Do you observe the Sabbath?
- Thread starter Runningman
- 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.
N
I haven't read this thread, and I simply don't have the time to read it in order to know what others here have or haven't already said in response to your question.
At my end, I do "observe the Sabbath", in a very real sense, but probably not in a way that anybody else does, yet I believe that I'm doing so in line with what God's word teaches on the subject. In other words, the Sabbath was a shadow of things to come, per Colossians 2:16-17, and I believe that I'm observing the Sabbath in that I understand, from God's word, what the Sabbath foreshadowed, and I'm consciously living my life in line with that understanding.
I know that my answer was a bit vague, but I don't have time to elaborate more fully right now.
Colossians 2
16Let 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: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
At my end, I do "observe the Sabbath", in a very real sense, but probably not in a way that anybody else does, yet I believe that I'm doing so in line with what God's word teaches on the subject. In other words, the Sabbath was a shadow of things to come, per Colossians 2:16-17, and I believe that I'm observing the Sabbath in that I understand, from God's word, what the Sabbath foreshadowed, and I'm consciously living my life in line with that understanding.
I know that my answer was a bit vague, but I don't have time to elaborate more fully right now.
Colossians 2
16Let 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: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Okay I understand that. That's a common perspective, but I honestly don't think that's fully representative of what the chapter actually says.
Is the literal Sabbath a hollow and deceptive philosophy based on human tradition and elemental spiritual forces?
Colossians 2
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.
Is the literal Sabbath a human command/teaching, has the appearance of wisdom, is self-imposed worship, false humility?
Colossians 2
22These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
So the Sabbath doesn't fit into the context of what Paul was talking about. The Sabbath is from God.
I think what Paul is actually referring to is the food people were eating and dietary restrictions that were probably being pushed around:
On these festivals and Sabbath days, people would have been eating a lot.
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink...
21“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.
So I don't see Colossians 2 as a valid reason to reject the literal Sabbath.
Is the literal Sabbath a hollow and deceptive philosophy based on human tradition and elemental spiritual forces?
Colossians 2
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.
Is the literal Sabbath a human command/teaching, has the appearance of wisdom, is self-imposed worship, false humility?
Colossians 2
22These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
So the Sabbath doesn't fit into the context of what Paul was talking about. The Sabbath is from God.
I think what Paul is actually referring to is the food people were eating and dietary restrictions that were probably being pushed around:
On these festivals and Sabbath days, people would have been eating a lot.
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink...
21“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.
So I don't see Colossians 2 as a valid reason to reject the literal Sabbath.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
N
Your view is common, but I don't agree with it at all.
I'm not trying to be contentious. When I have more time, I'll address the verses that you quoted while offering you a totally different perspective on them that, I believe, totally aligns itself with rightly-divided scripture. Again, I'm not trying to be contentious. I simply don't have the time right now to elaborate, but I will find the time to do so eventually. Sorry.
I'm not trying to be contentious. When I have more time, I'll address the verses that you quoted while offering you a totally different perspective on them that, I believe, totally aligns itself with rightly-divided scripture. Again, I'm not trying to be contentious. I simply don't have the time right now to elaborate, but I will find the time to do so eventually. Sorry.
-
1
- Show all
In regards to Colossians 2:16, the words "ton sabbaton" or "sabbath days"; are the same words translated "Sabbath day" in Exodus 20:8 in the Septuagint.
Paul's reasoning, "Let no one judge you regarding a,
festival - yearly Sabbaths,
a new moon - monthly Sabbaths,
or a Sabbath day - weekly Sabbath
Christ, he goes on to say is the "Substance", these things were shadows.
When this passage is compared with Galatians 4:9 an obvious connection in Paul's teaching is revealed. "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years."
Verse 10 clearly states, "you observe...",
days (weekly Sabbaths, corresponding to "Sabbath days in Colossians 2)
months (new moons, corresponding to "a new moon" in Colossians 2)
seasons (the 7 feasts, corresponding to "festivals" in Colossians 2)
and years (the sabbatical year and the 50th year of Jubilee)
Obviously Paul is clearing speaking about the observances of all Jewish holy days, including the weekly Sabbath.
When God wants to refer to the whole system of Jewish holy days, rather than name them all, He would refer to the yearly, monthly and weekly as representing the whole system. SDA's argue that the Sabbath day of Colossians 2:16 is the years Sabbaths. But yearly Sabbaths were already referred to in Colossians 2:16 as "festivals." The "Year, Month, Week" pattern is well established in the Old Testament, so Colossians 2:16 does refer to the weekly Sabbath.
