The Unanswerable Questions (Extended)

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

sparkman

Guest
#81
OK I am not sure I understand what you're saying but hopefully you aren't a Judaizer who thinks people who don't keep the Saturday Sabbath are unsaved or spiritually inferior to those who do.

Well first and once again like I said the observance of the Sabbath day under the new covenant is different then the observance in the old covenant.

Second the moral aspect of what the priests did under the old covenant in why they were not held guilty of breaking the Sabbath was because they were doing Gods will. Those who do and take care of their own needs on the Sabbath is the ones who were guilty of breaking it, not those who were doing God's will and deeds on the Sabbath.

Lord Jesus reflected this in the previous scriptures I gave, that doing anything while serving God on the Sabbath is not breaking it. Jesus says He requires mercy not sacrifice, meaning have mercy on others and not seek out to punish them.

The other thing is that the Sabbath was not a day of worship but a day of rest, as we are to give everyday to God.
This does not mean we do not neglect the gathering together because we are not to, but which day you choose to go to church rather it be Saturday or Sunday or even any other day is not what the Sabbath was about. Man changed it to that, as the scriptures show the Apostles gathered together on multiple days, but Sunday being the main day they did.

The moral aspect of the Sabbath is resting in the Lord, as His teachings show us and lead us with the help of the Holy Spirit a better and more peaceful way to live.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#82
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination. (proverbs 28:9)

Does this also apply to individuals who treat older men with disrespect, like you treated Marc?
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#83
OK I am not sure I understand what you're saying but hopefully you aren't a Judaizer who thinks people who don't keep the Saturday Sabbath are unsaved or spiritually inferior to those who do.

Well once again I would say making the Sabbath as either a Saturday or Sunday worship day was done by man, not God's word.

The Sabbath was a day of rest that was on Saturday, however like I mentioned the scriptures in the bible show that the Apostles met on different days and Sunday was the main one they did.
If you then take this with history of the early church you would see the Apostles used Saturday for bringing in new converts to the faith, and Sunday for the gathering together to worship.

There is nothing wrong with holding the Sabbath as a day of worship by going to church, but that was not the intent of the day nor does it matter if you worship on Saturday or Sunday or everyday. However Apostle Paul does show that some will esteem one day above others and some will consider all days alike (Romans 14:5), and says that neither is wrong as long as you are giving those days to God.

So sorry for the neigh sayers but there is no written command/rule in the bible to keep a Saturday worship day as the Sabbath in order for salvation. There is however still a command to have your Sabbath rest in the Lord by obeying His commands and teachings on how to walk in the faith...................As we rest from our works and walk by His ways !!!
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#84
OK I understand that.

By the way here's my understanding: Christians met in the synagogue on Saturday to hear Scripture read, and then they met on Sunday to discuss them from a Christian standpoint. In about 90 AD the Jews enacted the Eighteen Benedictions which were to be read by synagogue attenders and these basically cursed Christians. So, Christians were forced out of the synagogues and continued meeting on Sunday. Group meals were easier to prepare on a non Sabbath day.

By about 150 AD the majority of Christians were meeting on Sunday. This was long before Constantine. Some groups were meeting on Saturday, namely Judaizers, by the time of Constantine. Constantine's edict did not force them to stop meeting anyways...it simply required everyone to rest on Sunday. They were free to do what they wanted on Saturday although it might have affected their livelihood to have two days down.

At any rate, there's a lot of myths regarding the history of the move from Saturday to Sunday that are basically conspiracy theories. Part of them involve the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic Church was just one bishopric of about five during the time of Constantine and did not really exist yet as we know it. The first pope did not exist until about 550 AD.

The problem is that the Roma Catholic church made bold claims that they changed the day of worship, though. They were just claims. The Roman bishop was boastful and had low credibility in that regard anyways.

A lot of the Sabbathkeeping hype is based on a faulty view of Church history. I read quite a lengthy paper on this topic that my former fellowship produced if anyone wants the link. I think Seventh Day Adventists were the source of much of this faulty view of history.

