Sabbath
- Thread starter geaux4it
- 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.
"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
"For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast."
The truth of salvation by faith vs. the works of the law, is settled in Acts 15:5-10
======================================================================
But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and declared, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” So the apostles and elders met to look into this matter.
After much discussion, Peter got up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you that the Gentiles would hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, showed His approval by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for He cleansed their hearts by faith.
Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke (the law) that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
================================================================================================
Attempting to perform the works of the law as a means of righteousness, was and is the error of Israel:
"What then will we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because their pursuit was not by faith, but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone"
We are saved solely through faith by trusting in Christ who shed His blood in payment for our sins and His resurrection. This puts our focus on the finished work of Christ. Those who want to obtain righteousness through the works of the law, it puts the focus on self.
We are under a different covenant. Does this mean that we have free reign to live according to the sinful nature? Not at all! Those who are truly in Christ are led by the Spirit and are being transformed into His image. However, when we fail at anything, if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness. We are not under the law.
"For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast."
The truth of salvation by faith vs. the works of the law, is settled in Acts 15:5-10
======================================================================
But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and declared, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” So the apostles and elders met to look into this matter.
After much discussion, Peter got up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you that the Gentiles would hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, showed His approval by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for He cleansed their hearts by faith.
Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke (the law) that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
================================================================================================
Attempting to perform the works of the law as a means of righteousness, was and is the error of Israel:
"What then will we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because their pursuit was not by faith, but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone"
We are saved solely through faith by trusting in Christ who shed His blood in payment for our sins and His resurrection. This puts our focus on the finished work of Christ. Those who want to obtain righteousness through the works of the law, it puts the focus on self.
We are under a different covenant. Does this mean that we have free reign to live according to the sinful nature? Not at all! Those who are truly in Christ are led by the Spirit and are being transformed into His image. However, when we fail at anything, if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness. We are not under the law.
-
1
- Show all
You read my post again and still did not see the truth???
JESUS is our Sabbath Rest - Jesus said : I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
We are under the command of God to obey His Sabbath Rest - anyone that refuses OR works on His Sabbath shall never see LIFE.
Undeniable PROOF
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. John 3: 16-18
Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you REST.
Matthew 11: 28
So would you say - what the Father sent the to accomplish, giving us REST, is not good?
Hopefully now you see and rejoice - Peace to you and blessing = JESUS the only Sabbath REST man can obey and find REST.
JESUS is our Sabbath Rest - Jesus said : I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
We are under the command of God to obey His Sabbath Rest - anyone that refuses OR works on His Sabbath shall never see LIFE.
Undeniable PROOF
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. John 3: 16-18
Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you REST.
Matthew 11: 28
So would you say - what the Father sent the to accomplish, giving us REST, is not good?
Hopefully now you see and rejoice - Peace to you and blessing = JESUS the only Sabbath REST man can obey and find REST.
Jocund,
The subject of this topic is whether or not the need for observance of the Sabbath is still included in the 10 commandments.
Romans 14 is one of the scriptures which is frequently cited as a proof text for supporting the idea that it isn't. You have mentioned Romans 14 a couple of times with regard to other issues. In other posts you seem to be suggesting that the Sabbath commandment is no longer in effect. Would you also use Romans 14 as support for that position?
The subject of this topic is whether or not the need for observance of the Sabbath is still included in the 10 commandments.
Romans 14 is one of the scriptures which is frequently cited as a proof text for supporting the idea that it isn't. You have mentioned Romans 14 a couple of times with regard to other issues. In other posts you seem to be suggesting that the Sabbath commandment is no longer in effect. Would you also use Romans 14 as support for that position?
Part 1
It doesn't matter how many times you deny Romans 14 being about fasting, you are "factually incorrect".... and nobody said that the topic of cleanliness does not extend passed dietary restrictions, what I was saying is that is not what the verse is doing here simply because that is not the topic of conversation.
You are doing the same thing with Romans 14 as many do with Mark 7. Rather then "unclean" referring to the actual topic being discussed (washing hands and other things before eating), it gets taken out of context and used to support breaking dietary laws.
Let's say I'm going to the beach with my girlfriend and we are shopping for bathing suits... She asks me which one to get and I give her my card and say "buy whatever you want". I wait for her in the car, and she comes out with a bag containing some some new expensive jewelry and no bathing suit. Of course the phrase "buy whatever you want" could refer to jewelry... it could refer to a new car, or anything else you want to apply it to.... But the topic of conversation was bathing suits, so it obviously was meant to be within that context.
I never argued that uncleanness is always ceremonial, and I don't know how you concluded that from what I said. I argued two things...
1. Context- The topic of conversation was fasting, and rather than the words just being applyed to that topic.... you (and many others) take certain scriptures out of that context to support breaking dietary laws, holy days, and/or sabbaths.
