sunday worship is it just tradition ?

  • 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.
Are you winning? If so, then I guess it is.

I suppose if people are not agreeing with you then they are not hermeneuticing this or exegeticing that. Seems a little one sided there.

I think we all should believe whatever is thrown out there so there will be harmony.

Most of the time, even Scripture cannot refute one's reasoning.

you fool. What does e.g. white comments, ignoring all of the man's arguments to try to discredit him by tying him to eg white, have to do with hermeneutics?

Some of you people, refuse to engage the arguments. You just try to look like you win some debate. If or IF NOT the man is seventh day adventist, doesn't change the fact the scripture says exactly what he said it says.

And the fact none of you could show his arguments to be flawed, and went to personal attacks pretty much proves my claim of abandoning hermeneutics for ad hominem.

fool[SUP]1[/SUP]
fo͞ol/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

  • 1.
    a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person.

verb
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

  • 1.
    trick or deceive (someone); dupe.



I use the word, literally. Not pejoratively. THIS is the behavior you just exhibited.
 
The Bible says things.

We should discuss the things it says.

If a person is catholic, atheist, agnostic, doesn't matter for what the Bible actually says.

If someone says it means one thing, we have the tools to determine if it could or could not mean that.

That is where the discussion should be.

NOT, "You are an e.g. white disciple" therefore you are wrong.
Which is exactly the same as, you are black so you are evil.
Or you dressed sexy so you are a wanton slut.
Or you are Indian so you can build a computer out of watch parts.

It's bigotry.

When you resort to bigotry, rather than sticking to the verses mentioned and hashing them out, in any social culture I've ever been part of, you cross a line.

It's seeming to be accepted, if not expected behavior here from some of you.
 
you fool. What does e.g. white comments, ignoring all of the man's arguments to try to discredit him by tying him to eg white, have to do with hermeneutics?

Some of you people, refuse to engage the arguments. You just try to look like you win some debate. If or IF NOT the man is seventh day adventist, doesn't change the fact the scripture says exactly what he said it says.

And the fact none of you could show his arguments to be flawed, and went to personal attacks pretty much proves my claim of abandoning hermeneutics for ad hominem.

fool[SUP]1[/SUP]
fo͞ol/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

  • 1.
    a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person.

verb
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

  • 1.
    trick or deceive (someone); dupe.



I use the word, literally. Not pejoratively. THIS is the behavior you just exhibited.

Some of you people? I have yet to speak to the man.

You are the one who is saying you want to harmonize Scripture, but all I see from you is an xian attitude. Perhaps, if you put Christ back into Christian then it won't look like you are cancelling out that we are to act like Him.

You say you used "fool" literally. Hum, so which one am I: silly or fooled? Since it is not pejoratively (belittling), then which one do you consider not to be belittling?
 
The Bible says things.

We should discuss the things it says.

If a person is catholic, atheist, agnostic, doesn't matter for what the Bible actually says.

If someone says it means one thing, we have the tools to determine if it could or could not mean that.

That is where the discussion should be.

NOT, "You are an e.g. white disciple" therefore you are wrong.
Which is exactly the same as, you are black so you are evil.
Or you dressed sexy so you are a wanton slut.
Or you are Indian so you can build a computer out of watch parts.

It's bigotry.

When you resort to bigotry, rather than sticking to the verses mentioned and hashing them out, in any social culture I've ever been part of, you cross a line.

It's seeming to be accepted, if not expected behavior here from some of you.
But, you have to practice what you preach. Otherwise, you are one of those people.
 
eCan you show me where he propped up E.G. White?

I can't find it.

Without it you are throwing a red herring and ad hominem, and flat out LYING about the man's character.

The sad thing is, that's perfectly typical on these boards, and often I've seen people be banned because they corrected someone and the lie was assumed correct.

IF he didn't say he was e.g. white supporter than my response is, "You are a good Xian boy aren't you. Preach GOD by hook or by crook. Lies, character slurs, implied error, anything you can, since you can't support your position in the bible."

If He did, I'd ask if she was so wrong, and he is so wrong, then why is it so hard for you to answer the issues and refute his claims?

Why did you resort to trying to discredit his arguments, by tying them to E. G. WHite?

You were inappropriate and out of line there. There are many of us who acknowledge a first day sabbath who could give a crap about e.G. white.

Why is it the faith is full of freaks that just assume if someone doesn't agree with them, they must be demonic or something, and make them as evil as they could to keep their argument whole? Why can't you discuss scripture. Hermeneutically get to an answer, rather than attack his character?

You are uncouth.


5zKXz.gif
 
He's not? Why do you lie that he is to try to make a point? Is this some sorta cult who has ganged up on the man and hope enough people saying the same lies will make them true?

go back and read the post.
you'll have to stop talking long enough to do it.