Well once again I would say making the Sabbath as either a Saturday or Sunday worship day was done by man, not God's word.

The Sabbath was a day of rest that was on Saturday, however like I mentioned the scriptures in the bible show that the Apostles met on different days and Sunday was the main one they did.
If you then take this with history of the early church you would see the Apostles used Saturday for bringing in new converts to the faith, and Sunday for the gathering together to worship.

There is nothing wrong with holding the Sabbath as a day of worship by going to church, but that was not the intent of the day nor does it matter if you worship on Saturday or Sunday or everyday. However Apostle Paul does show that some will esteem one day above others and some will consider all days alike (Romans 14:5), and says that neither is wrong as long as you are giving those days to God.

So sorry for the neigh sayers but there is no written command/rule in the bible to keep a Saturday worship day as the Sabbath in order for salvation. There is however still a command to have your Sabbath rest in the Lord by obeying His commands and teachings on how to walk in the faith...................As we rest from our works and walk by His ways !!!
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#85
OK I understand that.

By the way here's my understanding: Christians met in the synagogue on Saturday to hear Scripture read, and then they met on Sunday to discuss them from a Christian standpoint. In about 90 AD the Jews enacted the Eighteen Benedictions which were to be read by synagogue attenders and these basically cursed Christians. So, Christians were forced out of the synagogues and continued meeting on Sunday. Group meals were easier to prepare on a non Sabbath day.

By about 150 AD the majority of Christians were meeting on Sunday. This was long before Constantine. Some groups were meeting on Saturday, namely Judaizers, by the time of Constantine. Constantine's edict did not force them to stop meeting anyways...it simply required everyone to rest on Sunday. They were free to do what they wanted on Saturday although it might have affected their livelihood to have two days down.

At any rate, there's a lot of myths regarding the history of the move from Saturday to Sunday that are basically conspiracy theories. Part of them involve the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic Church was just one bishopric of about five during the time of Constantine and did not really exist yet as we know it. The first pope did not exist until about 550 AD.

The problem is that the Roma Catholic church made bold claims that they changed the day of worship, though. They were just claims. The Roman bishop was boastful and had low credibility in that regard anyways.

A lot of the Sabbathkeeping hype is based on a faulty view of Church history. I read quite a lengthy paper on this topic that my former fellowship produced if anyone wants the link. I think Seventh Day Adventists were the source of much of this faulty view of history.

I have done some background history study on this topic as well, and found that the Apostles used Saturday as their main day of conversion. To bring in new converts into the faith, and then used Sunday to hold the gathering together for worship and study. As well as they met on other days of the week as well, in which the scriptures in the bible do show a little of this.

As for the Constantine changing of the Sabbath day, this is not a conspiracy theory or false teaching.
Yes there were divisions already that some worshiped on Saturday and some on Sunday before this point, but the issue with Constantine was that when he was converted by seeing a burning cross in the sky, he went to convert others to Christianity (Not Catholicism).
Constantine saw that those who followed him even after their conversion still held to some of their old customs, and one being to hold Sunday as their special day of worship. So instead of forcing new converts to switch to a Saturday worship causing a stumbling block to them, he let them keep their Sunday day as worship. Some take this to be part of that Catholic false doctrine teaching, however like I said before the Sabbath is a day of rest.
So worshiping on a Sunday instead of a Saturday is not heresy........................
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#86
Well, I can't speak for God, but He does make a distinction between sinning out of ignorance, and intentional sinning. And Jesus mentioned that some people who disobey the law and teach others to do so will be called "least in the kingdom of heaven". So it seems that many who don't obey the torah will be saved, and will learn of their error after their ressurrection.
Your threats mean nothing to me. I explained that "these commandments" is not talking about the Law. You are not paying any attention to context. The commands were related to the Sermon on the Mount. There's nothing I deny in the Sermon on the Mount.