2. Translation- The word "unclean" in Romans 14:14 is referring to mans law, not God's law. It is a different greek word. So people were being judged here based off of man made rules, not what the Father ordained.
What was happening in Romans 14 is the same thing as the Pharisee's were doing with the man made laws they made up. In this case, people were just being judged off of when and how they fasted rather than them cleaning their hands well... or some other law the Pharisees came up with. Righteous judgment is not hypocritical, and is done according to God's law.... not by rules that man has made up.
I believe that the writings in the bible were "inspired" by God.... but there is a big difference between being inspired by perfection and being perfect. Let's just say Michael Jordan was a "perfect" basketball player... There's no such thing of course, but let's just say it was possible. I can attempt to model everything I do after him... work, study, practice as hard as possible... but me being human prevents the fruits of my labor from being "perfect". Inspired by something perfect does not mean the flawed person/people that are inspired, will produce perfect results.
Sure... and there are some of these interpretations that make sense, and others that are like someone is trying to force a round peg in a square hole. Example: Do you believe in scripture that Peter and Paul differed in their stances on circumcision?
Words mean things. We can not change the definition of the word infallible because we have faith. You yourself said the bible contained translation errors.... If something contains an error (regardless of type or amount), it is by definition fallible.
Faith by default is not intellectually dishonest... faith (trust/belief) can be supported by evidence. It becomes intellectually dishonest when it ignores the facts and its all emotional attachment to an ideology.
This doesn't seem to answer my question, maybe I can rephrase and you can as well... The original question was: Why would there be penalties for something that was impossible to do???
If I was a traffic lawmaker and I created a law that said if you run a red light you will have to pay a $300 fine.... how is it logical that I would make that law if it was impossible to run a red light??
I don't disagree with this statement, I just don't believe we have scriptures "truest form" today.
Just through translation alone you are going to loose out on a lot of that original message. Does this mean there wasn't an original "perfect" document? No... but this isn't what any of us are using today. I believe that the Father is infallible.... the bible is not. The Word of God is literally what He says... not what man has written about Him.
You can't change the definition of a word just because you are applying it to scripture. An error is an error.
If we are not dealing with logic/facts, everything is open to interpretation. This is why there are so many religions out there that can draw all these different conclusions from the same writings.
Faith is a beautiful thing... the problem is when it is not rooted in evidence.
It doesn't matter how many times you deny Romans 14 being about fasting, you are "factually incorrect".... and nobody said that the topic of cleanliness does not extend passed dietary restrictions, what I was saying is that is not what the verse is doing here simply because that is not the topic of conversation.
You are doing the same thing with Romans 14 as many do with Mark 7. Rather then "unclean" referring to the actual topic being discussed (washing hands and other things before eating), it gets taken out of context and used to support breaking dietary laws.
Let's say I'm going to the beach with my girlfriend and we are shopping for bathing suits... She asks me which one to get and I give her my card and say "buy whatever you want". I wait for her in the car, and she comes out with a bag containing some some new expensive jewelry and no bathing suit. Of course the phrase "buy whatever you want" could refer to jewelry... it could refer to a new car, or anything else you want to apply it to.... But the topic of conversation was bathing suits, so it obviously was meant to be within that context.
I never argued that uncleanness is always ceremonial, and I don't know how you concluded that from what I said. I argued two things...
1. Context- The topic of conversation was fasting, and rather than the words just being applyed to that topic.... you (and many others) take certain scriptures out of that context to support breaking dietary laws, holy days, and/or sabbaths.
2. Translation- The word "unclean" in Romans 14:14 is referring to mans law, not God's law. It is a different greek word. So people were being judged here based off of man made rules, not what the Father ordained.
What was happening in Romans 14 is the same thing as the Pharisee's were doing with the man made laws they made up. In this case, people were just being judged off of when and how they fasted rather than them cleaning their hands well... or some other law the Pharisees came up with. Righteous judgment is not hypocritical, and is done according to God's law.... not by rules that man has made up.
I believe that the writings in the bible were "inspired" by God.... but there is a big difference between being inspired by perfection and being perfect. Let's just say Michael Jordan was a "perfect" basketball player... There's no such thing of course, but let's just say it was possible. I can attempt to model everything I do after him... work, study, practice as hard as possible... but me being human prevents the fruits of my labor from being "perfect". Inspired by something perfect does not mean the flawed person/people that are inspired, will produce perfect results.
Sure... and there are some of these interpretations that make sense, and others that are like someone is trying to force a round peg in a square hole. Example: Do you believe in scripture that Peter and Paul differed in their stances on circumcision?
Words mean things. We can not change the definition of the word infallible because we have faith. You yourself said the bible contained translation errors.... If something contains an error (regardless of type or amount), it is by definition fallible.
