Sabbath truth arguements...

Darren:
"And what in the world does this mean?
Quote:
Come, knot together Hebrews chapter 6 properly!

GE:
It was an attempt (obviously not very succesful) at 'word-play'; the 'knot' is quoted. I wanted to say, 'knit Hebrews 6 together properly' and find it's real meaning. (Samuel Owen, whom you, Darren, has also answered: "Friend that is an abomination. Or do you knot understand Hebrews chapter 6. Well I guess not, not many do.")

 

This is what I actually said to Samuel. I was REFUTING him. I must admit, I don't see the connection between Hebrews 6 and this debate at all. If there is one, enlighten me.


This is what you said to me:

I'm lost because, I thought I already did that. Maybe you're getting and something, but I can't understand what.

 

Lte's forget it for the nothing it is, and go on with substantial things, seeing we're on the air at the same time; it's not often.

 

Darren:
"
Quote:
GE: But for worship, God demanded the Seventh Day, and gave the Seventh Day "for the good of man" Mk2:27-28.
For fellowship and rest perhaps, but worship is to be done EVERY day. Chuckle. I guess you miss spoke, or I'm reading wrong. Then again, fellowship is better done more than once a week as well.

Also, watch context, its actually 23-28:

23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" 25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Jesus was speaking of not being so rigid about the Sabbath, not what day it was on. "

GE:
Accepted!

You have opened an enormous subject. "Not what day it was on" in fact was not the point of contention! That point stood unmovable for ever. The Big 'Point' here was: You, who call yourself 'Jesus', You, come with claims only the God of the Sabbath is entitled!? This was The Issue! Do you think you are the LORD of the Sabbath, you, Jesus from Nazareth? You think you can come and play Judge of what transgression of the Sabbath is or is not? Where do you come from? You think you are come from God? To play Lord of the Sabbath Day? (which the Jews meanwhile thought they were!)

The whole drama was about Christ and His Divinity which the Jews did not believe, and Jesus, claimed! And the fact this whole diatribe went on around the Sabbath Day is precisely that which proves the Sabbath's Divine character; its undividable belonging and its inseparable honour of association with the Divine -- like No Other, day. This last mentioned aspect of the 'issue' comes as secondary yet as undeniable notwithstanding.

 

Do you watch Homestar Runner? Strong Bad would have a field day with your grammar and spelling. I don't mean to be rude, but please work on them, you're very hard to follow.

Anyway, I'm game. Aside from my "discussion" with Samuel, what do you think Hebrews 6 is talking about, and is it relivent?

Also, for a man like me, let me ask, what would you suggest I do? I normally have neither Saturday nor Sunday off, (I just got off work a little early today), and I have a very important job. I work defending the country, not just pushing computer parts or what not. I can't request a day off (most everyone here is Christian anyway, with a few exceptions). I get what I get. I worship God when I can.

 

GE:

Dear Samuel Owen,

Pardon me for saying, but I think you confuse Colossians with Galatians. It is the customary thing to do, so i understand how you could. But why? To what good? To refute the Sabbath? What good be in that? Or perhaps to defend Sunday-keeping? Can that be consistency? Or to say nothing, just to make it difficult for those who do not see things as Samuel Owen sees them?

 

To Darren, with my apologies!

Quoting Darren, "Strong Bad would have a field day with your grammar and spelling. I don't mean to be rude, but please work on them, you're very hard to follow. Anyway, I'm game. Aside from my "discussion" with Samuel, what do you think Hebrews 6 is talking about, and is it relivent?" :BangHead: (It's the first time I have used a smiley

 

Whoa! You posted before I could finnish a response!:type:

Anyway:

Might I point out, this is not the only time Jesus had a contention with the Pharasees about the Sabbath day. Actually, I can't recall any time when Jesus came out in support of rigid Sabbath observence. Each time He beat them down, pointing out their misappropriation of the value of the Sabbath. To Him, it was not more important than human life, or the ministry of God.

