• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Why the Sabbath isn’t on Saturday or Sunday

Discussion in 'Sabbath and The Law' started by Guide To The Bible, Jan 27, 2017.

  1. Bob S

    Bob S Well-Known Member Supporter

    +928
    Christian
    Married
    Not "our" your problem.

    Well that is good to know because if you do not believe the whole Bible is the holy writ we might as well end this discussion. I don't understand how anyone can call themselves Protestant Christians and not believe in the writings of Paul. Please explain why you extract his writings from God's plan of salvation.

    You know more that God's appointed ambassador to the world?

    Too bad.

    Paul used the illustration not to deceive anyone, he is writing on this side of the Cross. As the children of Israel continued in their journey up to the Cross the 10 commandments faded more and more in their minds. They failed at every point to keep all the laws they agreed upon at Sinai. The 10 were brilliant, Paul illustrated this by the veil Moses wore. From the beginning the Law became dimmer in the minds of the Israelites. Time after time they broke the covenant. The only way for them to be redeemed was for Jesus to come, give us the gift of the Holy Spirit and put the law of love in our hearts. Paul is the Christian's hero second to Jesus.

    Yes, Paul was brilliant , that is why Jesus chose him to be His ambassador to mankind.

    Now that I see more of your posts I figured out that you are not of any religion that I have had the privilege to encounter.

    Peace be with you my friend. I respectfully bow out of posting with you. Paul is vital to Christianity and I use His writings to help myself and others to see the real truth.
     
  2. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +222
    Protestant
    Single
    Your perceptions of prophets and teachers sizes up your religion; the prophets of old did not make it up, they did not interpret it from scripture they received it directly from God. Assuming Jeremiah didn't understand what he was saying and the assuming you understand what he didn't say is a bit of a stretch.

    I do not have any difficulty with Jeremiah; 31:29; everyone will be judged for their own iniquity and not for their father's iniquity; and in verse 33, because now everyone knows the Law (speaking to Israel) they can no longer claim to be ignorant. Consider our selves if we do not keep the Law it is not because of ignorance of what the Law is.
     
  3. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +222
    Protestant
    Single
    You are not able to intimidate me regarding Paul. Yet your post is almost on topic; that the Bible is a Holy writ amuses me but then the Christian Church has confused me as to what "Holy" means, what I mean is the Pope is Holy and the seat he sits on is Holy. The Jews used to consider their scrolls to be living entities and when they became unusable they gave them burials as though they were people; the Bible is compiled and edited by people who did not keep the commandments of God; they kept the venerable day of the sun. So I discern for my purposes what is good and what is bad.

    As for Paul being God's appointed ambassador, Paul is self appointed.
     
  4. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    Nothing but garble. It seems t me you are saying I am ignorant. Based on what may I ask? disagreement with you perhaps? Where is your proof? There is none is why you have not presented it. So nothing more than a biased personal opinion has been stated by you. You must do much better.
    I have no qualms about 31:29. I personally think you are merely using it to accuse me of iniquity.

    Now let us talk about v 33.

    First thing is I do not recall you saying anything about the contents of the two pervious verses which are part of the self defining sentence. Why is this?

    You need to explain "not according to..." which I have quoted in this thread. You obviously do not understand the word "but" in v 33 either.

    Now if you really want to discuss the text, I am more than ready.

    bugkiller
     
  5. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    Well you still have not learned who to listen to.

    Everything in what is called "Holy Writ" is written by sinners and even murderers. So I guess that disqualifies every single human author thereof and what is called "Holy Writ" as truth.

    bugkiller
     
  6. Bob S

    Bob S Well-Known Member Supporter

    +928
    Christian
    Married
    Course Minus 101: Don't want to live by what is written in the Holy Writ? Just cross out that part of the Bible like it isn't even there and become oblivious.

    Don't want to be loving toward our neighbor or live by the Golden Rule? Easy, just do away with most of the Bible. Why even use it as the guide? One can read and adhere to Darwin or some other infidel or conjure up ones own beliefs.

    At least we should be truthful and not call ourselves Protestant.
     
  7. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    One of the problems I have here at CF is the requirement to treat people who throw out much of the Scripture as Christian. The Bible says we will know people by their fruits. We have people posting here who do not fully accept Moses, the Psalms, the prophets, the Gospels (specifically quoted words of Jesus) and of course Paul. I really just do not understand. I fully admit that actually identifying these people and taking some action either publically or thru the admin is touchy and an extremely fine line. But then not allowing it to be addressed is also an issue.