Faith by default is not intellectually dishonest... faith (trust/belief) can be supported by evidence. It becomes intellectually dishonest when it ignores the facts and its all emotional attachment to an ideology.
This doesn't seem to answer my question, maybe I can rephrase and you can as well... The original question was: Why would there be penalties for something that was impossible to do???
If I was a traffic lawmaker and I created a law that said if you run a red light you will have to pay a $300 fine.... how is it logical that I would make that law if it was impossible to run a red light??
I don't disagree with this statement, I just don't believe we have scriptures "truest form" today.
Just through translation alone you are going to loose out on a lot of that original message. Does this mean there wasn't an original "perfect" document? No... but this isn't what any of us are using today. I believe that the Father is infallible.... the bible is not. The Word of God is literally what He says... not what man has written about Him.
You can't change the definition of a word just because you are applying it to scripture. An error is an error.
If we are not dealing with logic/facts, everything is open to interpretation. This is why there are so many religions out there that can draw all these different conclusions from the same writings.
Faith is a beautiful thing... the problem is when it is not rooted in evidence.
Part 2
If you have a different belief on that passage let me know, but it appears to me that Peter is saying that this twisting of Paul's writings is to be a common thing. My belief on what he is saying is by far the minority. Modern Christiany's interpretations of Paul is the majority.
Is it possible that I am the one who is misunderstanding Paul, sure... But my stance is that the majority of Paul's writings used to support a law that no longer applies are misinterpreted due to mistranslations, missing context, etc. (Romans 2, 3, 7, 14, Galatians 2, 3, Collossians 2, etc.).
If I am wrong about all of that and Paul is actually teaching that the first covenant laws are done away with, then I'm either also wrong about all the verses in the OT and in Mathew, Luke, John, Peter, James, Revelation, etc. that I believe teach that the law still applies, or Paul is a false prophet.
Heaven and earth give us our concept of time.... so "forever" and "until heaven and earth disappear" are the same.
Do you think its a coincidence that in Mathew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17 it says that the law applies until heaven and earth disappear and in Revelation 21:1 there is a vision of that time actually coming?
Sure you can renegotiate lease terms, but where in scripture does it say this actually happened?
Also, where does the Messiah say in the NT that these laws are new or that the first covenant laws no longer apply? I have pointed to where he says the opposite.
This is a complete strawman/misrepresentation of my position... and I have made this clear in many of my posts. Again my position is as follows:
The majority of Paul's verses that are used to push the ideology that the OT laws no longer apply are commonly misinterpreted in modern Christianity. This comes as a result of lack of understanding of the OT, scriptures taken out of context, lack of knowledge of the original language, culture, attachment to long held beliefs and traditions, etc. We have a warning of this taking place from Peter, but that warning does not carry much weight in the church.
My position is also that Pauls writings should not outrank any of the disciples or the writings in the law/prophets. So IF there APPEARS to be a contradiction between Pauls writings and other authors, I will not prioritize him over others. Ultimately though, I try to find at least two "witnesses" regarding a topic before coming to a belief on it in scripture.
Most of the bible is described not prescribed... however many people like to pull misc. verses out of context that supports how they want to live and apply it to their lives. Paul's writings for example were sent to specific people dealing with certain issues. This is not to say we can't get anything positive from them, but we are really reading someone else's mail.
What laws still apply? All laws given to mankind to carry out throughout their generations forever... From "Be fruitful and multiply".. to the dietary laws... the holy days... the ten commandments... etc. What doesn't apply are things like animal sacrifice. Why? Because that is an earthy penalty for breaking the law, not the law itself. The penalty was paid with the Messiah's body.
How does one observe the Sabbath? The simple answer is dont work, and don't allow others to do so in your home (Exo 20:8-11)... but of course we have the Messiah for clarification. How do you differenciate God's work from man's work? The Messiah gave healing, feeding the hungry and pulling an ox out of a ditch as exceptable examples, but he had a problem with buying and selling (money changers) being mixed with that which was holy (set apart by God). God's work is selfless... not materialistic or contains personal gain.
Set the day apart from the other days... get some rest from worldly things, maybe get out in nature, help your fellow man in need, some worship, study some scripture, some meditation, exercise (Just some ideas)....
None of us are going to get it perfect... we all fall short and require grace. But not trying is definitely not the answer.
The sabbath is not a commandment of man... but for man, sure. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion that the sabbath is a commandment of men.
I have addressed colossians 2 many times on here... no this passage is not about fasting specifically, but the same concept applies that people were being judged based off of man made laws, not the Father's law:
Colossians 2:20-22
20 If you have died with the Messiah to the basic principles of the world, why are you submitting to its decrees as though you still lived in the world? 21 “Don’t handle this! Don’t taste or touch that!” 22 All of these things will be destroyed as they are used, because they are based on human commands and teachings.