Errr......what was that other guy's name who kept saying errr....oh:rolleyes:
right.
 
go back and read the post.
you'll have to stop talking long enough to do it.

Errr......what was that other guy's name who kept saying errr....oh:rolleyes:
right.
That name seems a little reddish..... it is very reddish to stir people up.....
 
Remember our christian conduct or are ye those that bear the name of Christ but are dead ? , here is a words of edification 1.Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
 
He's not? Why do you lie that he is to try to make a point? Is this some sorta cult who has ganged up on the man and hope enough people saying the same lies will make them true?

I appreciate you sticking up for me. But it is ok, I trust that if there is anything I say accurate the Holy Spirit in others will see it and encourage that person to seek out who is right or wrong. I try hard to use scripture to interpret scripture with as many references as i can find. I assume we all have a Bible, and that anyone will see for themselves what the truth is.

What I care least about people insulting me instead of talking, is that it gets me riled too. It makes me sad to get upset with brethren no matter how justified I may be.
 
Gen. 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Gen 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

Mr 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

During Noah’s life, a seven day period was used as a marker of time by God, (Gen. 7:4, 10). Noah also used a seven day period to determine how often he sent forth a dove from the ark, (Gen. 8:12-14). Incidentally, “Noah” in Hebrew, means “rest”.

This weekly cycle is seen again being demonstrated to the Israelites, after their generations of pagan influences and separation from their God, (Exo. 16:23). It is later written for them by God, (Exo. 20:8-11). In both instances, it’s clear this weekly cycle is only contained within the Sabbath command itself.

John 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1 John 1:1 That which WAS FROM THE BEGINNING, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the WORD OF LIFE;
1 John 2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye HAD FROM THE BEGINNING. THE OLD COMMANDMENT IS THE WORD which ye have HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING.
1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING. If that which ye have HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING, that we should love one another.
2 John 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we HAD FROM THE BEGINNING, that we love one another.
2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING, ye should
walk in it.

1. The Sabbath was instituted and on the Seventh Day(Gen2:2,3).
2. Specific offerings were given, or they would be rejected, long before Sinai or Israelite(Gen.4:5).
3. Murder was a not allowed, before Sinai or Israelite (Gen.4:13).
4. The separation of unclean and clean meats was already known, before Sinai or Israelite(Gen.7:1).
5. Adultery was considered a sin, before Sinai(Gen.39:9).
6. The Sabbath was called a law and a commandment, before Sinai(Exo.16:28*).

*[He also states; "My laws and commandments", the plural for both which tells us several things.]

a. There was more than one law and commandment established prior to this statement.
b. These laws and commandments existed before Sinai.
c. The 7th day Sabbath was included in them.

It says the new heavens and new earth. So unless you are seeing something else, this is after all is said and done, this is eternity.

Do you not see the irony in your comment, about the passage title that was written by the people who printed your Bible or the translator?

Col. 2:4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

Col. 2:8 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.

Col. 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you…”

Col. 2:18 “Let no man beguile you…”

Col. 2:20 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,

Col. 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?

6 times within an 18 verse span Paul reminds who these ordinances belong to. This gives us no doubt as to the common root of the heresy that Paul was dealing with, they were the worldly doctrines of men. He is contrasting the authority of Christ in all these matters, with that of mans. And in response you quote an uninspired man who labeled your passage. That's irony for you.

I am doing the same thing the passage is telling you, believe God's word about the Sabbath, not man's. I do find it funny that even though the chapter explicitly repeats to trust only God on these matters they use it to try and prove manmade doctrine.

If you don't wish to discuss point for point then perhaps refrain from posting so many blatantly inaccurate pieces of info before you have done the homework. Scripture is a serious subject.



if people are not observing all things in the proper number and in the way prescribed for them, what exactly are they doing?

why are you offering burnt offerings and sin offerings since Jesus came?


Leviticus 23:2
"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'These are my appointed festivals, the appointed festivals of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies.

1 Chronicles 23:31
and whenever burnt offerings were presented to the LORD on the Sabbaths, at the New Moon feasts and at the appointed festivals. They were to serve before the LORD regularly in the proper number and in the way prescribed for them.

2 Chronicles 31:3
The king contributed from his own possessions for the morning and evening burnt offerings and for the burnt offerings on the Sabbaths, at the New Moons and at the appointed festivals as written in the Law of the LORD.

Nehemiah 10:33
for the bread set out on the table; for the regular grain offerings and burnt offerings; for the offerings on the Sabbaths, at the New Moon feasts and at the appointed festivals; for the holy offerings; for sin offerings to make atonement for Israel; and for all the duties of the house of our God.