The date of the Sabbath wasn't even a side issue, I'm sorry. Not only that, but these passages about Jesus's arguements with the Pharasees promote a much less concerned view of the Sabbath.

True, it has even happened, that people have died for not observing the Sabbath (a bad time really, it was right after the Jews had refused to enter the promise land, might just have been a "last straw" scenario). But now the question is, does the Sabbath law, as it was then, still apply today? I suppose the answer is obviously no from both crowds, however, your crowd seems to think it still applies in some manner. Perhaps I'm simply unclear as to which manner this would be.

 

Darren:
"... what do you think Hebrews 6 is talking about, and is it relivent?"

GE:
No I don't think it is relevant (or "relivent" variant for 'not reliable'?). Not under the subject of the 'Sabbath-issue'' in any case!

 

Darren:
"Might I point out, this is not the only time Jesus had a contention with the Pharasees about the Sabbath day. Actually, I can't recall any time when Jesus came out in support of rigid Sabbath observence. Each time He beat them down, pointing out their misappropriation of the value of the Sabbath. To Him, it was not more important than human life, or the ministry of God. "

GE:

Ja, what you say is true; yet it is not the Main Truth. The contention was about Jesus as the Promised Saviour of His People before it was about human life per se. If not first Jesus was Who He claimed to be, human life in any case would have been left without hope or improvement, what eternal life! And because the Main Issue was Jesus' Divinity in these Sabbath-episodes, the issue had to have involved Divine Things. Now it is so that God for being God, laid claim on Divine Prerogatives of which His Sabbath Day was not the least in any respect! Whence the particularity of the, quote, "Seventh Day (being) the Sabbath: of, the LORD, your (The People of God, the Christian Church's), God." The definition and the determination - the appointment and designation - of which day is God's, never comes isolated; it always is given in the context of the Working God, the God, who chooses and elects and sanctifies and blesses the Seventh Day, "Because", "B-e-c-a-u-s-e, God", "G-o-d, the Seventh Day from all His Own, Works, Rested", "R-e-s-t-e-d."

 

On Hebrews 6 I meant relivent as in, having anything to do with the subject at hand. I try to speak plainly when I can, some mistaken it for a simple mind. I can play word games, actually I think I did in my debate on sin nature (different thread), but I usually try not to.

Also, Galations 6, which you asked about in regard to what Samuel might have meant, I don't see any relivence there either.

It discusses accountability and not being circumsized in order to boast of it.

I really have no idea where Sameul was going. If he made a qoute I would have looked for it, but he just spouted some holyer than thou attitude. Sorry but, "I'm smarter than you are" isn't much to go on.

Hopefully he'll clareify himself soon enough.

 

DAAA! I never know when you're gonna post, again I posted and now it looks out of context. Ah well, that just means this is getting lively, since we're both here.

Anyway, I remember those passages pretty well. For instance the man with the shrivled hand. "Which is lawful on the Sabbath, to do good or to do evil, to save life, or to kill?". (Mark 3: 1-6 context, man if I didn't have this nagging desire to show regard to context things would go a lot faster... course I wouldn't be as credible I suppose) Jesus wasn't talking about His own divinity. At best that was a side issue. Agreed, Jesus is divine, but that wasn't the subbject.

Also Matthew 12: 1-14. Actually, here His divinity is a prime issue according to the text. But still notice, the Sabbath was being taken down a notch, not up.

Also, Mark 1:21-34. Not a Pharasee vs. Jesuse moment, I realize, but again, you see how Jesus continued to work on the Sabbath, and not just a little either.

Also Luke 13: 10-17 This time, no mention of any divinity, aside from the miracle. Again, the purpose is to show the priorities of the Pharasees needed to be rearranged.

Also Luke 14: 1-6. Yea, this happened A LOT. Jesus did not put priority, it seems, on not working on the Sabbath. I see it not as dissrespect, don't jump to conclusions, but again, the text gives reason to lend LESS not more importance to the Sabbath.

There are actually more. We haven't covered John yet. But I'll stop here, since I'm sure my point is clear.