In many places in scripture there is a clear distinction between the commandments of men (human commands), and commandments of God. When the word "decrees" is used in scripture it is speaking of man's law. The people of Colossae were judging the believers who were trying to keep God's law... based off of their man made laws. That is the context.
Verse 16 in this chapter is also commonly misinterpreted in modern Christianity to mean the opposite of what it is saying. Part of the reason this happens is because of some minor translation issues with the grammar... but the people Paul was writing to were actually trying to keep God's law and being unrighteously judged by the people of Colosae and their doctrines.
If you have a different belief on that passage let me know, but it appears to me that Peter is saying that this twisting of Paul's writings is to be a common thing. My belief on what he is saying is by far the minority. Modern Christiany's interpretations of Paul is the majority.
Is it possible that I am the one who is misunderstanding Paul, sure... But my stance is that the majority of Paul's writings used to support a law that no longer applies are misinterpreted due to mistranslations, missing context, etc. (Romans 2, 3, 7, 14, Galatians 2, 3, Collossians 2, etc.).
If I am wrong about all of that and Paul is actually teaching that the first covenant laws are done away with, then I'm either also wrong about all the verses in the OT and in Mathew, Luke, John, Peter, James, Revelation, etc. that I believe teach that the law still applies, or Paul is a false prophet.
Heaven and earth give us our concept of time.... so "forever" and "until heaven and earth disappear" are the same.
Do you think its a coincidence that in Mathew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17 it says that the law applies until heaven and earth disappear and in Revelation 21:1 there is a vision of that time actually coming?
Sure you can renegotiate lease terms, but where in scripture does it say this actually happened?
Also, where does the Messiah say in the NT that these laws are new or that the first covenant laws no longer apply? I have pointed to where he says the opposite.
This is a complete strawman/misrepresentation of my position... and I have made this clear in many of my posts. Again my position is as follows:
The majority of Paul's verses that are used to push the ideology that the OT laws no longer apply are commonly misinterpreted in modern Christianity. This comes as a result of lack of understanding of the OT, scriptures taken out of context, lack of knowledge of the original language, culture, attachment to long held beliefs and traditions, etc. We have a warning of this taking place from Peter, but that warning does not carry much weight in the church.
My position is also that Pauls writings should not outrank any of the disciples or the writings in the law/prophets. So IF there APPEARS to be a contradiction between Pauls writings and other authors, I will not prioritize him over others. Ultimately though, I try to find at least two "witnesses" regarding a topic before coming to a belief on it in scripture.
Most of the bible is described not prescribed... however many people like to pull misc. verses out of context that supports how they want to live and apply it to their lives. Paul's writings for example were sent to specific people dealing with certain issues. This is not to say we can't get anything positive from them, but we are really reading someone else's mail.
What laws still apply? All laws given to mankind to carry out throughout their generations forever... From "Be fruitful and multiply".. to the dietary laws... the holy days... the ten commandments... etc. What doesn't apply are things like animal sacrifice. Why? Because that is an earthy penalty for breaking the law, not the law itself. The penalty was paid with the Messiah's body.
How does one observe the Sabbath? The simple answer is dont work, and don't allow others to do so in your home (Exo 20:8-11)... but of course we have the Messiah for clarification. How do you differenciate God's work from man's work? The Messiah gave healing, feeding the hungry and pulling an ox out of a ditch as exceptable examples, but he had a problem with buying and selling (money changers) being mixed with that which was holy (set apart by God). God's work is selfless... not materialistic or contains personal gain.
Set the day apart from the other days... get some rest from worldly things, maybe get out in nature, help your fellow man in need, some worship, study some scripture, some meditation, exercise (Just some ideas)....
None of us are going to get it perfect... we all fall short and require grace. But not trying is definitely not the answer.
The sabbath is not a commandment of man... but for man, sure. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion that the sabbath is a commandment of men.
I have addressed colossians 2 many times on here... no this passage is not about fasting specifically, but the same concept applies that people were being judged based off of man made laws, not the Father's law:
Colossians 2:20-22
20 If you have died with the Messiah to the basic principles of the world, why are you submitting to its decrees as though you still lived in the world? 21 “Don’t handle this! Don’t taste or touch that!” 22 All of these things will be destroyed as they are used, because they are based on human commands and teachings.
In many places in scripture there is a clear distinction between the commandments of men (human commands), and commandments of God. When the word "decrees" is used in scripture it is speaking of man's law. The people of Colossae were judging the believers who were trying to keep God's law... based off of their man made laws. That is the context.
Verse 16 in this chapter is also commonly misinterpreted in modern Christianity to mean the opposite of what it is saying. Part of the reason this happens is because of some minor translation issues with the grammar... but the people Paul was writing to were actually trying to keep God's law and being unrighteously judged by the people of Colosae and their doctrines.
