The Unanswerable Questions (Extended)
- Thread starter Eliwood
- Start date
-
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.
K
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
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.
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.
K
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
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.
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.
K
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.
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
2 The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the Lord.
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
@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."
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
@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)
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)