You, on the other hand, are teaching falsehoods or attempting to, and your fruit doesn't show a converted person either. You are contemptuous of others and show obvious pride. Dishonoring MarcC despite his age is just one example of that.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#87
^ in responce to the comment about Jesus not keeping the sabbath, which he did.
It doesn't record that he rested on the Sabbath. I am not saying he did or he didn't. Attending services on Sabbath isn't the same thing as resting on the Sabbath.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#88
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, (Luke 4:16)


It doesn't say he rested, and the Sabbath was a commanded rest, at least for humans.

He was Lord over the Sabbath, though, and was the final authority on how to keep it anyways. And he never sinned.
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#89
Your threats mean nothing to me. I explained that "these commandments" is not talking about the Law. You are not paying any attention to context. The commands were related to the Sermon on the Mount. There's nothing I deny in the Sermon on the Mount.

You, on the other hand, are teaching falsehoods or attempting to, and your fruit doesn't show a converted person either. You are contemptuous of others and show obvious pride. Dishonoring MarcC despite his age is just one example of that.

If a person still believes all the 613 written Mosaic ordinances still apply today under the new covenant need to go read Acts 15 as this is the context of what is being talked about in this chapter by the Apostles. They deem that it is to much of a yoke to put on new gentile believers to have them keep all the Mosaic laws that they themselves are unable to keep.

Therefore in verses 20 and 29 they came to a conclussion of the only few ordinances that should still be kept; abstain from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, things strangled, and blood......

As for those who question this change, in verse 28 it shows that the Holy Spirit approved of this.
This now does not take away from the 10 commandments as those are still considered God's moral laws as well, and Paul shows these will be upheld by believers in Romans 13:9.

There is absolutely no scripture in the NT that says the written ordinances still apply to us, as the scriptures say they were done away with.
 

JGIG

Senior Member
Aug 2, 2013
2,295
167
63
#90
Hi called4christ. No, they aren't intended to cause confusion or division. Just to help people see that the whole bible is still true and directly relevent in our lives.

Saying that certain commandments of God no longer apply directly contradicts what both Jesus and Paul say in the NT.

As Peter warned in 2 Peter Chapter 3, ignorant and unstable people are attemping to twist Pauls words into something they aren't.




So do you make women in your house pitch a tent in the backyard and not come in the house for 7 days when the monthly cycle hits? DO you then make them go see your Pastor and he pronounces them clean, before letting them back in the house?
No, there aren't any levites in my neighborhood to do those special duties.

So the whole Bible is NOT still true and directly relevant in our lives???

There ARE certain commandments of God that no longer apply directly to our lives???

Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

And Levites have nothing to do with the separation laws (Niddah) for women during their monthly cycle. If there is an issue of blood outside of a woman's monthly cycle, then Levite priests got involved, but not for any of the day-to-day Law-keeping.

It appears that you don't know as much about the Law as you like to let on.

-JGIG
 

JGIG

Senior Member
Aug 2, 2013
2,295
167
63
#91
Usually, when you see the phrase "the place that the Lord chooses" it's referring to the temple in Jerusalem that was built by Solomon. The law was given before the temple was built. But as soon as it was finished, the Ark of the Covenant was kept inside it, and all sacrifices were done there.


2 The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the Lord.
3 Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father, only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places. 4 And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place. Solomon used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. (from 1 Kings)


So God allowed sacrifices to be made elsewhere when there was not temple.

Solomon made sacrifices - heck, he wasn't even of the tribe of Levi.

Do you make sacrifices as commanded in Torah?

If it was good enough for Solomon . . .

Remember, according to what you've been taught, "the whole bible is still true and directly relevent in our lives."

-JGIG
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#92
I tend to stay away from Hebrews 8:8-13. The reason is that most cannot understand the concept between the Aaronic priesthood ordinances and the instructions for the layperson, even if we are all of a royal priesthood, under the New Covenant. The other thing is to clarify the difference between the physical and their spiritual meanings concerning this scripture. It will be a forever battle, seeing there are many who claim salvation but cannot grasp this concept because of a carnal mindset.

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. Hebrews 8:13

Then one has to carry this statement into the 1st verse of next chapter.