~

Leviticus: Seedbed of NT Theology (by Elin)

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/57882-leviticus-seedbed-nt-theology.html < click



I appreciate you sticking up for me. But it is ok, I trust that if there is anything I say accurate the Holy Spirit in others will see it and encourage that person to seek out who is right or wrong. I try hard to use scripture to interpret scripture with as many references as i can find. I assume we all have a Bible, and that anyone will see for themselves what the truth is.

What I care least about people insulting me instead of talking, is that it gets me riled too. It makes me sad to get upset with brethren no matter how justified I may be.



how was that insulting? it wasn't meant to be. it's shocking to see the NT handled in this way.



you posted the "festival or a new moon or a Sabbath" passage by Paul in Colossians, and unless i'm misunderstanding you - you say they are NT commands for christians.

Colossians 2
16Therefore 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. 17These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,d puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

20If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22(referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.



but that would have him contradicting himself in Galatians, where the subject is without question the gentiles being led astray (ANOTHER GOSPEL) - by those who insisted they had to keep the Law of Moses:


Galatians 4
Sons and Heirs
1I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave,a though he is the owner of everything, 2but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Paul’s Concern for the Galatians
8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.


he is not anywhere telling those gentiles not turn back to the old pagan observances - their problem was they were turning to the Law!

- "In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world"

- "how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years!"

Galatians 4:10 Commentaries: You observe days and months and seasons and years. < click

there is no question what Paul meant in Galatians.

so, that's why i originally asked: if people are not observing all things in the proper number and in the way prescribed for them (specifically here - sabbaths), what exactly are they doing?

and this was a rhetorical question, following logically from the assertion that Paul was commanding observance of sabbaths: i.e: why are you offering burnt offerings and sin offerings since Jesus came?

...........

as for the connection with food:

Mark 7:19
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Romans 14:3
The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.

??

God bless each in their observances.

but please do not place a yoke on the believers the Apostles said they nor their fathers could bear:)

the Jerusalem Council settled this once and for all.

again - if ppl aren't observing those ordinances and laws as they were given....what are they doing?
 
there's not a single NT commandment in the epistles for Sinai sabbath. not one.
every other commandment is mentioned repeatedly.

why is that one totally absent?

please someone come up with something other than - it was a given.

that's been refuted by Paul in TWO letters already.
 
I appreciate you sticking up for me. But it is ok, I trust that if there is anything I say accurate the Holy Spirit in others will see it and encourage that person to seek out who is right or wrong. I try hard to use scripture to interpret scripture with as many references as i can find. I assume we all have a Bible, and that anyone will see for themselves what the truth is.

What I care least about people insulting me instead of talking, is that it gets me riled too. It makes me sad to get upset with brethren no matter how justified I may be.


Dont' take this personal, but it's not about you. It's about a pattern of behavior in the Church that is a festering boil on the faith. It's this high and mighty, judge first but smile and say God bless you and it's ok approach to things. When people put forth such examples, the people I witness to, see them and have all the reason they want to know the Church is fulla Skubalon.

I can't fix anyone, and I can't fix the church, but I can dang sure stand up on principle when I see something wrong. When you go to Christian forums, it's EXTREMELY difficult to find someone to discuss scripture to. Most are too afraid to be wrong to actually discuss. So when you tweak their faith, they get either hyper defensive, or hyper offensive, or passive aggressive.

From my side of the table that is what happened with you.

It is wrong.

Scripture says to call your brudder out.

I did.

It's principle.

Whether you said, or didn't say you were pimping E. WHIte is irrelevant really, but I didn't see you say it. What is relevant is that he used an implied association with her to discredit you, rather than address the argument.

That's ad hominem.

I'm pretty sure I remember that in the rules I read here. It was a public offense, and required a public rebuttal. (*or in SBC talk, rebuke)
 
Mark 7:19
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Mark 7:2-6, "And when they saw some of His disciples eating bread with defiled- that is to say, unwashed--hands, they
found fault. (Now the Pharisees, and the Yahdaim generally, never eat without washing their hands, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the marketplaces, they do not eat unless they wash. And many other traditions they observe, such as the ritual washing of cups, pots, bronze utensils, and beds.) Then the Pharisees and scribes asked
Him; Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"

Yahshua did not declare swine and vultures edible.

You are taking this out of context aka midrashic interpretation

The Talmuc perscribes one to pour water out of a silver pitcher 3 times on each hand and then thnk the "creator" for comminding this.

problem is Yahweh NEVER commanded this, it is a man made law, this is the burden.

Mark 7:7-9, "But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. For laying aside the Law of Yahweh, you hold the tradition of men! Then He said to them: How well you reject the Law of Yahweh, so that you may keep your own tradition!"

He wasnt changing Yahweh's dietary Laws He was checking the Pharisees on their man made law.
 
Dont' take this personal, but it's not about you. It's about a pattern of behavior in the Church that is a festering boil on the faith. It's this high and mighty, judge first but smile and say God bless you and it's ok approach to things. When people put forth such examples, the people I witness to, see them and have all the reason they want to know the Church is fulla Skubalon.

