quote:

ORIGINAL: mcleod

quote:

HardKnox
Do you suppose he might have included sabbath in another place? 2 Chron.36:20-21; Jer. 17:27; Lam.2:6; Is. 58; Neh.13:18;

2Chron. 36:20-21; the writer is talking about how the Babylons came and destroyed the city, temple and took the people and articles of the temple with them to their new home. Which was prophesied by Jeremiah, in fact you will see the words used seventy years, which is what Jeremiah said in his words.

Jer. 17:27; This where we need to try to understand what God is trying to achive with this and also in Isa. 58. If you will notice that God is always when talking about the day of rest he is talking about what the attitude of the heart of a man and woman. In Isa 58, through the prophet's voice it is stating when you get together. ( they seemed to have convocation down alright) They would get into quarreling, striking each other with the fist. They would not lift the yoke off anyones back and seem to just let widows and orphans to defend for themselves. They were as the prophet Ezekiel in 16; unconcern about others only looking out for themselves.
Sounds kind of like today and how the econony has gone in the wrong direction. People only concern of themselves and their wages and benefits.
So again when a person relies on God for their help and strength and become very humble. This is when you can then see truly, who is your rock of salvation.

quote:

I'm simply asking you to define what's wrong with it. Can you do that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardKnox

quote:

I'm simply asking you to define what's wrong with it. Can you do that?

Sure. Matthew 23. In short, Pharisaism was the doctrine of the Devil.

quote:

I assume, this is what Hardknox maybe referring to, when he says that phariaism is damnable. It's the addendums and subtraction to the Word of God/Commandment of God that they had that made void the God's word in the lives of people. Anything that makes void God's word is wrong.

quote:

It is postulated that the early messianic believers (while the temple was still standing) gathered for havdala, giving rise to meeting on the first day of the week.

If you look at the events in Acts 20,

Act 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.
Act 20:8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.
Act 20:9 And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead.
Act 20:10 But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said, "Do not be troubled, for his life is in him."
Act 20:11 When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left.


Do you really think Paul preached 24 hours? It is much more likely they broke bread for havdalah and he spoke through the night.

quote:

That was my thought also.

I Corinthians 16:2 (PNT)
On Saturday evening at the Havdalah service each of you must
now set aside for himself from his treasuries, from whatever he
would have gained, so that when I would come then collections
would not need to be made.

Footnote:
This service starts two hours after sundown Saturday evening to
make the transition from the holy Sabbath to the secular workweek.
See Havdalah in Glossary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: micahsixeight

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardKnox

quote:

I'm simply asking you to define what's wrong with it. Can you do that?

Sure. Matthew 23. In short, Pharisaism was the doctrine of the Devil.

I wanted Odeliya to tell me. She would have to cite thje first table of the law to define what's wrong with Pharisaeism and she insists that there is no first table of the law.

quote:

I'm sorry my post style offends you. Not purposely setting out to do this.

quote:

I'll clarify some of the terms I used in the previous posts.
How about Shema (Hear)
O-O
Yisrael-Israel
Adonai-Lord.....YHWH YAHWEH-LORD
Elohenu-our God
Echad-is one.

HalleluYah- Praise YAH. or Praise the LORD
Oral Law, Mishna, Talmud- Jewish commentaries, teachings, repetions, tradition
Brit- Covenant
Hadasha- New
Sabbath- the 7th day

quote:

The point I made in the above post is very clear. It's the point I want to be understood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: micahsixeight

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
...It's clear that the things Paul speaks about that we are to judge in the church do in fact still carry the weight of judgement within the church, while the worship laws do not. Very, very clear. Something definately changed.

I have never defended keeping the Sabbath. I agree with Paul; if someone wants to observe a holiday by not working, great! But observing special holidays is not (and must not be made to be) a requirement of the faith. But nowhere does Paul say that the 4th C is abrogated. I think Paul would be astounded that the topic is even being debated in the church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog

quote:

ORIGINAL: micahsixeight

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
...It's clear that the things Paul speaks about that we are to judge in the church do in fact still carry the weight of judgement within the church, while the worship laws do not. Very, very clear. Something definately changed.

I have never defended keeping the Sabbath. I agree with Paul; if someone wants to observe a holiday by not working, great! But observing special holidays is not (and must not be made to be) a requirement of the faith. But nowhere does Paul say that the 4th C is abrogated. I think Paul would be astounded that the topic is even being debated in the church.

Why do you use the word 'abrogated'? That is not the argument. The OT worship laws are simply no longer applicable, literally. They have not been abolished. The requirements of those laws have been fulfilled satisfactorily one time for all in the work of Christ, not abolished.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ichiban

From a Biblical stand point, I could care less the day the Sabbath was in the Bible. Saturday...Sunday...Funday...it's irrelevant to me. Instead, I evaluate what God is trying to tell me by telling me to rest once a week. It's not implied. He is commanding me to.

My answer as to why, is that He wants me for a day. As little to no distractions as possible. He wants me to rest in Him. So that I remember that 1. He is God and 2. he is bigger then the schedule of my week.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kelman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

It may seem clear to you that this is what Paul is talking about in (Col 2:16-17), but you have not clarified that to me. I showed you how I came to my conclusions, by using the context of the epistle. First, to not let anyone judge them on what they were eating and drinking,since it was different from what the general culture was consumming

.

