Why do you think the sabbath is always such a 'hot topic'?

Frogster · Sep 10, 2009

RND said:
The scriptures call the sabbath 'a delight.'

If Paul was a lawbreaker why was he never brought up on charges of breaking the law?

It says the same thing regarding adultery. Yet we don't stone them either. How come?

I think another reason it is a hot topic,is because of the clear statement of Paul.There is no getting around this.

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.

RND · Sep 10, 2009

Frogster said:
I think another reason it is a hot topic,is because of the clear statement of Paul.There is no getting around this.

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.

That's right, let no one pass judgment on you regarding food and drink offerings, or how a festival, new moon (a new month) or a sabbath is observed and if they do, ignore them.

Those that teach the commandments of man, that make the commandments of God of none effect, should be ignored.

Frogster · Sep 10, 2009

RND said:
That's right, let no one pass judgment on you regarding food and drink offerings, or how a festival, new moon (a new month) or a sabbath is observed and if they do, ignore them.

Those that teach the commandments of man, that make the commandments of God of none effect, should be ignored.

The clear context is that Paul was saying,not to let them,put the Sabbath law on us,as believers.No getting around that.

If one trys to make the meaning,that Paul was saying,dont let others judge you for keeping it.Then context would also dictate,that angel worship is ok...

Like we are to think,we should not be disqualified if we worship angels.

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. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,

RND · Sep 10, 2009

Frogster said:
The clear context is that Paul was saying,not to let them,put the Sabbath law on us,as believers.No getting around that.

That's the traditional Christian understanding.

If one trys to make the meaning,that Paul was saying,dont let others judge you for keeping it.Then context would also dictate,that angel worship is ok...

Not at all. Paul is making a comparison in verse 18 as to who those 'judgmental' folks are.

Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels (those that judge) disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

Like we are to think,we should not be disqualified if we worship angels.

Who said you should worship angels?

Frogster · Sep 10, 2009

RND said:
That's the traditional Christian understanding.

Not at all. Paul is making a comparison in verse 18 as to who those 'judgmental' folks are.

Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels (those that judge) disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

Who said you should worship angels?

There is no getting around it.It is the same context.

If you think he is saying,dont let them judge you for keeping it,then one has to then presume it is ok to worship angels too.

Dont let them judge about Sabbath,dont let them insist on angel worship and asceticism.Context.

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 the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,

RND · Sep 10, 2009

Frogster said:
There is no getting around it.It is the same context.

You've said that.

If you think he is saying,dont let them judge you for keeping it,then one has to then presume it is ok to worship angels too.

Nope. Paul is pointing out what those that a judgmental do.

Dont let them judge about Sabbath,dont let them insist on angel worship and asceticism.Context.

That's right. Don't let those that worship angels judge one in keeping the sabbath, food and drink offerings, etc.

Frogster · Sep 10, 2009

RND said:
You've said that.
Nope. Paul is pointing out what those that a judgmental do.

That's right. Don't let those that worship angels judge one in keeping the sabbath, food and drink offerings, etc.

There is really no other way to read it,is there?
If we read it your way,then we are to presume one can worship angels.No getting around the context .

Albion · Sep 10, 2009

Why is the Sabbath a "hot topic?"

It's not because very many people are concerned about it or see any reason to debate it.

It's mainly because Adventists think it's their duty to witness their unusual beliefs to the world through any forum they can get their hands on, this one included. So they make thread after thread and turn other threads dealing with other subjects towards this subject when possible.

The rest of us are not unaware of why they do what they do. We don't mind that they worship on Saturday, not any more than we spend time worrying about Amish driving buggies or Mormons baptising stand-ins for dead people. That's their POV, whether or not we agree with it.

And of course this might be called a "hot topic" because of the two ways that the promoters of the topic keep it alive:

1) refusing to hear of any of the Bible passages that explain why almost all Christians worship on Sunday or to talk about those Bible "proof texts." This allows them to repeat themselves endlessly rather than work through the subject.

2) relying upon personal attacks in order to provoke the opposition to keep posting so that they give, in that way, even more opportunities for the Sabbatarians to answer back.

