Yes 1844 is unbiblical, but why abandon the Sabbath also ?

[Avonia]

I am a little confused, are you arguing for the Sabbath or against it? Thanks.

It's nice when you don't have to make that decision on the front end!

Senti's frame of reference is large enough to be inclusive of many "opposites."

Most dichotomies are about scope of view.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

nowhere in the command does it say that the Sabbath was merely given to them as a sign to remember their deliverance.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the sabbath was merely given to Isrealites as a reminder of creation.

Now here is the relevant point. Since we know that the sabbath was given to Isrealites as a reminder of the exodus, what would lead us to conclude that the sabbath was given to Israelites prior to the exodus?

BFA

 

[woobadooba]

Now here is the relevant point. Since we know that the sabbath was given to Isrealites as a reminder of the exodus, what would lead us to conclude that the sabbath was given to Israelites prior to the exodus?

BFA

You are asking the wrong kind of question.

Rather than asking what would lead us to conclude that the Sabbath was given to the Israelites prior to the Exodus, it would be more appropriate to ask the question of who the Sabbath was made for.

Jesus words should suffice to prove that the Sabbath wasn't merely made for the Israelites, but for all humankind:

"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27 NKJV)

 

[sentipente]

You are asking the wrong kind of question.

Rather than asking what would lead us to conclude that the Sabbath was given to the Israelites prior to the Exodus, it would be more appropriate to ask the question of who the Sabbath was made for.

Jesus words should suffice to prove that the Sabbath wasn't merely made for the Israelites, but for all humankind:

Wrong inference. The focus was much narrower but I can understand why you would choose to misinterpret the passage.

 

[woobadooba]

Wrong inference. The focus was much narrower but I can understand why you would choose to misinterpret the passage.

I am not 'choosing' to misinterpret anything.

In fact, there is no misinterpretation of the passage on my part because I am not attempting to exegete it; rather, I am disclosing that it can be used to prove that the Sabbath was made for man.

Are you denying this?

If so, then you aren't disagreeing with me, but with Jesus. For they are His words. Not mine!

So before you try to make libelous implications, you better make sure you got your facts straight! For you are essentially accusing me of intentionally misinterpreting the passage when I did not make any mention of attempting to interpret it within its given context.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Rather than asking what would lead us to conclude that the Sabbath was given to the Israelites prior to the Exodus, it would be more appropriate to ask the question of who the Sabbath was made for.

Per Exodus 16, 20, 31 and Deuteronomy 5, the answer to this question is unavoidable. It was given to Isralites. You may believe that it was given to other groups that had no affiliation with Israelites, but there is no Biblical basis for this belief.

Now, let's deal directly with my question, shall we? Why would we conclude that the sabbath was given prior to the exodus if the sabbath was given as a reminder of the exodus?

Jesus words should suffice to prove that the Sabbath wasn't merely made for the Israelites, but for all humankind:

Isn't it interesting that Jesus never actually said that, and that you merely claim that He did?

BFA

 

[woobadooba]

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. (Titus 3:9-11 NKJV)

 

[Byfaithalone1]

"To Timothy my true son in the faith: grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm." 1 Timothy 1

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Matthew 7:15
​

BFA

 

[sentipente]

So before you try to make libelous implications, you better make sure you got your facts straight! For you are essentially accusing me of intentionally misinterpreting the passage when I did not make any mention of attempting to interpret it within its given context.

This is 2009. Are we still playing the victim?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

So before you try to make libelous implications, you better make sure you got your facts straight! For you are essentially accusing me of intentionally misinterpreting the passage when I did not make any mention of attempting to interpret it within its given context.

What is being implied in this post: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50071952&postcount=87

Any chance we'll see a substantive reply to this post: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50071867&postcount=86

BFA

 

[dragNdrop]

It appears that the core- debate about the weekly Sabbath Day lies on whether the weekly Sabbath Day was part of the Ceremonial law. Please share your findings.

 

[sentipente]

It appears that the core- debate about the weekly Sabbath Day lies on whether the weekly Sabbath Day was part of the Ceremonial law. Please share your findings.

If you are correct, this would mean that we do or cannot know what comprises the Ceremonial Law.

 

[JonMiller]

Arguments go both ways. The fact that it is included with the 10 commandments is a strong suggestion that it wasn't part of the ceremonial law, as the 10 commandments are obviously a representation (given to the Israelites) of the moral law. This can be easily seen in that the later 6 (especially) are agreed on by people of all sorts of religious/philosophical backgrounds.

So the Sabbath commandment has good company. However, Tall pointed out that it isn't something that seems to arise from the conscience of others, which suggests it isn't part of the moral law possibly (however, is having no other gods before me something that arise from the conscience?).

It seems to me that it is part of the moral law. I think there has been studies that show that people are happier/healthier/more productive if they have a rest day once a week. It might very well be the case that the particular day doesn't really matter... however, if it does matter it is Saturday.

Note that just because it is a representation of the moral law doesn't mean that it is the best representation for our culture/etc.

JM

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Arguments go both ways. The fact that it is included with the 10 commandments is a strong suggestion that it wasn't part of the ceremonial law, as the 10 commandments are obviously a representation (given to the Israelites) of the moral law.

What is "ceremonial law"?
What is "moral law"?
Who coined these phrases?
Who defined them and how are they defined?
Upon what basis should we believe that the laws given to the children of Israel were divided into categories?

BFA

 

[djconklin]

The 10C are moral law as they are based on the moral principles to love God with all your heart, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself.