These passages actually say little to the subject at hand, only slightly supporting a position of less reverence to the Sabbath, but not exactly, seeing as that wasn't the point either.

I suppose the question is better posed, where does it say in the new testiment, since we all agree a new convenant was made and changed the law of the Sabbath, that the Sabbath still needed to be observed on Saturday?


Also, you don't need to spell things out for me, I know this stuff. Yes, Saturday is the Sabbath. I know, but that's not the point right now. The point is, what should be done about it N-O-W, how should we apply this T-O-D-A-Y... chuckle... why did you make me do that! It slowed me down! But I wanted to joke.

 

I have always found these lengthy, and generally in the end confusing to all - debates completely unprofitable. I really know better than to get involved in them, but sometimes do not do better.

I run an on the fly spell checker, the word "knot" was a typo that of course the checker did not catch, Since it is completely devoid of knowing the difference in usage, just correct spelling.

As for Hebrews 6, I guess its one of the most debated, and misunderstood chapters in the Bible (especially the first few paragraphs). I guess rather than trying to pick apart every little meaning, its better just to describe it in a lump statement.

It is especially directed at a Jewish audience, but has applications in other circumstances also. In essence it says after coming to the knowledge of the truth of the grace in Christ, to linger on the shadow of things to come (that is the old Jewish practices - Sacrifices, Feasts, Laws etc.). Not discerning the body of Christ, desiring to place yourself back under the law. That if you do so, there remains no further sacrifice for sin. You have fallen outside of the Grace of God.

This is a good example also, of those who would mix Grace with Law. In effect canceling the benefit of either. This was pictured in the parable of the old and new wineskins.

Now as I said, I am withdrawing my participation in this thread. It has gone far beyond any form of profitability. I only wished to explain my "knot" error, and try to clarify the use of Hebrews 6 here.

 

The more God on His Sabbath Day works for us, the more we on it can rest. When Jesus on the Sabbath makes the lame man walk, it is rest for that man to walk, and to have stayed lying down would have benefited him nothing. So our rest must mean our greater effort at working! That's salvation! The same infinitely magnified, is what it means for God to rest on His Sabbath Day, so that, when we read of "The exceeding greatness of His power which God worked", it must have God's Sabbath Rest implied. All the 'Sabbath-episodes' concentrate on this. That's how I understand them without exception. The Gospel is not a 'social gospel' - it's the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I criticised Samuele Bacchiocchi on his expostitions of the Sabbath-anecdotes, and asked him, Why, if every Sabbath-episode showed how Christ ministered to the good and improvement of man, would it not be just logical and consistent that the ultimate of Jesus' work for the good and improvement of man, His resurrection from the dead should have been the ultimate of Jesus' Sabbath works?

It looks to me Bacchiocchi also must have thought along the lines you are thinking, Darren, that every Sabbath-incident actually had to result in a little further degradation of the Sabbath instead.

The 'Who is not against Me is for Me'-principle does not seem to work in the case of the Sabbath, according to your thinking it seems.

 

And I would point out that I am not the one that placed the 4th commandment in the Ten commandments - God did.

I am reporting the facts -- not creating them.

I did not author the Ten Commandments - they are not "mine" to force on anyone -- for myself I simply choose to obey Law of God -- the Commandments of God as we find them in "The Bible".

Are you "quoting someone" here?

Where did you get that?

I choose to obey -- I notice that Jesus said "If you Love Me Keep My Commandments" and Paul argues that the "Commandments of God" -- Matter.

But that is not "me" making that argument at all.

I am just "noticing" what the Bible says.

Indeed the Law of "Freedom of choice" would say that we do not need to concern ourselves with the Law of God.

no question about that.

So this is "you telling me that I am committing abomination" to admit that the LAW of GOD -- the commandments of God - as spoken by God at Sinai -- belong to God and that I should obey rather than rebel against God?

interesting.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The Ten commandments do apply -- as James says "he who is guilty of one is guilty of all".

As for the 4th commandment being edited out of the Ten Commandments - not according to Isaiah 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall All Mankind come before Me to worship" speaking of the New Heavens and New Earth that we see in Rev 21:1-4.