    Let's do something that really matters - watch football!!! he,eh, he

    bugkiller
     
  8. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +222
    Protestant
    Single

    It seems to me that you are asking me to prove that you are ignorant which strangely is to do with our topic. I don't accuse anyone of ignorance or iniquity because I do not know anyone that well; I am discussing only the scriptures; disputing your account of them.

    In Jeremiah 31:29:33, the are two basic teachings ; one, Israelites will no longer be held responsible for their fathers sins and two, Israelites will not be ignorant of the Law. This makes the covenant easier, being only responsible for their own individual iniquity and knowing the terms of the covenant they will not be ignorant. The daily sacrifice is for sins committed in ignorance. Jesus is our daily sacrifice; but when the covenant has run it's course and is complete, salvation becomes history, the daily sacrifice will not be needed because no one will be ignorant of the Law, having it written on their minds.

    <<<First thing is I do not recall you saying anything about the contents of the two pervious verses which are part of the self defining sentence. Why is this?>>>

    I believe verses 31 and 32 have been discussed all along to project a new covenant that abandons every thing established by God, that is abrogates the Law. A new covenant that no one can articulate but where grace relaces the Law and there is no iniquity for anyone to be held accountable for.
     
  9. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +222
    Protestant
    Single
    "Holy Writ" is old fashion jargon not exclusively referring to the Bible; your post here if truthful could be called a holy writ.
     
  10. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    Sorry but my reference to Holy Writ means exclusively what are called the Christian Scripture otherwise known as the Holy Bible. I have never heard it applied otherwise either.

    Well my post was truthful. Have no idea why you would suggest otherwise. Thanks for the elevated level of my posting, however I really do not like being called a liar.

    bugkiller
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2017
  11. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +222
    Protestant
    Single
    You have a problem; all I have suggested is the requirement for a writ to be holy.
     
  12. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    On what is it you base your opinion of me and my perceptions? What exactly are you calling my religion?

    Even Moses had to ask about the law given directly to him.

    Now you presume Jeremiah did not understand the word "new" he used in v 31. For your idea to be true Jeremiah had to use another word. The possibilities are chadash pronounced "khä·däsh'" and chadash pronounced "khä·dash'." One must look closely to see the difference. I know full well you disagree, but then since I have presented the same in a prior post on this thread without being discredited, you must discredit with something other than opinion.

    The text fully support the first word pronounced khä·däsh' equating with our English word "new" in the following v 32 -

    Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake...

    All three v 31-33 are all one sentence.

    The covenant being referred to is the one issued at Mt Sinai per -

    13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. Deut 4.

    To arrive at the conclusion you you present by ignoring v 31 and 32 the word khä·dash' meaning renew must be substituted.

    The phrase "not according to..." self defines the word khä·däsh' (new) as being a totally different covenant.

    With your position I fully understand the reluctance to discuss v 31 and 32. But then you also do not seem to understand the word "but" in v 33. In English this word means what follows is not the same.

    In the sentence of 31-33 the subject being talked about is covenant. That covenant issued on stone tablets at Mt Sinai is not moved from stone to the heart.
    I have no idea why you would bring up being judged for iniquity other than to imply I am committing iniquity. Maybe you should explain. We are talking about the covenant of law and the covenant based on better promises according to Heb 8.
    I think you do not understand the law of love in Jesus' new commandment found in Jn 13:34 or Mt 5:44 or LK 6:27.
    The new covenant fully abrogates the old covenant issued at Mt Sinai with Jesus' (God) own words in Jn 15:10 which talks about the contents in both covenants.

    bugkiller
     
  13. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +222
    Protestant
    Single
    You are right I am unable to agree with you on any point. I base my opinion of your perceptions on your posts; your religion is that the prophets do not know what they are saying, are murderers and thieves; and on one word "new" you cast out what God has established and replace it with the epistles of Paul and an imaginary new covenant.