(Well, the question was asked. )

Timothew · Sep 10, 2009

I apologize

RND · Sep 10, 2009

Frogster said:
There is really no other way to read it,is there?

Just correctly.

If we read it your way,then we are to presume one can worship angels.No getting around the context .

If you read verse 18 in context Paul identifies the judgmental and what they do. Simple stuff.

Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels (the judgmental) disqualify you for the prize. Such a person (the judgmental) goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

What Was the Colossian Heresy? - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

In verse 16, Paul comes to the primary point he wants to make. He tells the Colossians not to let anyone (including the Gnostics) judge them in eating or drinking, or in the observance of festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths.

This passage is widely misunderstood because most scholars begin with the assumption that the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days mentioned in verse 16 are among the false teachings Paul is combating. They assume that the Gentile Colossians were not keeping these days, but the heretics (who are usually labeled "Jewish Gnostics") were trying to force them to observe them. Two points discredit this theory.

First, Paul calls the Gnostic teachings the "tradition of men" (Col. 2:8) and the "commandments and doctrines of men" (Col. 2:22). Regardless of how Paul felt about the observances he lists in verse 16, being a Pharisee trained in the Law (Acts 22:3; 23:6; 26:5; Phi. 3:4-6), he would not have called them the "traditions of men." They are clearly defined in the Torah (Exo. 16, 20; Lev. 23; Deu. 16) as divine commands the Israelites were to obey.

Furthermore, it's clear that the heretics' teaching involved strict ascetic regulations (Col. 2:21-23). Yet asceticism is the opposite of feasting. You don't promote asceticism by encouraging the observance of feast days. Instead, you elevate asceticism by criticizing the way someone is keeping a feast, or by condemning the fact that they are celebrating a feast at all.

Because of an anti-Jewish bias which can be traced back to the early Catholic church, almost all scholars have misunderstood the meaning of Paul's statement in these verses. For the Gnostics to be judging the Colossians regarding the manner of observance of the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days, they obviously had to be keeping them!

The phrase "in food or in drink" does not accurately convey the meaning of the original text. The Greek reads "en brosei kai en posei" and refers to the acts of eating and drinking. The strict Gnostics were substituting an ascetic philosophy (Col. 2:8, "human tradition") and "doctrines of demons" (see I Tim. 4:1-3) for the truth that had previously been taught to the Colossians. They were evidently quick to find fault with anyone who did not follow their teaching of denying oneself food and drink.

The text shows that the Gnostic teachers were also condemning the Colossian Christians for their observance of the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days. The Gnostics' reason for judging the Colossians in these matters goes hand in hand with their criticism of "eating and drinking." Jews in the 1st century (as well as early Christians) treated the Sabbath as a weekly feast day, and fasting was forbidden on the Sabbath. In his book From Sabbath To Sunday, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi writes:

. . . For the Jews the Sabbath was anything but a day of fast or of mourning. Even the strictest Jewish sects objected to fasting on the Sabbath . . . That the early Christians adopted this Jewish custom is implied, for instance, by Augustine's rhetorical remark, when referring to the Sabbath, he says: "Did not the tradition of the elders prohibit fasting on the one hand, and command rest on the other?" Further support can be seen in the opposition to the Sabbath fast by Christians in the East and in some important Western areas, such as Milan at the time of Ambrose (d. A.D. 397), and in certain churches and regions of North Africa. (pp. 187, 188)

Furthermore, during most of the annual festivals (with the exception of Atonement), God commanded his people to rejoice and enjoy food and strong drink (Deu. 14:23-26, Neh. 8:10,12). This most certainly would have conflicted with the Gnostics' ascetic outlook.

Because of the view that Paul was condemning the observance of the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days in verse 16, nearly all scholars have misunderstood verse 17. Most try to connect the first part of the verse ("which are a shadow of things to come") with the last part ("but the substance is of Christ") to form a complete thought. To accomplish this, they translate the last part of the verse to ("the") de ("but") soma ("substance is," "substance belongs to," "reality is") tou ("the") Christou ("of Christ").