Yearly, monthly, weekly pattern proves it is the weekly sabbath
1 Chronicles 23:31 - Yearly (fixed festivals), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
2 Chronicles 2:4 - Yearly (appointed feasts), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
2 Chronicles 8:13 - Yearly (annual feasts), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
2 Chronicles 31:3 - Yearly (fixed festivals), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
Nehemiah 10:33 - Yearly (appointed times), monthly (new moon), weekly (Sabbaths)
Isaiah 1:13-14 - Yearly (appointed feasts), monthly (new moon), weekly (Sabbath)
Ezekiel 45:17 - Yearly (appointed feasts), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
Ezek 46:1-11 - Yearly (appointed feasts), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbath)
Hosea 2:11 - Yearly (festal assemblies), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
Galatians 4:10 - years, months, days (you observe days and months and seasons and years)
Colossians 2:16 - festival, new moon, Sabbath day
The order of "holyday," "new moon," and "sabbath" is a progression from the abolition of the yearly (holyday), monthly (new moon), and weekly (sabbath) Jewish festivals. Therefore the "sabbath" days does refer to the weekly sabbath. So the plural form of the word "sabbath" cannot be used to prove a reference to merely special ceremonial sabbaths.
The Greek of Exodus 20:8-10 - the giving of the fourth commandment itself utilizes the plural also found in Colossians 2:16; Leviticus 24:8; Numbers 15:32; Luke 4:16; and Acts 13:14 do as well, but reference is made to the weekly Saturday sabbath.
Paul's reasoning, "Let no one judge you regarding a,
festival - yearly Sabbaths,
a new moon - monthly Sabbaths,
or a Sabbath day - weekly Sabbath
Christ, he goes on to say is the "Substance", these things were shadows.
When this passage is compared with Galatians 4:9 an obvious connection in Paul's teaching is revealed. "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years."
Verse 10 clearly states, "you observe...",
days (weekly Sabbaths, corresponding to "Sabbath days in Colossians 2)
months (new moons, corresponding to "a new moon" in Colossians 2)
seasons (the 7 feasts, corresponding to "festivals" in Colossians 2)
and years (the sabbatical year and the 50th year of Jubilee)
Obviously Paul is clearing speaking about the observances of all Jewish holy days, including the weekly Sabbath.
When God wants to refer to the whole system of Jewish holy days, rather than name them all, He would refer to the yearly, monthly and weekly as representing the whole system. SDA's argue that the Sabbath day of Colossians 2:16 is the years Sabbaths. But yearly Sabbaths were already referred to in Colossians 2:16 as "festivals." The "Year, Month, Week" pattern is well established in the Old Testament, so Colossians 2:16 does refer to the weekly Sabbath.
Yearly, monthly, weekly pattern proves it is the weekly sabbath
1 Chronicles 23:31 - Yearly (fixed festivals), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
2 Chronicles 2:4 - Yearly (appointed feasts), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
2 Chronicles 8:13 - Yearly (annual feasts), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
2 Chronicles 31:3 - Yearly (fixed festivals), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
Nehemiah 10:33 - Yearly (appointed times), monthly (new moon), weekly (Sabbaths)
Isaiah 1:13-14 - Yearly (appointed feasts), monthly (new moon), weekly (Sabbath)
Ezekiel 45:17 - Yearly (appointed feasts), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
Ezek 46:1-11 - Yearly (appointed feasts), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbath)
Hosea 2:11 - Yearly (festal assemblies), monthly (new moons), weekly (Sabbaths)
Galatians 4:10 - years, months, days (you observe days and months and seasons and years)
Colossians 2:16 - festival, new moon, Sabbath day
The order of "holyday," "new moon," and "sabbath" is a progression from the abolition of the yearly (holyday), monthly (new moon), and weekly (sabbath) Jewish festivals. Therefore the "sabbath" days does refer to the weekly sabbath. So the plural form of the word "sabbath" cannot be used to prove a reference to merely special ceremonial sabbaths.
The Greek of Exodus 20:8-10 - the giving of the fourth commandment itself utilizes the plural also found in Colossians 2:16; Leviticus 24:8; Numbers 15:32; Luke 4:16; and Acts 13:14 do as well, but reference is made to the weekly Saturday sabbath.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
.
I agree that many/ or even all, old testament laws and practices were pointing to Jesus.
We have rest and peace in Jesus for sure. But to say Jesus fulfilled the sabbath rest so we no longer need to remember it, is a presumption. The bible doesn't say that.