    <<<Now you presume Jeremiah did not understand the word "new" he used in v 31. For your idea to be true Jeremiah had to use another word. The possibilities are chadash pronounced "khä·däsh'" and chadash pronounced "khä·dash'." One must look closely to see the difference. I know full well you disagree, but then since I have presented the same in a prior post on this thread without being discredited, you must discredit with something other than opinion.>>>

    Remember, it was you who said Jeremiah did not understand what he was saying and I presume you mean Jeremiah was dictating what God said. It is your interpretation/usage that I have a problem with. The word "new" could be replaced with a non-word like "dash" or even simply left out:

    Jeremiah 31:29-32 (NKJV)
    29 In those days they shall say no more: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.'
    30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.
    31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a dash covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
    32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.
    33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.


    Even though Jehovah speaks of new things the word new in front of covenant does not alter the meaning of what the Lord has said. On the basis of one word you gambol your salvation; on the basis of one word you cast out what God has established and replace it with a fictional covenant.

    Lets look at the covenant Jesus confirmed; The covenant is such that it can exist without anyone signing up. When people enter into the covenant it is enacted, or activated or initiated. The covenant first made with Moses was failed many times and restarted with a remnant that came out many times. This is the covenant that Jesus confirmed by fulfilling it; Jeremiah is talking about after the resurrection of the righteous Where a person will still be accountable for his iniquity; but it is still the completion of what God initiated at creation.
     
  14. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    Yeah your idea here is most likely based on hear say or at best Mal 3:6. No I have not replaced it with a covenant you refuse to accept and therefore have no salvation (eternal life) because the Old Testament offers no such thing. Only the New Testament offers salvation (eternal life). And that comes only through Jesus the Door - Jn 10. Besides that Jesus is quoted as saying the new covenant is current - LK 22:20 the one you left out for cause.
    You said -
    Jeremiah did not know what the new covenant would consist of. There are no details in Jeremiah except it would be "not according to..." You insist it would be like the covenant issued at Mt Sinai (the law) only moved. There is absolutely nothing to so indicate in Jeremiah. My idea does not hang on just one word as you suggest. It is firmly backed by the "not according to..." phrase. Jeremiah said exactly what God wanted him to say. Let's consider Heb 8:6-13 -

    6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

    7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

    8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

    9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

    10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

    11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

    12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

    13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

    Note the bolded blue.

    The he in v 6 is Jesus established by the context of the chapter. This new covenant is established on better promises opposed to law. The new covenant is not a bilateral covenant requiring things of both parties like the old covenant issued at Mt Sinai as witnessed by Deuteronomy 28. There is only a single thing to be done by the participant of the new covenant - believe as established by Jn 3:16 and 5:24. The rest of what happens to those in this new covenant is a result of being led by the Spirit and not the law - Gal 5:18. You do not have to believe what Paul says if you do not wish to. You must believe what Jesus says though.

    Other details of the new covenant you do not like are found in Jn 15:10 where the law is abrogated by Jesus (God the Son). We know that Jesus kept the law as required by Him being a Jew. Jesus self confesses this in 15:10. Jesus said keep His commandments. Jesus did not issue the 10 C's engraved on stone according to John in 1:17. It clearly states the law did not come by Him.

    Now if you wish to stick us with the law (commandments) here is God the Father's commandment of the new covenant -

    And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. I Jn 3:23.

    This above verse is very clear.

    Now I have a question fro you since you claim the prophets knew what they were talking about. Moses prophesied in Gen 3:15 about the Redeemer (Jesus). If Moses knew it was Jesus why did he not say so?

    bugkiller
     
  15. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    <snip> because I want to only address your last paragraph.
    Jesus did not confirm the law (old covenant). LK 22:20 is evidence of that fact. You have my sincerest regrets you refuse this better covenant based on promises.

    bugkiller
     
  16. heretoeternity1

    heretoeternity1 New Member

    14
    +1
    Christian
    Married
    The consecutive days of the week have never changed..still one to seven inclusive...the seventh day of the first week God rest, blessed it and sanctified, made it Holy...it is the only Holy day in the New Covenant of the Bible.
     
  17. Bob S

    Bob S Well-Known Member Supporter

    +928
    Christian
    Married
    Welcome to the forum. You have presented a positive post which seems to indicate that you know something that I surely do not know. Please give me some proof that what we call Sunday, the first day of the week as we describe it, was the first day of the creation week. The calendar the Israelite used was the moon and it was not on a seven day cycle. Where is there proof that Israel had a calendar like ours? Where is there proof that during time a day or days have been lost? I can give you proof that some so called Sabbath keepers on this Earth today are not worshiping on the same seventh-day that the people of Israel did at the time of the death of Jesus on the Cross.