However your point is correct - that is the question to be answered by each individual.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Samuel, I think you're the only one so confused. The rest of us are following eachother pretty well, but no one has any idea what you're talking about. Maybe if you actually quoted something I could help you out. Here's the first few paragraphs of Hebrews 6: splat

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so. 4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because[b]to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.


I have no idea what that has to do with what's being discussed here.

I was afraid you might think I was doing that. True, what I said stands, the passages do little more than support a less reverent view of the Sabbath, but I don't think it was truely the intent of Jesus to dishonor the Sabbath. He pointed out several times the natural work men still had to do on the Sabbath, read the passages again. Also, notice His emphasis on what is lawful on the Sabbath, good or evil?

It is absolutely not true that Jesus was saying the Sabbath unimportant, but pointing out the false emphasis thrown at it.

I'll just put it plainly. I don't think these passages are even relivent. Jesus hadn't died and risen yet, hence, the new covenant, was not in effect. Also, Jesus was not saying how important the Sabbath was or was not, actually I think He was trying to get the Pharasees to use common sense regarding it.

I believe Jesus was also acting as a model for us, not freeing people up from work. My good sir, if you see a crippled man on the street on the Sabbath, help him out, don't leave him. This is your human duty, despite the Sabbath.

Okay, first off, I have no problem with your Revelation quote, good context (yes, context can be just 4 verses, just not usually). However, Isaiah 66 and it are both speaking of an unfullfilled, as of yet, prophecy, hence, both are speaking in future tense of today. Might I also point out, Sabbath to Sabbath most likely meant, every day in between, as well. Please read things more carefully.

Also, yes, depending on situation, the law can apply differently. If the enemy attacked Isreal on the Sabbath, I'm sure they would have fougth them off. However, with out mitigating circumstances, we're discussing what should be the norm mostly. I did put forward circumstance need be considered and I stand by that, but I'd like to move on to what should be done simply, suspending unavoidable circumstances for the moment. For instance, thou shalt not kill... but I'll kill to stop a man from killing my sister. However there is a norm when such circumstances aren't present, that one should not shed another's blood.

 

The Divinity of Jesus the Point of Contention

The cities where Jesus ministered “repented not” in that they denied Jesus’ Divinity. “The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the leapers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is whosoever shall not be offended in Me. ... Then began He to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.” Mt11:5-6,20.

First in significance were not the beneficiaries of Jesus’ ministry; most important was Jesus and the Truth of Who He was. Jesus’ ‘mighty works’ were the prerogative of, and the possible for, no other than ‘The Mighty’, ‘Elohim’. The One who did those ‘mighty works’ and spoke those words of Life, indeed was the Mighty Yahweh, the God of Israel.

The Truth of Jesus’ Divinity was rejected from the beginning. While the people rejected John the Baptist’s prophetic announcement of the coming Messiah, they, like they “received not Elias which was to come”, received not the Messiah who was to come. “What went ye out for, to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet!” Mt11:9.

As stupendous an undertaking from a human point of view to try ‘prove’ Jesus’ Divinity is the Grand Theme of all the Gospel, as futile is it to try persuade another to accept will he not. Then to attempt with the extra factor of the Sabbath’s involvement, becomes double as difficult if not impossible. Easier rather is it to reason, What sense is in it the Sabbath-anecdotes of healings and disputes mention the Sabbath but it not further, emphasized and proved Jesus Divinity? Could the mention of the Sabbath be purely degrading and derogatory? Rather the opposite— were the Sabbath the point of contention! My argument is through the Sabbath’s being mentioned at all, over and above not being mentioned as in all the other incidences of Jesus’ works of life’s restoration and betterment, it received in the Gospels the Lord’s first claim upon it, and thereby received restoration and betterment as the healed and the hearers of the Gospel received restoration and betterment.

Then by having reserved by God for the Sabbath Christ’s resurrection from the dead, that day was favoured by its Maker above any and all other days, and was invested with sanctity and blessing as never before it had been invested with through the works of God upon it.