Sorry that the references regarding the ceremonial practices the Hebrew Christians were attempting to lay upon upon the Colossians didn't clarify it for you. I, too, am using the context.

quote:

quote:

Second, regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day, which were not observed by general society, because these are a shadow of the things that were to come that remind us of the reality that is found in the Messiah. If you can do the same for your view point, then we can compare our differences and possibly come trulyclarify this matter for the both of us.

Perhaps you might better explain what you mean. It is precisely because of "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:" that we know Paul is speaking about the Hebrew Christians attempting to impose the OT ceremonial laws.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I don't see anything "simplistic" about Paul preaching on Sunday at Troas(Act 20:7), bringing our offerings "early in the week"(1Cor 16:2), Pentecost Sunday and all other evidences of the first-day Sabbath.

You are correct these are not simple passages, one needs to understand that many would choose to come together for the breaking of bread at sundown on what is called Saturday to end Shabbat and begin the first day of the week. (Acts 20:7)That is why Paul spoke until midnight when he planned on leaving the next day.

These are Christians here - disciples. It says very clearly they came together on the first day of the week, no doubt to celebrate the Lord's Table. The Syriac version actually translates "to break the Eucharist,". Clear indication, along with 1Cor 16:2, that the Sunday Sabbath was already well established.

quote:

ORIGINAL: micahsixeight

quote:

ORIGINAL: kelman
Nope, no mistakes. Funny, though, how you ignore the word "sign"...think about it. A sign points to something; and, in this case, the rest from physical labor pointed to resting from our own work concerning salvation.

What does a 'keep off the grass' sign point to? V. 14 declares, 'Therefore you are to observe the sabbath...' i.e, 'that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you' (13). Israel was already saved from slavery in Egypt.

quote:

quote:

What's your biblical evidence that the 4th must be a moral law?

It's number 4 of the 10 Commandments ; up until recently at least.

quote:

quote:

Wow....what a denial of some very clear passages found in Numbers 21....are you sure you even read them?

If Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Moral Law, we can look to His obedience to the law as demonstrative of perfect 4th C observance. He did not rest on the sabbath; He was, perhaps, more physically active on that day than any other.

quote:

quote:

This is not the physical rest commanded by God on the seventh-day Sabbath. It points to the NT Sabbath in which the Christian "delights" himself in the Lord and doesn't "do his own pleasure" - wash his car, go to a ballgame, etc. IOW, the Christian does the spiritual work of God - visit the sick, witness, study the Word, etc.

And how does this differ from the way Jesus observed the 4th C?

quote:

quote:

quote:

To overlook the immutability of the 4th C as an inseparable part of the Moral Law is to miss its biblical significance and necessitates re-writing God’s word. To ignore the promise of sanctification connected to 4th C observance is to attempt to ‘run the race’ in the flesh. An attempt that history shows us, can lead to apostasy and idolatry

This seems to be somewhat long on opinion....short on biblical evidence.

What part?

quote:

Have you read any of SpongeBlogs (and his 'camp's') posts?
Plus, I can see how dismissive most Christians are of the 4th C. At least where I live.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: kelman
Sorry that the references regarding the ceremonial practices the Hebrew Christians were attempting to lay upon upon the Colossians didn't clarify it for you. I, too, am using the context.

Do not tell me you are using context, show me the context.

quote:

quote:

These are Christians here - disciples. It says very clearly they came together on the first day of the week, no doubt to celebrate the Lord's Table. The Syriac version actually translates "to break the Eucharist,". Clear indication, along with 1Cor 16:2, that the Sunday Sabbath was already well established.

Disciples of whom?

quote:

Also, what is "the Lord's Table"? Did this not occur at Passover?

quote:

1.For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;
2.That their hearts might be comforted , being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
3.In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
4.And this I say , lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
5.For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
6.As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7.Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught , abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8.Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9.For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10.And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11.In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12.Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13.And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14.Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15.And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly , triumphing over them in it.
16.Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17.Which are a shadow of things to come ; but the body is of Christ.
18.Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen , vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19.And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered , and knit together , increaseth with the increase of God.
20.Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances ,
21.(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22.Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23.Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: micahsixeight
If the first table no longer applies, it's been abrogated. You are describing abrogation. If something 'was' but no longer 'is', it has been annulled or abrogated. You can't say the first table exists if it it no longer applies. It must be either applicable or abrogated. You cannot have it both ways.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: micahsixeight
If the first table no longer applies, it's been abrogated. You are describing abrogation. If something 'was' but no longer 'is', it has been annulled or abrogated. You can't say the first table exists if it it no longer applies. It must be either applicable or abrogated. You cannot have it both ways.

The first table does apply. And we learn from the NT how the righteousness of the first table must exceed the mere outward righteousness of the Pharisees (the righteousness of mere written words). Do you know what it means to be more righteous than the mere externals of law keeping? I've shown you how this righteousness that exceeds the law is accomplished in a non literal way.

I've given you hard Biblical evidence to prove how the requirements of a written OT law can be fully and legitimately satisfied in a 'not so to the letter of the law' way. And a way that actually replaces the literal letter of the law. You have to show me in the Bible how just the fact that a law is safely tucked away in the big 10 that it is insulated from being replaced by a higher spiritual fulfillment that satisfies the requirements of that written law, such as happened to the laws of animal sacrifice for sin and circumcision. Your opinions are fine, and they are respected, but they mean little if 1) you have no Biblical support, and 2) other Biblical evidence actually undermines your opinion.