TannarDarr:)
dear friend....aren't you all over the web being high and mighty?
tsk tsk.
 
there's not a single NT commandment in the epistles for Sinai sabbath. not one.
every other commandment is mentioned repeatedly.

why is that one totally absent?

please someone come up with something other than - it was a given.

that's been refuted by Paul in TWO letters already.


WHY COME Christ defended the Sabbath REPEATEDLY vs the Pharisees teaching them HOW TO DO IT RIGHT if it no longer existed. :|

WHY do you take ONE line out of a covenant GOD wrote for man. That's like me going behind you and editing your posts and then calling you out for the errors YOU made when I wrote them in there.

Christ defended the Sabbath and how to do it right more... much more, than any other commandment was in the NT.

So, let's trust Jesus, and instead of spitting on it, try to do it right. God had a reason for it. Do you trust Him or not?

Let me ask you, if you were GIDEON would you call the men back, tell them to drop teh crock pots and bugles, and pick up swords and shields, simply because you didn't understand WHY you were told to do it as God told you?

Well, that is the equivalent to what happens when people rewrite the Sabbath Day rules.. The Jewish laws concerning the Sabbath/s are gone, we'll both agree. BUT THE SABBATH DAY was NOT A JEWISH LAW any more than THOU SHALT NOT KILL IS.

The Tablets were ONE covenant, not ten. Taking one out, screws the whole thing and tells God you wadded it up and threw it out the window.
 
TannarDarr:)
dear friend....aren't you all over the web being high and mighty?
tsk tsk.

Well, at least a sincere effort to keep things straight in an adult discussion is better than being catty, no?

I suppose that is your endorsement, to NOT discuss the points, but to make personal attacks as that was what I was against.

Aren't you a daisy.
 
Mark 7:2-6, "And when they saw some of His disciples eating bread with defiled- that is to say, unwashed--hands, they
found fault. (Now the Pharisees, and the Yahdaim generally, never eat without washing their hands, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the marketplaces, they do not eat unless they wash. And many other traditions they observe, such as the ritual washing of cups, pots, bronze utensils, and beds.) Then the Pharisees and scribes asked
Him; Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"

Yahshua did not declare swine and vultures edible.

You are taking this out of context aka midrashic interpretation

The Talmuc perscribes one to pour water out of a silver pitcher 3 times on each hand and then thnk the "creator" for comminding this.

problem is Yahweh NEVER commanded this, it is a man made law, this is the burden.

Mark 7:7-9, "But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. For laying aside the Law of Yahweh, you hold the tradition of men! Then He said to them: How well you reject the Law of Yahweh, so that you may keep your own tradition!"

He wasnt changing Yahweh's dietary Laws He was checking the Pharisees on their man made law.

yes i know about the ritual handwashing.


you're a gentile, aren't you?

Acts 15:28
The Letter to the Gentile Believers

27"Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

Colossians 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

please do not interfere with our Christian Liberty.
thank you.
 
WHY COME Christ defended the Sabbath REPEATEDLY vs the Pharisees teaching them HOW TO DO IT RIGHT if it no longer existed. :|

WHY do you take ONE line out of a covenant GOD wrote for man. That's like me going behind you and editing your posts and then calling you out for the errors YOU made when I wrote them in there.

Christ defended the Sabbath and how to do it right more... much more, than any other commandment was in the NT.

So, let's trust Jesus, and instead of spitting on it, try to do it right. God had a reason for it. Do you trust Him or not?

Let me ask you, if you were GIDEON would you call the men back, tell them to drop teh crock pots and bugles, and pick up swords and shields, simply because you didn't understand WHY you were told to do it as God told you?

Well, that is the equivalent to what happens when people rewrite the Sabbath Day rules.. The Jewish laws concerning the Sabbath/s are gone, we'll both agree. BUT THE SABBATH DAY was NOT A JEWISH LAW any more than THOU SHALT NOT KILL IS.

The Tablets were ONE covenant, not ten. Taking one out, screws the whole thing and tells God you wadded it up and threw it out the window.

Yep

YAHWEH =

"Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, But the bSeventh Day is the cSabbath of Yahweh your Heavenly Father. In iyou shall do no work."

Man =

“From this we may understand how great is the authority of the church in interpreting or explaining to us the commandments of God - an authority which is acknowledged by the universal practice of the whole Christian world, even of those sects which profess to take the holy Scriptures as their sole rule of faith, since they observe as the day of rest not the seventh day of the week demanded by the Bible, but the first day. Which we know is to be kept holy, only from the tradition and teaching of the Catholic church.” Henry Gibson, Catechism Made Easy, #2, 9th edition, vol. 1, p. 341-342.