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. Hebrew 9:1

Then go backwards to the 1st 6 verses of Hebrews 8, and put it all together, and then possibly some will see what the writer of Hebrews is actually referring to in Hebrews 8:8-13.

Hebrews 8:1-6
1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; [SUP]
2[/SUP]A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]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.
I'm not persuaded (yet); but I appreciate your approach.
 

JGIG

Senior Member
Aug 2, 2013
2,295
167
63
#93
@Joshua
I appreciate your concern, but we should probably just agree to disagree. I like keeping torah. It adds a lot of spiritual enlightenment to my life. I've been doing it for some time now, and it's not a hindrance at all. I don't mean any disrespect to you, or anyone who thinks those commandments are no longer in effect. This subject does tend to cause a lot of arguments, but I only want to approach it as a bible study.
But you are not keeping Torah Law as God gave it.

You are 'keeping' a law of your own creation.

-JGIG
 
Apr 25, 2015
95
0
0
#94
@JGIG

Any sacrifice done outside of the tent of meeting/temple would be sin. Notice:

"Say to them: 'Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to sacrifice it to the LORD must be cut off from the people of Israel." (Leviticus 17:9)

This is why sacrifices can't be done anymore. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed about 70 years after the death of Christ, and hasn't been rebuilt since. There are prophesies in Daniel that say it will be rebuilt one day. And in Zechariah, sparkman pointed out there is prophecy about sacrifices being offered during the millenial reign. So it looks like we will return to doing them at some point in the future.

By the way, Paul mentions in Hebrews that sacrifices were still being offered at the temple even after the death of Christ. I really don't see the whole "Jesus was the last sacrifice" thing in scripture. I think that's only if you're inserting your own interpretation into certain verses about sacrifices. Check this out:

"Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law." (Hebrews 8:4)

Hebrews 8 is usually where people go when they're trying to get the bible say we shouldn't do sacrifices anymore, because that chapter discusses Christ's role as out spiritual high priest. But you'll notice there is no specific verse there that plainly says "do not do sacrifices anymore."
 
Last edited:
S

sparkman

Guest
#95
Judaism as a whole was unsaved. Their behavior after the crucifixion wasn't relevant. Christian Jews did continue to follow some elements of the Old Covenant after the resurrection, but those things definitely did not earn, merit, continue, or contribute to salvation. And, they were not required for Gentiles. Otherwise we would have conflicts with Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews.

Galatians addressed the issue of Judaizers trying to force Gentiles to keep the Old Covenant laws. Colossians addressed a similar issue, which may have involved a group of Essene Jews as the things Paul addressed sounded like the errors of the Essene Jews. Hebrews addressed Jewish seekers or Christians who were starting to revert back to Judaism as a means of salvation.

By the way, Eliwood, you are very much in line with dispensationists in regards to your view of the Millennium so don't be too hard on them :D I personally would disagree, and would say that those verses decribe a return to true religion in a manner that Israelites could understand, though, and the main reason is the animal sacrifice references. It would be offensive to my conscience to do any type of animal sacrifice, as it would imply Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient. We level the same criticism toward Roman Catholics concerning the Eucharist, as in effect that seems to be sacrificing Christ over and over again.

All three of these books say a lot in terms of addressing legalism. I have purchased in depth commentaries on all of these books by John MacArthur due to this.

Acts 15 and Acts 21 are very interesting with regards to the Old Covenant. While Old Covenant laws were not expected for Gentiles to observe per Acts 15, Jewish Christians were observing the Old Covenant apparently, even circumcision, as Acts 21 indicates. Palestinian Jews were accusing Paul of teaching Diaspora Jews not to observe these things. Paul countered by observing Temple purification rites on his visit to Jerusalem so they could see he was still following elements of the Old Covenant. It's apparent from the interaction that these things were not required or expected of Gentiles.