How does the bible say Jesus is the end of the sabbath?
The seventh day is like a tithe of our time. Giving God 24 hours the way God has told us. Jesus is our constant spiritual rest.
How did Jesus replace "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.......wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Honour thy father and thy mother: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal.
People have made this rule (Jesus is the end of the law) so strong they don't even see that it isn't in the bible..
You said there is no further effort required on our part to keep the law or sabbath.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
I agree that many/ or even all, old testament laws and practices were pointing to Jesus.
We have rest and peace in Jesus for sure. But to say Jesus fulfilled the sabbath rest so we no longer need to remember it, is a presumption. The bible doesn't say that.
How does the bible say Jesus is the end of the sabbath?
The seventh day is like a tithe of our time. Giving God 24 hours the way God has told us. Jesus is our constant spiritual rest.
How did Jesus replace "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.......wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Honour thy father and thy mother: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal.
People have made this rule (Jesus is the end of the law) so strong they don't even see that it isn't in the bible..
You said there is no further effort required on our part to keep the law or sabbath.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
-
1
- Show all
You said ‘True faith results in producing works (James 2:14-18) and faith works by love. (Galatians 5:6)’
We’ll here is a look at Abrahams faith as he ‘loved‘ God long before Mount Sinai.
Genesis 26:5 this is God sharing with Issac concerning Abraham.
5. because Abraham obeyed Me and fulfilled his duty to Me, and kept My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”
We’ll here is a look at Abrahams faith as he ‘loved‘ God long before Mount Sinai.
Genesis 26:5 this is God sharing with Issac concerning Abraham.
5. because Abraham obeyed Me and fulfilled his duty to Me, and kept My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”
-
1
- Show all
Let me add to what you said “People have made this rule (Jesus is the end of the law) so strong they don't even see that it isn't in the bible..”
I believe you are correct. The reference, ‘Jesus is the end of the Law’ is found in Romans 10:4 however the English term that was used ‘end’ actually in Greek is ‘telous‘. The word actually means ‘goal’ or ‘objective‘. If the writer had meant ‘end’, he would have used the Greek term ’teleo’. So the translators got it wrong.
I believe you are correct. The reference, ‘Jesus is the end of the Law’ is found in Romans 10:4 however the English term that was used ‘end’ actually in Greek is ‘telous‘. The word actually means ‘goal’ or ‘objective‘. If the writer had meant ‘end’, he would have used the Greek term ’teleo’. So the translators got it wrong.
-
1
- Show all
The facts is that the sabbath was made holy before A Jew or gentile existed, and nowhere is that holy blessing removed.
You say I'm twisting it but the concept about the law only being for the Jews is a mental filter that distorts the way things are read.
No where is the holy sabbath made unholy, and just because the 10 commandments were given to the Israelites does not mean God doesn't want all mankind to practice them.
Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Made for mankink
Jesus was a Jew, born in Israel and under many israel customs and obligations.
Does that mean Jesus was only the saviour of Jews?
You say I'm twisting it but the concept about the law only being for the Jews is a mental filter that distorts the way things are read.
No where is the holy sabbath made unholy, and just because the 10 commandments were given to the Israelites does not mean God doesn't want all mankind to practice them.
Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Made for mankink
Jesus was a Jew, born in Israel and under many israel customs and obligations.
Does that mean Jesus was only the saviour of Jews?
-
1
- Show all
I have something else to add to this discussion.
Let me bring something to your attention. Let’s look at a couple of scriptures in Romans 14, I think adds to the Sabbath controversy which by the way was non-existent in the first century. What appears to happen here in the way of mistranslation is also found in the passages where the Sabbath is concerned. We can look at later.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure;
First of all, Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul’s writings are difficult to understand and oftentimes his words have been twisted to say what he didn’t say. How much more so if the translators mistranslated and didn’t translate correctly. Could it be our controversies over doctrines are not over what was originally said, but over the mistranslations?
First of all, in verse 14, the word Paul used ‘unclean’(Greek akathartos), is not in the original language. The term Paul used three times is ‘common’(koinon). This term is used to describe ‘ritual impurity’. It’s the same term God used to get Peter’s attention in Acts 10 to convey to him fellowship with Gentiles would not defile Jews. While we like to think the disciples were ignorant fisherman, unlearned I think the Bible says, they may have not risen to the level of the yeshiva academies, but Peters’s statement is clear. 14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” This implies from childhood, he has never eaten anything deemed ritually impure(Pharisees Oral Law) or ‘unclean’.(God’s written food Law). So these men were were not without learning.
