen in verse 17 which says it is still a shadow of something that hasn't happen yet. Hebrews is speaking of an eschatological fulfillment of the Sabbath and a spiritual fulfillment of the Sabbath. (fulfillment doesn't mean abolishment) In Hebrews it is talking about the world to come so, we can use that as an eschatological typology.



Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but letthe body of Christ judge. (My expanded translation)

In the greek the word [font=&quot]τις i[/font]s a pronoun in this sentence and there really isn't referent that can be shown near by, but we know that Paul is addressing asceticism which is trying to be forced on the church there. So, I would think this is who Paul is referring to when it speak of not letting anyone judge you. But in the last clause he is saying let the church judge. Furthermore in verse 16 it is saying for those not to judge them in how they are eating or drinking or keeping the feast, new moons and Sabbaths. It is showing they are keeping them already there in Colossae, but the oriental asceticists were telling them how to keep those days, tell them how to drink, and eat and celebrate those feast.



For example, if I were to tell you on Sabbath you need to kneel down and pray 4 times one to each direction on the compass, then stand up and recite a special prayer I made up, then wash you hands in a bowl for your cleansing. Then sit and wait for service to start. Otherwise you are not keeping the Sabbath correctly. Now I just introduced a heresy akin to what they did in Colossae, and it is something like this in which Paul was combating in his letter to them.



I know I may have run all over the place and I am sorry if I did, I am on medication for my back and it makes it hard to concentrate early in the morning, but I will get more clear as the day goes on



Chris

Actually no, that makes sense. In fact, doing some more research I found that a compound phrase was used to indicate feast Sabbaths, so on both counts it would be speaking of the weekly.

 

[BigDave]

Actually no, that makes sense. In fact, doing some more research I found that a compound phrase was used to indicate feast Sabbaths, so on both counts it would be speaking of the weekly.

I am still confused though. I followed up to the point about Hebrews (although I didn't agree, but more on the elsewhere), but got lost in the next part:

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but letthe body of Christ judge. (My expanded translation)

In the greek the word [font=&quot]τις i[/font]s a pronoun in this sentence and there really isn't referent that can be shown near by, but we know that Paul is addressing asceticism which is trying to be forced on the church there. So, I would think this is who Paul is referring to when it speak of not letting anyone judge you. But in the last clause he is saying let the church judge. Furthermore in verse 16 it is saying for those not to judge them in how they are eating or drinking or keeping the feast, new moons and Sabbaths. It is showing they are keeping them already there in Colossae, but the oriental asceticists were telling them how to keep those days, tell them how to drink, and eat and celebrate those feast.

First of all, the expanded part seemed to be counterlogical and not evident in line with the context. Secondly, I am still mystified as to how the concept of fasting, etc. is being inserted here. At this point it just seems like a string of assumptions being used to prove a point.

 

[rstrats]

BigDave ,



re: "Instead of worshiping once a week, the moral requirement is that we worship constantly."

I don’t see where the Sabbath commandment says anything about worship. All it mentions is a cessation of work. Also, why do you suppose animals are not to work on the Sabbath?

 

[BigDave]

BigDave ,



re: "Instead of worshiping once a week, the moral requirement is that we worship constantly."

I don’t see where the Sabbath commandment says anything about worship. All it mentions is a cessation of work.

Sorry, I am being somewhat imprecise here due to the fact that for Christians today, the day of rest is generally also considered the day of worship. Even in Scripture, this is the practice. It was the habit of both Jesus and Paul to go worship at the synagogue on the Sabbath.

But to be more precise, I should restate. Instead of 'worship' insert 'practice holiness'. So, no longer is it merely the Sabbath day we are to consider holy, but every day.

Also, why do you suppose animals are not to work on the Sabbath?

For the same reason human were not supposed to. In both cases, it is a shadow of a greater truth.

 

[Montalban]

How am I wrong? Go look at post 83 and post 86.

You said Paul never visited the Temple. I cited Acts showing he had. Simple; biblical proof.

 

[Montalban]

How am I wrong? Go look at post 83 and post 86.

It also would help if you address my other post; re 'the priesthood' where you were also wrong about there being no mention.

 

[tall73]

Montalban,

Here is what I put in post 83, which you have looked past at least twice now.

Montalban, please try to see the Bible apart from your own view of the church. The Priest MINISTERED AT THE TEMPLE not the synagogue. Priests today are a totally different concept. The synagogue was analagous to today's church, and yes Paul attended. The temple was where the sacrifices was done, and while he did in fact go to make a nazarite vow, which involved offerings, it was done as a concession to James and the Judaizers. Hebrews makes it quite clear that not only was the priesthood supplanted by Jesus' priesthood, but that the whole thing was unable to take away sins to start with. It was simply a symbol.

I see no point in showing you anything because you never read what I put. I answered both of your questions already.

If you won't read it, that is your problem.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

Here is what I put in post 83, which you have looked past at least twice now.

I see no point in showing you anything because you never read what I put. I answered both of your questions already.

If you won't read it, that is your problem.

You said Paul attended the synagogue, AND not the Temple. I cited Acts where you're wrong. Then you said I was making the Bible lie, and that I claimed you said something else. Even though the Bible is clear.