Why were Jewish Christians continuing to observe elements of the Old Covenant? I am sure they knew these things were not connected to earning, meriting, continuing, or contributing to their salvation. Think about this, though. If I was a former Muslim living in a Muslim country, would it be a good thing if I went around with a ham sandwich and a beer in my hand? In order to be a good witness and evangelize to such individuals, I wouldn't do that. This would violate some of the principles Paul mentions in Romans 14 about offending others needlessly. You as a believer would not get to first base with them with your witnessing. Jewish Christians were in a similar situation. They continued to keep some elements of their former faith in order to reach their fellow Jews. In addition, they felt comfortable with the lifestyle.

Paul had Timothy circumcised for this very reason.








@JGIG

Any sacrifice done outside of the tent of meeting/temple would be sin. Notice:

"Say to them: 'Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to sacrifice it to the LORD must be cut off from the people of Israel." (Leviticus 17:9)

This is why sacrifices can't be done anymore. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed about 70 years after the death of Christ, and hasn't been rebuilt since. There are prophesies in Daniel that say it will be rebuilt one day. And in Zechariah, sparkman pointed out there is prophecy about sacrifices being offered during the millenial reign. So it looks like we will return to doing them at some point in the future.

By the way, Paul mentions in Hebrews that sacrifices were still being offered at the temple even after the death of Christ. I really don't see the whole "Jesus was the last sacrifice" thing in scripture. I think that's only if you're inserting your own interpretation into certain verses about sacrifices. Check this out:

"Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law." (Hebrews 8:4)

Hebrews 8 is usually where people go when they're trying to get the bible say we shouldn't do sacrifices anymore, because that chapter discusses Christ's role as out spiritual high priest. But you'll notice there is no specific verse there that plainly says "do not do sacrifices anymore."
 
Apr 25, 2015
95
0
0
#96
Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD. Blessed are those who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart--they do no wrong but follow his ways. (Psalm 119:1-3)
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#97
Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD. Blessed are those who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart--they do no wrong but follow his ways. (Psalm 119:1-3)
Agreed. Law = teachings. Blessed are all of those who follow all commandments that apply to him. :)
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#98
@JGIG

Any sacrifice done outside of the tent of meeting/temple would be sin. Notice:

"Say to them: 'Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to sacrifice it to the LORD must be cut off from the people of Israel." (Leviticus 17:9)

This is why sacrifices can't be done anymore. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed about 70 years after the death of Christ, and hasn't been rebuilt since. There are prophesies in Daniel that say it will be rebuilt one day. And in Zechariah, sparkman pointed out there is prophecy about sacrifices being offered during the millenial reign. So it looks like we will return to doing them at some point in the future.

By the way, Paul mentions in Hebrews that sacrifices were still being offered at the temple even after the death of Christ. I really don't see the whole "Jesus was the last sacrifice" thing in scripture. I think that's only if you're inserting your own interpretation into certain verses about sacrifices. Check this out:

"Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law." (Hebrews 8:4)

Hebrews 8 is usually where people go when they're trying to get the bible say we shouldn't do sacrifices anymore, because that chapter discusses Christ's role as out spiritual high priest. But you'll notice there is no specific verse there that plainly says "do not do sacrifices anymore."

Heb 9:22-28
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
KJV


Clearly the law requires a blood sacrifice for numerous occasions and situations and attempting to pick and choose which commandments you will obey is meaningless. The alternative, recommended by God, Himself; is to accept the fact that Jesus has already kept the law perfectly on your behalf; so that you may stand before God in Jesus righteous: since the Law, unless you keep it entirely and perfectly, offers you no righteousness of your own.
 
C

cigarman2015

Guest
#99
@eliwood what about circumcision this was also to be "forever" Romans 2 28-29 shows us how that has "changed" how is it that you can not see how the Sabbath and the law and all the things you listed as "forever are kept in faith in christ just like circumcision....every interesting
 
Apr 25, 2015
95
0
0
@Cigarman

That's what's known as "verse plucking". Quoting a random verse from Paul's letters (which Peter warned would be misused by the ignorant and unstable) and making up your own interpretation for it, instead of using the interpretation given.

Here's the scripture you just mentioned:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Just because Paul mentions "circumcision of the heart" you automatically assume that means we should throw away physical circumcision, even though the scripture says no such thing. That's unstability.

It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. (Luke 16:17)