By the first century the Pharisees had developed a custom that everything considered ‘food’ (bromatos) regardless of its kosher status, required the ritual of the washing of hands to purify it before eating.
Perhaps Paul is alluding to this controversy we find here in Romans 14. It’s the same controversy Jesus dealt with in Mark 7, Matthew 15 and with Peter in Acts 10. The controversy stems over the traditions of the Pharisees as they held great influence wherever the disciples went and here in Rome the people were judging one another and having disputes over who was right. It appears Paul could be dealing with several issues.
While we are not told exactly what the issue is, it starts out sounding like it could be about eating meats that have been sacrificed to idols. An issue all too familiar to Paul as he dealt with this in Corinth. His instructions there was to simply not ask. Still, the fallout of those arguing amongst themselves were causing some to doubt their faith. This was unacceptable. Another custom among the houses of Jewish thought were days of the week fasting should occur. According to the Torah, fasting occurred only on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonements) but by the first century, a custom of weekly fasting had developed with competing factions as to which days to fast on. Paul simply was saying let each become convinced in his own heart what day of the week he wants to honor the Lord with fasting. This has nothing to do with Sabbath. It’s about not becoming a stumbling block for your brothers whom you may think are weak because, in Christ, you should no longer be living for yourselves but for the building up of one another. An admonition for us as well today.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure;
Another mistranslation is found in verse 20. ‘Meat’ is not in the original Greek text. The Greek word is ‘Bramatos’ meaning ‘foods’ in general which harks back to the ritual washing of hands to purify that which is already kosher. In Mark 7, the disciples were eating ‘bread’ with unwashed hands, here it’s the sense of ‘foods’ being clean(kathartos) and foods should always be understood from a New Testament perspective that which God considered fit for consumption. God never called that which he called ‘unclean’ as being fit to eat. The ‘unclean’ from God’s eternal perspective was never considered food for his creation.
This I know will not convince everyone, but as we’ve seen in todays politics, if you say something long enough over and over, to the hearer, nothing else could possibly be true.
I don’t have an issue with you believing the food laws or the Sabbath has changed, you can explain that to God when you stand before him, but my issue is with using passages of scripture taken out of context to promote a doctrine.
Let me bring something to your attention. Let’s look at a couple of scriptures in Romans 14, I think adds to the Sabbath controversy which by the way was non-existent in the first century. What appears to happen here in the way of mistranslation is also found in the passages where the Sabbath is concerned. We can look at later.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure;
First of all, Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul’s writings are difficult to understand and oftentimes his words have been twisted to say what he didn’t say. How much more so if the translators mistranslated and didn’t translate correctly. Could it be our controversies over doctrines are not over what was originally said, but over the mistranslations?
First of all, in verse 14, the word Paul used ‘unclean’(Greek akathartos), is not in the original language. The term Paul used three times is ‘common’(koinon). This term is used to describe ‘ritual impurity’. It’s the same term God used to get Peter’s attention in Acts 10 to convey to him fellowship with Gentiles would not defile Jews. While we like to think the disciples were ignorant fisherman, unlearned I think the Bible says, they may have not risen to the level of the yeshiva academies, but Peters’s statement is clear. 14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” This implies from childhood, he has never eaten anything deemed ritually impure(Pharisees Oral Law) or ‘unclean’.(God’s written food Law). So these men were were not without learning.
By the first century the Pharisees had developed a custom that everything considered ‘food’ (bromatos) regardless of its kosher status, required the ritual of the washing of hands to purify it before eating.
Perhaps Paul is alluding to this controversy we find here in Romans 14. It’s the same controversy Jesus dealt with in Mark 7, Matthew 15 and with Peter in Acts 10. The controversy stems over the traditions of the Pharisees as they held great influence wherever the disciples went and here in Rome the people were judging one another and having disputes over who was right. It appears Paul could be dealing with several issues.