As Everett Harrison quotes James M. Robinson to have written, “(H)istory ... presented in its unity as the eschatological action of God, prepared by John the Baptist, inaugurated at the baptism and temptation, carried on through the struggles with various forms of evil, until in his death Jesus has experienced the ultimate of historical involvement and of diabolical antagonism. In the resurrection the force of evil is conclusively broken and the power of God’s reign is established in history.” (‘Introduction to the New Testament’, p 192)

Bring into play – as do all four Gospels – the Sabbath Day and its Divine Sanctity over against the Jews and their diabolical antagonism, and the stage has been set for the scene of the Great Controversy between Christ the Divine, and Evil the Antagonist of Christ’ Divinity— completed and closed with the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Therefore, No, by the involvement of the Sabbath Day in the disputes and battles between Jesus the Divine and the representatives of Evil, the Sabbath in no way was reduced in meaning, holiness, blessing, or divine origin and maintaining— for no moment was it given over to evil in the process. The Sabbath was elevated to a level of good and virtue like it never before received because God drew it in into his undertaking to redeem men from sin. The Sabbath was drawn in not only because it since creation has been the Day of God’s finishing of all His works, but it was drawn in, in order through Jesus Christ to have received eschatological purpose and end. Something happened to the Sabbath like something happened to mankind different from anything before or after. Both found their true reason for being; their ultimate creation; their everlasting Covenantal relationship. “Therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath Day” is not the abolishment of the Sabbath, it is its creation -- "the Sabbath was made"!

 

Darren:
"Okay, first off, I have no problem with your Revelation quote, good context (yes, context can be just 4 verses, just not usually). However, Isaiah 66 and it are both speaking of an unfullfilled, as of yet, prophecy, hence, both are speaking in future tense of today. Might I also point out, Sabbath to Sabbath most likely meant, every day in between, as well. Please read things more carefully. "

GE:
Isaiah 66 as far as I can see is a Messainic prophecy, and the 'Sabbath to Sabbath' part applies to the present Christian era, the Messianic Age. And it is undebatable that phrase means just what it says. 'And every day in between', is absolute nonsense. The whole of Christianity this very day would have kept the Sabbath, had the whole of Christianity not been misled by Sunday-worshipping.

 

Certainly Jesus was upholding honor and obedience to his own memorial of creation when we speaks of the "making" of both Sabbath and mankind.

"The Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not mankind MADE for the Sabbath". Jesus' reference to the "Making" of Both in Gen 1-2:3 is significant.

Also it can not be that the unfaithful disobedient rebellious Jews show "more honor and reverence" for Christ's own Sabbath than HE did - simply by ignoring the Law of God regarding love for others and "making stuff up" on their own as if their own Word was greater than God's. To me this gives no indication that their honoring of Christ's Holy day was greater than his.

Jesus argues from the "original intent" the original authority of the Sabbath memorial of HIS own creative works in makind mankind when He says "the Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not mankind MADE for the Sabbath"

Under the New Covenant the "Law is written on the heart" (Heb 8) and it is "Established" Rom 3:31. Not sure how that New Covenant would invalidate the words of Jesus in the Gospels.

Indeed this would be true both pre-cross and post-cross.

1. When Isaiah speaks of the New Heavens and New Earth in reference to the Sabbath -- He speaks of Sabbath that already has authority in Isaiah's day -- (something all agree with) and that it continues to have authority even going into the time of the New Heavens and New Earth.

2. When Isaiah uses the phrase "from Sabbath to Sabbath" instead of "daily" we have to take it in context to what Isaiah was doing at that time "from Sabbath to Sabbath" -- He was attending worship services. Using "his context" it appears to be clear.

3. Isaiah shows that God's stated intent, His scope for Sabbath as He states it pre-cross pre-NT -- is "ALL mankind". One can argue that it "in the OT God states that one day He will get this out to all mankind" but given that Jesus said "It was MADE for mankind" it appears to be "original intent"

in Christ,

Bob