Your whole argument's falling apart because Paul went to the Temple, and the priesthood continued.

Even your mantra of Hebrews doesn't wash. IF Jesus replaced 'the High Priest' that still leaves the other offices of priest; which the New Testament quite clearly state. And in fact the idea that Jesus as "High Priest" would therefore not negate the priesthood of man; which Jesus Himself also instigated - it makes sense - because the NT mentions all three grades of clergy; bishops, priests, deacons. Of course, you believe that this is 'making the Bible lie'

Your still in a selective rut. You believe that the 'sacrifice' of the Eucharist should be but once but
i)
a) Paul suggests a number of times
b) this is confirmed by the other Early Christian Writers
ii) You pray more than once, and attend service more than once
AND
you've probably NEVER partaken of the Eucharist - even once (as an SDA) anyway

So sure, you want to apply one rule 'the Sabbath' selectively, that's entirely up to you. I wish you all the best. However if you enter a thread and proclaim something, then it can be examined in the light of reason and evidence.

 

[oldsage]

I am still confused though. I followed up to the point about Hebrews (although I didn't agree, but more on the elsewhere), but got lost in the next part:

First of all, the expanded part seemed to be counterlogical and not evident in line with the context. Secondly, I am still mystified as to how the concept of fasting, etc. is being inserted here. At this point it just seems like a string of assumptions being used to prove a point.

I didn't mention fasting in my statement unless you are talking about my reference of asceticists in the passage. If so, the surrounding context shows that to be so...you will have to be more specific in your response for me to answer properly, because your response is too general for me to comment on. Because I don't know what you are addressing that is conterlogical and what you think are the assumptions, remember my post really was for Tall73 and he understands the back drop of what I was saying, some may not understand where I am coming from, if not, I can expound where necessary.

Chris

 

[Nazaroo]

because the NT mentions all three grades of clergy; bishops, priests, deacons.

Okay, as a street urchin, I have probably missed out on a lot of the subtleties of your dispute with Tall73...

(1) But can you please explain how THREE terms in the NT correspond to TWO terms in the OT Covenant?

More bluntly, what the * is a bishop? What is he supposed to do?

Is he A Levite, a Priest, or a 'place-holder' High Priest, or what?


(2) Obviously you both agree some services have been cancelled, (since the 2nd temple was dismembered!) which services exactly are under dispute? Who gets to perform them and how? As a Nazarite I am greatly interested in this...

(3) How can either of you support the idea that Jesus used an alcoholic beverage for the Passover? Are you all mad?

 

[oldsage]

(3) How can either of you support the idea that Jesus used an alcoholic beverage for the Passover? Are you all mad?

I believe Tall73 will agree with you on the alcohol part. Same here. Now, if I am not mistaken, the EOC also uses leaven bread in their services. Which last I check is against how the feast ran.

Chris

 

[Montalban]

Okay, as a street urchin, I have probably missed out on a lot of the subtleties of your dispute with Tall73...

(1) But can you please explain how THREE terms in the NT correspond to TWO terms in the OT Covenant?

More bluntly, what the * is a bishop? What is he supposed to do?

Is he A Levite, a Priest, or a 'place-holder' High Priest, or what?

Well according to Tall73 he's not a high priest, because Jesus is, but because he is there, he must be, ispo facto, another position between that 'new' High Priest Jesus, and the rank and file believer; because clearly the NT and early writings says he's there and to be obeyed
The three in fact in one sense reflect the Holy number '3' - the Trinity etc - though they are not equal, but together make up the clergy.

Each 'catholic' church is headed by a bishop who has succeeded from the Apostles the full teaching of Jesus Christ and the right to bind and loose as given to those Apostles.

(2) Obviously you both agree some services have been cancelled, (since the 2nd temple was dismembered!) which services exactly are under dispute? Who gets to perform them and how? As a Nazarite I am greatly interested in this...

Given that Jesus commaned we do this in memory of Him, and Paul says the same thing, and that we do this frequesntly, and Ignatius mentions it as the Eucharist, it's just that; the Eucharist.

(3) How can either of you support the idea that Jesus used an alcoholic beverage for the Passover? Are you all mad?

Jesus used wine which became His blood, it ceased to be wine.
It is why (in the passages I cited earlier) when the Jews said 'are you really saying this body and blood is real food and drink' Jesus says 'yes, it's really food and drink'

 

[Montalban]

I believe Tall73 will agree with you on the alcohol part. Same here. Now, if I am not mistaken, the EOC also uses leaven bread in their services. Which last I check is against how the feast ran.

Chris

We have not altered* the bread

( * no pun intended)

 

[Nazaroo]

Thanks! Okay I'm still a bit behind you fellows:

So, each 'church' has one bishop (=apostle) so is that 13 bishops and 13 churches, (12 tribes and one grafted Gentile church?)

(2) What exactly does/can a bishop do that a priest can't and perhaps vise versa.

(3) If the other functions besides 'sacrifice' are continued, (other than say Israelite Covenant matters, to be managed by Levites/Aaronites) who witnesses a Nazarite vow and takes an offering? The priest or the bishop in your (respective) systems?

(4) I am glad you don't deliberately put yeast in your bread. Now what does alcoholic beverages have to do with the passover? What was wrong with the original grape juice?