While we are not told exactly what the issue is, it starts out sounding like it could be about eating meats that have been sacrificed to idols. An issue all too familiar to Paul as he dealt with this in Corinth. His instructions there was to simply not ask. Still, the fallout of those arguing amongst themselves were causing some to doubt their faith. This was unacceptable. Another custom among the houses of Jewish thought were days of the week fasting should occur. According to the Torah, fasting occurred only on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonements) but by the first century, a custom of weekly fasting had developed with competing factions as to which days to fast on. Paul simply was saying let each become convinced in his own heart what day of the week he wants to honor the Lord with fasting. This has nothing to do with Sabbath. It’s about not becoming a stumbling block for your brothers whom you may think are weak because, in Christ, you should no longer be living for yourselves but for the building up of one another. An admonition for us as well today.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure;
Another mistranslation is found in verse 20. ‘Meat’ is not in the original Greek text. The Greek word is ‘Bramatos’ meaning ‘foods’ in general which harks back to the ritual washing of hands to purify that which is already kosher. In Mark 7, the disciples were eating ‘bread’ with unwashed hands, here it’s the sense of ‘foods’ being clean(kathartos) and foods should always be understood from a New Testament perspective that which God considered fit for consumption. God never called that which he called ‘unclean’ as being fit to eat. The ‘unclean’ from God’s eternal perspective was never considered food for his creation.
This I know will not convince everyone, but as we’ve seen in todays politics, if you say something long enough over and over, to the hearer, nothing else could possibly be true.
I don’t have an issue with you believing the food laws or the Sabbath has changed, you can explain that to God when you stand before him, but my issue is with using passages of scripture taken out of context to promote a doctrine.
If we must keep the Sabbath, there is no logical reason why we mustn't also keep circumcision. Circumcision was a higher law than the Sabbath. Galatians explains why we don't need to keep any of the law - it is fulfilled in Christ. It focuses on circumcision, because circumcision was an even more fundamental law than the Sabbath.
I'm not saying circumcision is bad, or keeping the Sabbath is bad. What is bad is feeling that we are obligated to do these, when Christ has fulfilled the law already. We can't add anything to what He has already done. We are saved by grace alone.
Colossians 2:11 - 17
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: 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. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 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; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
I'm not saying circumcision is bad, or keeping the Sabbath is bad. What is bad is feeling that we are obligated to do these, when Christ has fulfilled the law already. We can't add anything to what He has already done. We are saved by grace alone.
Colossians 2:11 - 17
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: 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. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 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; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
I didn't expect you to accept that as an answer . Your question is hypothetical based on the premise "if" it were possible that a saved person..., of which the evidence you've presented as example is Judas, and that only circumstantial, but there is no way of verifying that he was ever saved.
-
1
- Show all
Precious friend, sorry to hear - I will pray for you; hope these encourage you:
GRACE Words for our infirmities
GRACE Words for our infirmities
-
1
- Show all
Just more meaningless Theology, signifying nothing. The "Sabbath DAY" has always been, and always will be sundown Friday, through Sundown Saturday.
One"educated theologian" calls Sunday the "First day", and another "Educated theologian", to make a different "Precious theological point". incorrectly calls it the "Eighth day".
IT'S THEOLOGY!!!! It doesn't have to make sense.
One"educated theologian" calls Sunday the "First day", and another "Educated theologian", to make a different "Precious theological point". incorrectly calls it the "Eighth day".
IT'S THEOLOGY!!!! It doesn't have to make sense.
Hebrews 4:9 is written to Christians, and possibly a Hebrew audience, I believe based off of numerous evidences we can look at later if you want.
Anyway, given that the author of Hebrews said the “Sabbath remains” then that means it remains. If you are thinking “Oh but the Sabbath is a work and my work can’t save” is a false pretense. Your faith requires action and obedience or it’s useless like James plainly said. Aside from that, Sabbath keeping is the height of not working.
Just read what the Bible plainly says. If you see someone who needs to quote a wall of scripture in order to change plain commands given to Christians then it usually means they’re wrong.
If the Sabbath remains, then it remains, if someone says it doesn’t remain then they’ve contradicted the Bible and they’re wrong. This simple.
The context is about a literal day of rest. It says nothing about Christ becoming your Sabbath. I sincerely hope that helps!
Hebrews 4
9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
Anyway, given that the author of Hebrews said the “Sabbath remains” then that means it remains. If you are thinking “Oh but the Sabbath is a work and my work can’t save” is a false pretense. Your faith requires action and obedience or it’s useless like James plainly said. Aside from that, Sabbath keeping is the height of not working.
Just read what the Bible plainly says. If you see someone who needs to quote a wall of scripture in order to change plain commands given to Christians then it usually means they’re wrong.
If the Sabbath remains, then it remains, if someone says it doesn’t remain then they’ve contradicted the Bible and they’re wrong. This simple.
The context is about a literal day of rest. It says nothing about Christ becoming your Sabbath. I sincerely hope that helps!
Hebrews 4
9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;