As you can see above, the phrase "substance is" comes from the single Greek word soma. This word is used 74 times in the Textus Receptus version of the New Testament; 72 times the NKJV translates it as "body" and once it is represented as "bodies." Nowhere else is it rendered "substance is," "substance belongs to," or "reality is," as most modern versions of the Bible translate it in verse 17. In reality, these renderings of soma are unjustified interpretations, not translations.

The literal translation of the Greek in the last part of verse 17 is "but the body of Christ." In Greek, verses 16 and 17 say: "Consequently, let no one judge you in eating or in drinking with respect to a festival or a new moon or sabbaths (which are a shadow of things to come) but the body of Christ."

The phrase "body of Christ" should not be confusing, for Paul uses it several other times in the letter to the Colossians (1:18; 1:24; 2:19; 3:15), as well as in some of his other epistles (Rom., I Cor., and Eph.). In these instances it is a figurative reference to the Church.

Therefore, the phrase "which are a shadow of things to come" was intended by Paul to be a parenthetical statement. It was added to give the Colossians additional insight into the festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths. However, it was not necessary to complete the thought. Even if Paul had left that phrase out, his admonition would have been understandable: "Let no one judge you regarding eating and drinking (at these times) . . . but the body of Christ."

Paul is plainly saying here that the Church was to be the Colossians' only guide on eating and drinking, as these things related to Sabbath, new moon, and festival observances. They were not to let the Gnostics force ascetic practices on them, especially during these holy times (which are a shadow of the good things coming in the future - cf. Heb. 9:11, 10:1).
This grant of power to the Church is not unique in the writings of Paul.

While he clearly condemns Christians who judge one another in questionable matters (Rom. 14), Paul gave the Corinthian Church the power to judge and expel those brethren who were openly sinning (I Cor. 5, 6). When combined with the earlier admonitions to hold fast to the teachings they had received previously (Col. 1:23; 2:6, 7), verses 16 and 17 clearly show that Paul expected the Colossian Church as a whole to enforce the original true teachings brought to them by Epaphras. Evidently those true teachings included the observance of the weekly and annual Sabbaths, new moons, and annual festivals.

One last point about verse 17; the word translated "are" is the Greek verb esti. This verb is in the present tense; Paul is saying the annual Holy Days and the Sabbath ARE currently shadows of things to come. Paul does not say that they were shadows that were fulfilled at the coming of Christ. From this we know that the events they foreshadow have not been completed yet; therefore, the shadows still have relevance. Instead of doing away with God's Sabbath and the Holy Days, this passage of Scripture, when understood correctly, affirms them and shows that the Colossian Church was actually keeping them.

ThomasDa · Sep 10, 2009

RND said:
Why do you think the sabbath is always such a 'hot topic'?

God's Sabbath is the test commandment. It is a test to see whether you will obey Him or not. God wants to see if we will obey Him. Ex. 16:23-26

Ro. 8:7 explains that man is naturally hostile toward God and is unable to obey God. If you won't do something as simple and basic as keep God's Sabbath He will not give you any more.

Notice that God made His Sabbaths a sign between Him and His people forever . Ex. 31:13 and Ezek. 20:12

While it's true that all sabbath keepers are not true christians, all true christians will be keeping God's Sabbaths.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 10, 2009

Why do you think the sabbath is always such a 'hot topic'?

A lot of the NT/NC is a "hot" topic on the GT board, though it seems a lot of it is either on the Pope and Catholicism or the SDA's and the Sabbath.

Matt 23:33 "Serpents! produce of vipers! how? ye may be fleeing from the judging of the geennhV <1067> "

Reve 14:14 and the smoke of the torment of them into ages of ages is ascending and not they are having rest day and night the ones worshipping the beast and the image of it and if any is getting the image of the name of it.

Giver · Sep 10, 2009

RND said:
I see. So standing for the truth of all of God's word makes some of those that do so 'feel' set apart and holy? Do you mean to say better than others? Because if you do I can agree with that. But then again all churches, especially Sunday churches, have there fair share of 'legalists'.

What I don't understand is where you 'feel' you have been accused of something.

(Romans 14:5) If one man keeps certain days as holier than others, and another considers all days to be equally holy, each must be left free to hold his own opinion.

RND · Sep 10, 2009

Giver said:
(Romans 14:5) If one man keeps certain days as holier than others, and another considers all days to be equally holy, each must be left free to hold his own opinion.