    And please while you are at it show from the New Covenant where the seventh day is a Holy day. Remember the New Covenant did not start until it was ratified by the blood of Jesus at Calvary. Further yet in the New Covenant show me where any day is set aside and commanded to be the day we all should worship on.

    These are challenges no one else has been able to answer, so I patiently await your reply.
     
  18. bugkiller

    bugkiller Well-Known Member

    +2,590
    Non-Denom
    Where?

    bugkiller
     
  19. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +222
    Protestant
    Single
    Until now I hadn't read Malachi; but God does not change; if God changed He would lose His identity, His credibility and His name; nobody would know who He was; yet subjectively God changed when he became Jesus and again when born into the Kingdom of God; the covenant cannot change because God's covenant establishes God's identity, His credibility and His name.

    I believe that the OT offered eternal life:

    ""It's a good question. The answer would depend upon whom you ask.
    The Sadducees would say "no," the Pharisees would say, "Yes."
    Yeshua says, "Yes." See Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:16-19.""

    Matthew 19:16-19 (NKJV)
    16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
    17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
    18 He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,'
    19 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "

    Luke 10:25-28 (NKJV)
    25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
    26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"
    27 So he answered and said, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.' "
    28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."

    Jesus does not distinguish between OT AND NT old covenant and new covenant; the same requirements for eternal life are applicable to both.


    <<<6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

    7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

    8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: >>>

    The writer of Hebrews goes on to quote Jeremiah; neither Jeremiah or Hebrews are at odds with the narrative that I use; Jesus is a better mediator ; His blood is better than that of a bull;

    Hebrews 8:7 paraphrased: For if that first covenant had not been broken, then should no place have been sought for a second.


    <<<13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

    Note the bolded blue.>>> I presume had this been God speaking you would have used red.

    It is not known who wrote Hebrews; but along with the epistles of Paul, Hebrews is not considered to be a universal, ( google catholic epistles); Hebrews is considered to be a private communication between it's author and it's addressee; and therefore none of our business.


    <<<Other details of the new covenant you do not like are found in Jn 15:10 where the law is abrogated by Jesus (God the Son). We know that Jesus kept the law as required by Him being a Jew. Jesus self confesses this in 15:10. Jesus said keep His commandments. Jesus did not issue the 10 C's engraved on stone according to John in 1:17. It clearly states the law did not come by Him.>>>

    These scriptures do not abrogate anything; Jesus does not contradict Himself; consider who Jesus is talking to; Jesus may know that his audience is called and chosen; did you read verse 22; the new covenant is because we know the Law we have no cloak for sin; the false gospel of grace means because there is no Law there is on sin which is the opposite to what Jesus is teaching.

    Regarding Jn 1:17, I really am stunned that you would use this scripture to show something didn't happen; I can discern differences between the word of God and Jesus but had you read the first 16 verses of John 1 you would know:

    John 1:14 (NKJV)
    14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

    Maybe you think the word was not the God who gave the Law to Moses.


    <<<Now if you wish to stick us with the law (commandments) here is God the Father's commandment of the new covenant -

    And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. I Jn 3:23.>>>

    This is Malachi repeated you despise the Law and make excuses.

    I Jn 3:23, is John speaking as a pastor. For most part Jesus taught the Lost sheep of Israel who required salvation; not to those who were not lost, (and not Gentiles). Jesus gave instruction his church who were saved but not to the point of deleting anything established.





     
  20. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +222
    Protestant
    Single

    Obviously there is no point in my repeating myself; Jesus's presence or arrival on queue and the fulfilment of those things concerning Him in the Law and the Prophets,
    authenticates the OT and the OT authenticates Jesus; and you want to divide Jesus from the OT; the NT on the other hand has no authenticity other than to be the fulfilment of the OT and anything in the NT that isn't the fulfilment of the OT is not authorised such as Paul and Mohammed.

    Luke 22:20 (NKJV)
    20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

    This verse is not proof that something did not happen; confirming the covenant was the fulfilment of the prophesies confirming Jesus was the Messiah and the shedding of His blood as the Lamb of God since the foundation. What the above verse shows is the New Covenant is a blood covenant and you do not appear to appreciate the seriousness of a blood covenant.
     
Loading...