The ceremonial laws (with respect to the sacrifices and Temple rituals) came into play when the moral laws were violated and served as a type that pointed to Christ.

 

[JonMiller]

Paul said that the moral law was written on the gentiles hearts, so even if they did not know the law, they were still condemned.

Basically, the idea is that the ceremonial law is the directions of Israel as a people because that is what God needed them to do at the moment. And to point forward to Christ. An example is the unclean laws, those were to stop the spread of disease/etc. The moral law is different, in that it transcends any one group of people at a particular time. Now obviously, any communication is giong to be based on the people who are hearing it just as much as the person giving the communication.

That is why I said that the 10 Cs are a representation (an implementation) of the moral law given to the Israelites. Obviously, none of us today or the israelites 1000s of years ago understand God's law completely. We lack the ability to hear it and to understand it. But the 10Cs are an implementation of it given to the israelites. Jesus gave another implementation of it to His followers (The Greatest Commandment, and the second which is like to it).

I am sure that if God thought it necessary, that He could give another implementation of it today. As our background, understanding, and biases are different then those of 2000 years ago and 3000 years ago. However, that doesn't mean that the law has changed, rather, we have changed. The fact that He hasn't means that He doesn't feel that it is necessary for us to hear a more complete implementation (note that the one that Christ gave was pretty general).

JM

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The 10C are moral law as they are based on the moral principles to love God with all your heart, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself.

The ceremonial laws (with respect to the sacrifices and Temple rituals) came into play when the moral laws were violated and served as a type that pointed to Christ.

Upon what authority do you make such claims?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Paul said that the moral law was written on the gentiles hearts, so even if they did not know the law, they were still condemned.

Where can I find these words of Paul?

Basically, the idea is that the ceremonial law is the directions of Israel as a people because that is what God needed them to do at the moment.

If this is the definition of "cermonial law," then we must conclude that burnt offerings are not "ceremonial" for they were practiced during the days of Adam and Eve and did not originate with Israel.

And to point forward to Christ.

Who is our source of rest?

The moral law is different, in that it transcends any one group of people at a particular time.

Burnt offerings transcended any one group of people at a particular time.

So did circumcision.

Now obviously, any communication is giong to be based on the people who are hearing it just as much as the person giving the communication. That is why I said that the 10 Cs are a representation (an implementation) of the moral law given to the Israelites. Obviously, none of us today or the israelites 1000s of years ago understand God's law completely. We lack the ability to hear it and to understand it.

Have we been given One who does understand it? Is it not HE who convicts with respect to sin and righteousness and judgment (see John 14 and John 16)?

However, that doesn't mean that the law has changed, rather, we have changed.

Have any laws changed? Do you feel that God has called you to follow every God-given command set out in Scripture? Can any jot or tittle of the law pass if there are things that have not been accomplished? Can we conclude that some jots and tittles have passed but others have not?

BFA

 

[JonMiller]

Where can I find these words of Paul?

Paul said that (I paraphrased) in Romans.

If this is the definition of "cermonial law," then we must conclude that burnt offerings are not "ceremonial" for they were practiced during the days of Adam and Eve and did not originate with Israel.

Was Adam and Eve not looking for Christ as well? Burnt Offerings were introduced after sin came into the world.

The laws of which 'thou shall not murder' and 'thou shalt not steal' were all true before Adam and Eve sinned.

Resting is also true before sin, possibly? I agreed with Tall that the strongest point against the Sabbath being part of the moral law is that few seem to have it in their conscience. Except it is known that people are happier with a day of rest, so maybe it is ingrained in people afterall? (and it is known that 'thou shall have no other gods before Me' isn't particularly well ingrained in people's conscience either, so it isn't a great argument by Tall)

Have we been given One who does understand it? Is it not HE who convicts with respect to sin and righteousness and judgment (see John 14 and John 16)?

Look at Christians today, and 1000 years ago. It is quite obvious that most/all of them were not convicted with respect to a given sin at all times. This is even true of the Apostles! You can't say that it isn't a sin because the Holy Spirit hasn't convicted you of it at that given time. It is true that you should repent of the sins that the Holy Spirit convicts you of, and obviously can't do anything about that which He doesn't.

Have any laws changed? Do you feel that God has called you to follow every God-given command set out in Scripture? Can any jot or tittle of the law pass if there are things that have not been accomplished? Can we conclude that some jots and tittles have passed but others have not?

Quit building strawmen to attack. I haven't said or implied anything that you are implying there.

So has murder being wrong passed? Has theft? How about honoring your father and mother? As Paul said, it is the law that convicts us of sin. If there was no law, there would be no sin, and there would be no need for a savior. Obviously this is false, there is sin, there is the need of a savior, and so there is the law.

Why is the Sabbath commandment with the other 9 commandments that haven't passed away? Or is it suddenly OK to have other gods before God? Or to lie?

Should we sin just because God's grace is sufficient of us? Have you read Paul at all?

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Upon what authority do you make such claims?

BFA

Jesus Christ, see the first and greatest commandment.

For the ceremonial law bit, see again Jesus Christ, who said that he has come to fulfill. The law doesn't pass away until it has been fulfilled.

The burnt offerings obviously point towards Christ. Your claim that the Sabbath does, is only held by a few Christians in the last 100 or so years to argue against Sabbath keepers. The Christians have traditionally not included the Sabbath pointing towards Christ, and that includes the Apostles.

JM