Romans 14 has nothing to do with the sabbath. It's never mentioned.

squint · Sep 10, 2009

It's a 'hot topic' because most of the 'certain day of the week' proponents use their position(s) to condemn other believers to potentially fry alive forever or be eternally annihilated.

Not much different than hell fire and brimstone thumper Fred Phelps claiming 'persecution' for supposedly telling 'Gods Truth' that God kills U.S. soldiers for the U.S. having a liberal stance on various moral issues. Of course that information of DEATH BY GOD to the loved ones of soldiers in the name of supposed TRUTH doesn't seem to sit very well, particularly for those soldiers and families who have dedicated their lives in service to God and country.

And the SDA fantasy about them about to be persecuted by the RCC and the evil beast world monetary powers is a persecution complex fantasy run amok IMHO.

Try loving all your neighbors in a church that promotes the eternal torture in fire of same and you will see the DEVIL IN ACTION right there 'in the church.'

Giver · Sep 10, 2009

RND said:
Romans 14 has nothing to do with the sabbath. It's never mentioned.

The Sabbath is a day isnt it?

Jesus told us that the Sabbath was made for man not God. He told us he is Lord of the Sabbath, and he showed by his example that it was no longer a law. Now if you want to keep the Sabbath for the Glory of God, go right ahead, but dont put people down who dont agree with you. that it is still a law.

For a Christian every day is holy. A Christian is a temple of God, and as such is always in Gods presence.

bbbbbbb · Sep 10, 2009

It is only a hot topic in my life on this forum. I never encounter anyone anywhere else in my life for whom it is the slightest concern.

As LLoJ has pointed out, CF draws loads of folks out of the woodwork to debate things such as Catholic doctrine, SDA doctrine, etc. We would also be seeing the Mormons here, as well, if they had not been sent to the outer darkness of Unorthodox Theology where they are holding their own quite nicely, thank you.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 10, 2009

bbbbbbb said:
It is only a hot topic in my life on this forum. I never encounter anyone anywhere else in my life for whom it is the slightest concern.

As LLoJ has pointed out, CF draws loads of folks out of the woodwork to debate things such as Catholic doctrine, SDA doctrine, etc. We would also be seeing the Mormons here, as well, if they had not been sent to the outer darkness of Unorthodox Theology where they are holding their own quite nicely, thank you.

Some of my threads have ended up on that board from GT

Matthew 8:12 The yet Sons of the Kingdom shall-be-being-cast-out into the darkness, the outer/exwteron <1857>
There shall be the lamentation and the gnashing of the teeth. [Gnashing used 7 times, 6 times Matt, 1 time Luke]

Mikeb85 · Sep 10, 2009

RND said:
That said, whether you agree or not, why do you think the seventh-day sabbath is such a consistently huge topic for discussion?

It mostly has to do with the fact that SDA's and other 'sabbath-keepers' don't understand WHY we worship primarily on Sunday (in fact, many Orthodox worship EVERY day of the week - as we should).

BTW, look at our culture - what constitutes a civic weekend? Saturday AND Sunday. Saturday is the Sabbath, Sunday is the day of the Resurrection. Now, for those who say Christ rose on a Saturday, keep in mind Jewish (and Orthodox Christian) reckoning of time is different than modern - the first day of the Jewish week would start on our Saturday evening...

Anyhow, the Sabbath is still Saturday (actually Friday evening until Saturday evening), and Christ rose on the First day of the week. Worshipping on Sunday has nothing to do with changing the Sabbath, only the fact that traditionally, Sunday worship celebrated primarily the Resurrection, as that was the day of the Resurrection (traditionally Saturday worship is a day to remember the Prophets, Old Covenant, and pray for the departed). Also keep in mind that traditionally, Saturday, Sunday, and every other day were all days of worship for traditional, Orthodox Christians.

It's such a hot topic mostly because of misunderstanding and sheer ignorance.

freeport · Sep 10, 2009

RND said:
There can be little question that there are a number of topics that get the juices flowing of those that post on CF which regularly leads to lively conversation, debate and even, regrettably, much rancor.

Of all those topics it seems the seventh-day sabbath and the accompanying discussions regarding the law of God and it's role in the life of a Christian is, routinely - hands down, the most viewed and posted topic on these boards. Now, compared to other boards I have been on these conversations and debates are actually quite mild and not nearly as rude or contentious as on other boards (a tribute to the mod staff at CF IMHO).

That said, whether you agree or not, why do you think the seventh-day sabbath is such a consistently huge topic for discussion?

My personal belief is that this is one way that the latter rain of the Lord is being spread in these last days. I believe that God is allowing this knowledge to come to more and more Christians as the issue of the seventh-day sabbath of God and the Sunday sacredness of the beast system becomes much more of a dividing line.

This way, in the future, when one sees sabbath keepers eventually persecuted for keeping the seventh-day sabbath, disregarding the state mandated day of Sunday sacredness, that all of these conversations, debates and conversations will have served an extremely valuable purpose - informing those that would care to hear that God is true, and His word is true, that His sabbath day really does mean something. God's love, his truth, His grace, His goodness, His mercy and His sabbath-day will be vindicated.

From what I have read of the Seventh Day Adventists, that is what your church teaches:

Seventh-day Adventist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For instance.

That there is somesort of apocalyptic reason to keep it and people will eventually persecute you even to death for doing so and such. (I do not know if that is a current teaching or not.)

I rarely post on the subject. Every day is holy to me.

I almost never run into seventh day adventists in real life and if I do, I had not noticed.

Some don't eat meat, some do, some are vegetarians and do not think others are damned for not being vegetarian... some vegetarians do think non-vegetarians are damned... some vegetarians just think poorly of meat eaters... and some vegetarians are completely relaxed about it and accept everyone's different tastes -- they do it for their own self and their own reasons and like it, without judging others.

Is it contentious to raise any sort of "do this" or "do not do that" in a forum of Christians who believe we are saved by grace through faith? I suppose so... after all, that is living by laws and trusting in rules of men to save, instead of Jesus. But, depends, again, on how someone takes it.

And such legalistic behavior is common. Many churches think and teach they are the "only church" and everyone else is damned. One way or the other. And invariably they keep a lot of rules which are "required" for salvation beyond just "belonging to our little group".

I look at everyone on an individual basis, personally. And look at how each separate church define or follow their general church doctrine.

But, personally, I do not believe churches save, but God saves.

I know some teach otherwise, and feel that is just the place they are in at that time, though I could only encourage people to focus on the words of Jesus... instead of churches or doctrines, especially when they go against the words of Jesus.

Churches can be great for fellowship, but ultimately people are called to be children of God and follow Jesus by believing and doing what He says.

I typically do not intend to offend weaker brothers and sisters who feel they have to follow some such rules to be saved... and usually only get angry when that leads them into wickedly judging their neighbors, engaging in slander and such -- such as when they deny the salvation of Christians who are bought by the blood of Christ.

It is one thing to judge rightly among Christians, but another to deny someone's salvation when they have done no wrong.

Likewise, the Law is very spiritual and therefore symbolic: for instance, Paul pointed out the line "do not tread the oxen when they are working the grain" is "not about oxen" but "about us". And speaking more directly to such matters the Laws about using "right weights" really means judging rightly with right evidence on all matters and not using corrupt weights when doing so.

We are to be "all things to all people", but if someone is going to claim someone else is damned - or even evil - for just being a regular person doing something which is approved by God... what can we do?

However, again, it depends on the person.

On the Sabbath, what I see important about that is the real Sabbath, or Seventh Day... the Millennium. Which the vast majority of Christians do believe in.

That, as we see in Scripture, is about the Coming of the Kingdom of God, and which Jesus Himself alluded to in His teachings on that Day.

As for "That Day", the Great and Dreadful Day of the Lord... 'for the Lord a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day". I do believe that applies to the Millennium.

Why do you think the sabbath is always such a 'hot topic'?

Galatians is the best!

Senior Veteran

Galatians is the best!

Senior Veteran

Galatians is the best!

Senior Veteran

Galatians is the best!

Facilitator

Conditionalist

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

bbbbbbb

Guest

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Mikeb85

Guest

freeport

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency