1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Sunday Sermons

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by jacob62, May 7, 2005.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    It is interesting that the point of HEb 10 stopping all sacrifices and offerings is so explicit that even the Armstrong groups do not try to re-instate them.
     
  2. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's the point. That passage is a bit too clear for you to interpret away; else we would have groups still keeping sacrifices. Heb.4 is just as clear on what the sabbath is, only you don't recognize it.
    It APPLIES what originally referred to a physical rest to a SPIRITUAL rest! When it says "they shall not enter my rest", that wasn;t talking about a SABBATH. They were commanded to keep the sabbath, not refused as a punishment. The "Rest" is referring back the "the promised land" wafter the 40 years. We are not aiming to enter that piece of land now, so this is talking about something spiritual! And yet, it is tied to the "Sabbath". This shows, just like the passage on the feast, that the sabbath referred to there is now a spiritual thing. It is about ceasing from "workS", not physical work.
    But they were "commanded forever" too. The same argument you use to show that the weekly sabbath is forever can be extended to the annual ones. They are shadows of the plan of redemption, which is not yet finished. (The feast of tabernacles represents the Millennium, etc.) Hence, the Armstrongites and Sacred Name claims (who point out that you are using the same argument of those who do not keep the weekly sabbath).
    So if you acknowledge that the annual sabbaths were shadows, according to Heb. 10, why can't you see that the weekly ones are shadows of spiritual rest, in Heb.4. (In Col.2:16, both "feasts" and "the sabbath day" are called "shadows"!)
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Well lets see - Heb 10 ACTUALLY SAYS --


    "Takes AWAY the first"

    "NO LONGER remains offering for sins"

    By CONTRAST Heb 4 ACTUALLY SAYS

    "THERE REMAINS therefore Sabbath REST for the people of God" --

    The idea that one can EQUIVOCATE between "NO LONGER remains" and "REMAINS therefore" is a desperate reach showing how limited your position is here!

    You have highlighted the VERY POINT of weaknesss in your own argument!!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You "needed" Heb 4 to either say "There NO LONGER remains the 7th day Sabbath" or TO say "The 7th Day sabbath has ended in the form of an actual DAY and is now simply the saintly life devoted to Christ".

    (In Which case Christ's Matt 24 prayer for HIS church - HIS People AFTER the cross -- that they should pray that their flight NOT be on THE Sabbath or IN winter is meaningless!)

    The REASON you will never find that in the book of Hebrews is because in Heb 11 the author SHOWS the saintly lives of God's people in the OT ALREADY dedicated to Christ ALREADY in Christ, Sanctified, born-again giants of faith some of whom were translated without ever dying!!

    So NO change.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    You're forgetting the principle you quoted there in ch. 10 He takes away the FIRST in order to establish the second.
    That does not only apply to just the sacrifices; but rather the WHOLE system. That is the entire point of Hebrews, and the same principle is in ch.4. The principle of "rest" remains, but now it is spiritual, rather than physical. Just like a principle of "sacrifice" REMAINS for us today, only it was the one time sacrifice of Christ, which SPIRITUALly covers us, rather than us physically slaying animals. Same exact principle!
    And God says similar things about sabbaths along with sacrifices in Isaiah 1:11ff.

    You demand such a clear statement as that (dictating what the scriptures SHOULD say) before you admit a part of the Law is abolished, but the annual sabbaths do not have such a statement (which is why the Armstrong's and other still insis on them), but you admit them are abolished. Because they are called "shadows", but once again, both "feasts" (annual sabbaths) and "sabbath day" are called "shadow" in Colossians.

    Also, as I have learned more about the context of the immediate post-Cross NT situation, most Jews still kept the sabbath, especially as the Temple institution was still standing. The Christians were never told to leave the synagogues, but that they would be put out of them, which is something people did not want. I now believe that the preterists had a point in that the people then were in a transition period between covenants, so naturally, they would not want to have to flee on the sabbath, when they would be spotted and additionally persecuted by other Jews. You may say that this is prohecy still for the future; and while I believe there will most likely be a future dual fulfillment; some things could only possibly apply to them. Two verses earlier, He tells "them in Judea" to flee into the mountains. That is obviously not for us.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    On the contrary - I am RELYING on it! The quote in Heb 10 SHOWS a case of a COMMAND to sacrifice being ended. It is ended with EXPLICIT statements about ITS ENDING.

    It is not ended by "inuendo and inference of the reader as bias might lead them".

    The book of Hebrews relies heavily on QUOTING FROM the OT as VALID and AUTHOROTATIVE!

    You can't simply wave your hand over Heb 10 and wrench it from what it DOES say so that it deletes things IT NEVER MENTIONS as ended!!

    To do so is the purest form of eisegesis!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    That is the HOPE of those seeking ignore Christ the Creator's Holy Day.

    But it is NOT a quote of Heb 4!

    Not only that - it is a flat rejection of Isaiah 66 telling us that IN the Rev 21 "NEW EARTH" "ALL MANKIND will come before Me to worship FROM Sabbath TO Sabbath".

    Notice it does NOT say "ALL mankind will come beofore Me to offer ANIMAL sacrifices!!"

    But Suppose it DID! Suppose the Lord PREDICTED that in the NEW earth ANIMAL sacrifices would CONTINUE and suppose there was NOTHING in Heb 10 explicitly saying they had ended - but rather a statement saying "THERE REMAINS therefore ANIMAL sacrifices for the People of God"!

    I can assure you that if such were the case - we would be have a very different discussion here about animal sacrifices.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    This is a key point. I am CAREFUL to observe when God MAKES a commmand -- that HE is the one saying the COMMAND has ended - rather than simply reling on the "traditions of man" to say it FOR HIM!

    This IS the point of showing how the sacrifices are EXPLICITLY ended in Heb 10!!

    Notice that you use the term "ABOLISHED" for the LAW of God "written on the heart" under the New Covenant!

    It is certainly the case that the SABBATH is not ABOLISHED in the New Earth of Rev 21 for ALL MANKIND as we see in Isiah 66.

    But your view has God ABOLISHING the command then RESURRECTING it for ALL MANKIND in Rev 21!!

    That should tell you that the traditions of man are misleading you.

    The ANNUAL feast days have their ORIGIN in sacrifices. Christ the CREATOR's HOLY day has its ORIGIN in Gen 2:3 when it was "MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27 as a MEMORIAL of Christ the Creator's work in creation WEEK. Sinless man observing PURE Worship!

    When the sacrifices that CONSTITUTE the Annual feasts are gone - WHAT are you going to do ON the FEAST day?? The core has been removed. Go through Lev 23 and SHOW how the feast is kept WITHOUT the offering and sacrifice!! It is "gone".

    But even then Paul himself CONTINUES to keep those annual feast days. IN Rom 14 Paul argues that SOME people select ONE of those days ABOVE another and continue to observe it -- while others SELECT ALL of those days and continue to observe them. He shows that this is "ok".

    Nope - just the Annual Sabbaths in Col 2. They are the only PREDICTIVE services pointing FORWARD to redemption.

    The Gen 2:3 Holy Day of Christ the Creator is a MEMORIAL pointing BACK to creation week!

    Hard to miss!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Jews today STILL keep the Sabbath so "nothing new there".

    But perhaps you mean to identify the Jewish Christians - as in ALL the NT AUTHORS except Luke!!

    In that case - lets look at Acts 15 where these NT Jewish Christians - who "Attend the SYNAGOGUES" from Sabbath to Sabbath by your own admission -- say that the Gentiles will be instructed in scripture because "Moses is preached in the Synagogue EACH Sabbath".

    As you point out - we know that THEY were in that synagogue each sabbath throughout all the lands where they were dispersed. We also know from Acts 13 that even the GENTILES where in that synagogue if they were worshiping the ONE TRUE God!

    Given your "discovery" that ALL church leadership (ALL the Apostles) and ALL early Christians (NT Jewish Christians) along with GENTILES of Acts 13 ilk -- were ALL in the synagogues FROM Sabbath to SABBATH hearing scripture read -- what does this say about the "point" they are making (to this SAME effect) in Acts 15?

    It is says that James was arguing that gentiles were going to be instructed in scripture even WITHOUT being circumcised as JEWS so there was no need to extend that ADDEd requirement on them. (A requirement NEVER extended to gentiles in the TEXT of Moses or the OT)


    Very true. So in Acts 15 they are STILL in the synagogues AS James states -- every Sabbath! And THIS is HIS argument for NOT having fear that Gentiles uncircumsized will not be educated in scripture!

    A very good point given the fact that we SEE THEM being educated in the synagogue on Sabbath and "Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts 13.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    It is no more "innuendo and inference" than saying the annual sabbaths were shadows.
    Once again, it is shown in the fact that when it speaks of "enter my rest", it wasn't talking about a DAY they were commanded to keep, but rather a state they could be barred from. The "Rest" is referring back the "the promised land", and now, it is a spiritual state, and you can even add the future promised land. THIS is the "sabbath rest" that "remains" for us!
    Likewise, neither does it say "there remains therefore the Keeping of a sabbath DAY in which no physical work is to be done, by the people of God". I keep telling you that Isaiah was conditional on the OLD Covenant lasting, and God ruling through the physical people of the Covenant.
    The proof of this, once again, which you keep ignoring is that in v.21 the "priests and Levites" are included in this scenario! We do not see them in Rev., so you can't paste these passages together. Isaiah was the conditional picture of the new earth, while Rev. is the final picture of the new Earth in the NT.
    Paul uses the word in 2 Cor.3:13, and Eph.2:15. (I wasn't referring to the spiritual "law written on the heart", but rather the letter, as Paul is referring to).
    It is not the traditions of man. When I first came to Christ, I was in the sabbathkeeping movement. But then when I was shown Col. Gal. and other passages; I resisted for a while, but after studying it, I saw that those interpretations were right, and that much of modern sabbatarianism is one-upmanship--just finding an issue to cause division and exalt onesself over. (Just like Campbellism, KJVO, etc).
    They are still SABBATHS, and holy convocations. So you cease from work and have a religious service without the sacrificial trappings, just like you do on the weekly sabbath. The Armstrong and sacred name groups put the leaven out of their houses on that feast, and camp out in tabernacles on that feast. You continue to observe the days, realizing the the sacrifice is now spiritual.
    He does not say anything about annual days! Who kept SOME of them, but not ALL, amyway? You're making that up! On one hand, you demand 'explicit' language, but then you read your own implicit meanings into passages like this that are explicit!
    Col.2 mentions BOTH "a holy day"(feasts), and "the Sabbath".
    The annual holy days also point to the present and future aspects of the plan of salvation, once again. But if the spiritual application of those annual days means that they do not have to be kept, then the same thing applies to the weekly sabbath. We are looking forward to a NEW Heaven and Earth, not this old one that is passing away; nor the conditional one under the Old Covenant we see in Isaiah.
    That is what I meant.
    And I forgot to add that after the temple was destroyed, that would be the end of all of that. The synagogues would go on, but the temple and its rituals they were centered on would be gone, and the Jewish Christians would be completely freed from the pressure to keep the Law. That is one reason sabbathkeeping diminished by the end of the first century. (along with the reverse pressure from gentiles, becoming ant-isemitic, to not keep it).
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nope - just the Annual Sabbaths in Col 2. They are the only PREDICTIVE services pointing FORWARD to redemption.

    The Gen 2:3 Holy Day of Christ the Creator is a MEMORIAL pointing BACK to creation week!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Actually it meantions "Sabbaths" NOT "The Sabbath".

    The "Sabbaths" are the list of Lev 23 annual Sabbaths.

    It points out that these the ones that POINT FORWARD to the work of Christ's sacrifice. These are the annual Sabbaths of the sacrificial system "Shadows" pointing FORWARD to Christ.

    For example in 1Cor 5 we find this "Christ OUR PASSOVER has been slain"!

    We never find "Christ OUR SABBATH HAS BEEN SLAIN". The Slaying of animals is not metioned in Gen 2:3 NOR was it practiced then.

    It is not in Isaiah 66 "FROM Sabbath to SABBATH" in the NEW earth.

    And the slaying of animals is not part of the Exodus 20:8-11 COMMAND as spoken by God.

    Only the annual "SABBATHS" are rooted 'and ORIGINIATED' in animal sacrifices POINTING to the redemption of mankind. "Christ OUR PASSOVER has been SLAIN".

    You do not "SLAY" Christ the Creator's Holy Day given as a MEMORIAL of Creation. But you DO SLAY the "Passover Lamb"!!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In that case - lets look at Acts 15 where these NT Jewish Christians - who "Attend the SYNAGOGUES" from Sabbath to Sabbath by your own admission -- say that the Gentiles will be instructed in scripture because "Moses is preached in the Synagogue EACH Sabbath".

    As you point out - we know that THEY were in that synagogue each sabbath throughout all the lands where they were dispersed. We also know from Acts 13 that even the GENTILES where in that synagogue if they were worshiping the ONE TRUE God!

    Given your "discovery" that ALL church leadership (ALL the Apostles) and ALL early Christians (NT Jewish Christians) along with GENTILES of Acts 13 ilk -- were ALL in the synagogues FROM Sabbath to SABBATH hearing scripture read -- what does this say about the "point" they are making (to this SAME effect) in Acts 15?

    It is says that James was arguing that gentiles were going to be instructed in scripture even WITHOUT being circumcised as JEWS so there was no need to extend that ADDEd requirement on them. (A requirement NEVER extended to gentiles in the TEXT of Moses or the OT)

    Very true. So in Acts 15 they are STILL in the synagogues AS James states -- every Sabbath! And THIS is HIS argument for NOT having fear that Gentiles uncircumsized will not be educated in scripture!

    A very good point given the fact that we SEE THEM being educated in the synagogue on Sabbath and "Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts 13.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Synagogues would CONTINUE to hold services 'every Sabbath' as the Acts 15 statement claims. And in those services they would CONTINUE to read scripture.

    The NT Church would CONTINUE to HEAR the Word of God in those settings JUST as JAmes claims! "In the Synagogues"!!

    IN Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    NO!!! Those are the "feasts" or "certain holy days" mentioned there. The weekly sabbath can be pluralized, as well, so that does not make that the annual sabbaths.
    But it is Christ's being slain that brings us the spiritual rest and thus made Him our "sabbath". So the weekly sabbath pointed forward to Him as well, as He brings in a new Creation!
    Acts and James were not written after the destruction of the Temple in AD70! That was what I was referring to; when what remained of the Old Covenent would be ended for good.
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Col 2:16 refers to “SabbathS” plural that are the “predictive” SHADOW Sabbaths of Lev 23 pointing FORWARD in “sacrifices” to the death of the Messiah. Notice the point Paul makes of this in 1Cor 5 “Christ OUR PASSOVER has been SACRIFICED”. These SHADOW SabbathS point FORWARD and are based in animal SACRIFICE pointing to the death of Christ.

    Christ the Creator’s Seventh-day Sabbath “by contrast” is a MEMORIAL given in Gen 2:3 as THE Holy Day of worship for mankind “made FOR mankind” – without any reference at all to its origin being “IN ANIMAL sacrifice”.

    So the fact of the plural LIST of SabbathS given in Lev 23 combined with the SHADOW function (predictive function) of the annual SabbathS based in animal Sacrifices – identifies the object clearly in Col 2:16 as the Annual Sabbaths!


    Col 2:16 refers explicitly to judging one another (within the Christian group) regarding our observance of food and drink regulations, festivals, new moon celebrations, "or a Sabbath day". This is not a new sin that became sin only after the cross - rather judging one another was sin before anything was nailed to the cross (Matt 7:1-4). “Judge NOT that you be not JUDGED” a PRE-Cross violation regardless of whether it is ANNUAL or WEEKLY – the PRE-Cross rule was not to judge others on how well they observed it..

    Furthermore - Col 2:16 identifies the things about which they were judged to include the things of God - whose origin was in the word of God - his shadow (predictive) Sabbaths given in Lev 23. "things which are a mere shadow of things to come". That is, things which point not to present or past reality but to a future events that "belong to Christ". Things already given for the people of God - prior to Paul's day that pointed predictively toward the messiah when given.

    These annual feast days -- shadow Sabbaths -- point forward to a future event regarding the Messiah. But “the traditions of man” had turned these “shadow Sabbaths” into a kind of alternative to the Savior who died for our sins and paid our debt. Their judgmental spirit is condemned in the Matt 7 statement of Christ saying “Judge not that you be not judged” and Paul says that even after the cross – the spirit if judging was not to be tolerated. In Romans 14 Paul observes of these annual feast days "one observes every day and another observes one above another but all observe to the Lord" Rom 14,
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:Bob said --
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It points out that these the ones that POINT FORWARD to the work of Christ's sacrifice. These are the annual Sabbaths of the sacrificial system "Shadows" pointing FORWARD to Christ.

    For example in 1Cor 5 we find this "Christ OUR PASSOVER has been slain"!

    We never find "Christ OUR SABBATH HAS BEEN SLAIN". The Slaying of animals is not metioned in Gen 2:3 NOR was it practiced then.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You are attempting an "either-or fallacy". The issue is NOT that Christ can not be SLAIN if HE ALSO is the Creator and has His Gen 2:3 Holy Day.

    There is no such confict as you suppose in scripture!

    There is also NO statement in scripture saying "Christ is now our Sabbath".

    So you "make it up".

    Surely that would only work on someone who was already comitted to not honoring Christ the Creator's Holy Day of Gen 2:3. Making things up would not be "compelling" for someone not doing that already.

    Agreed?

    The point remains - those PREDICTIVE Sabbaths "shaddows of the sacrifice of Christ" were pointing FORWARD to the work of the Messiah WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN!

    But the Holy Day of Christ the Creator of Gen 2:3 HAD NO reference to DEATH or to SACRIFICE. It did NOT point Adam forward to a time when He would be redeemed from a sin he did not have!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Synagogues would CONTINUE to hold services 'every Sabbath' as the Acts 15 statement claims. And in those services they would CONTINUE to read scripture.

    The NT Church would CONTINUE to HEAR the Word of God in those settings JUST as JAmes claims! "In the Synagogues"!!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ARe you suggesting that we cut out the Gospels and the book of Acts AND the book of James???

    You are getting down to a pretty tiny Bible!! All for "Sunday"???

    There is NO statement in ALL of scripture saying that there was a change in covenant OR a change in LAW at the destruction of Jerusalem.

    The STATEMENT in ACTS 15 says NOTHING about the Temple - only the Synagogues.

    JEWS today STILL keep Sabbath in the Synagogues - NO change to the Temple -- affects that in any way!

    Which means that the UNIT of TEN that Paul identied in Eph 6 AND that James references in James 2 -- remains.

    Furthermore -- John writing long AFTER the temple is destroyed says of the SAINTS - in Rev 12 that these are they who "KEEP the Commandments of God".

    And of course Isaiah 66 points to the New Earth of Rev 21 saying that IN That NEW Earth - ALL MANKIND comes before God to Worship - FROM SABBATH TO SABBATH.

    No basis AT ALL for arguing a Sabbath-death takes place in 70AD.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    This all just points to the continued validity of D.L. Moddy's main argument for Sabbath!

     
  18. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    Neither does it ever say "Christ our unleavened bread has been sacrificed". Or "Christ our Pentecost has been sacrificed", or "Christ our Trumpets has been sacrificed", "Christ our Day of atonement" has been sacrificed", "Christ our feast of Tabernacles has been sacrificed", or "Christ our Last Great Day has been sacrificed". So if you are looking for a direct statement like that, then all of those other days must still be in effect.
    And that "memorial" was of this old Creation, which points forward to Christ the Creator's NEW Creation! It was not involved with sacrifices, because there was originally no Fall, which is what necessitated sacrifice in the first place. But not only did the Fall necessitate tha, it also corrupted this old Creation leading to the need for a NEW one! THAT is what we are looking forward to now; not back to the foundation of the old!
    You keep flatly ignoring that word "FESTIVALS" in there! The annual days were FESTIVALS. So you have them represented twice, as you try to force "sabbath" to refer to them as well with this "sacrifice" logic of yours.
    That is so ridiculous, and you are not even aware of what you were doing. If "judging" over these DAYS was forbidden before the Cross, then there was no way to enforce these days in the Old Covenant when they were in effect! That would mean they were never really in effect at all! In the OT, if someone broke these SABBATHS, they were to be judged, like with the weekly sabbath or any other law. You are really stretching things now!
    You lost me there. I don't get your point.
    "Come unto ME, and I will give you rest" (Matt.11:36). This sets the principle.
    We see above where you make things up. That "judge" argument would only work on someone already committed to hjudging others over days (rather than keeping them unti the Lord), so you must prove that that means something else, and is not what you are blatantly violating.
    I'm not arguing for Sunday. And who said anything about cutting out the books?
    No, but the Temple institution did enforce the Law over its people, including those who became Christians. When that system was removed, it was the final validation of the freedom they had in Christ. Remember, Christ did not tell anyone to leave the Temple. They may have been put out of it, but as long as it was there, the people still continued their practices. Even you once used as an example Paul having Timothy circumcized. It is the same thing with the sabbath. Once that system was gone, all of that was over. Of course, Christ-rejecting Jews would continue to try to keep the Law in their synagogues. (But without the Temple they could never keep all of it). But this no longer had any bearing on Christians.
    That does not say it is the same "commandments" as in the OC. John himself says "love" is the "commandment". (1 John 3:23, 4:21, John l3:31, 15:12)
    Once again, this has no bearing on us now. That is not the same New Earth as we are now promised.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is not a new sin that became sin only after the cross - rather judging one another was sin before anything was nailed to the cross (Matt 7:1-4). “Judge NOT that you be not JUDGED” a PRE-Cross violation regardless of whether it is ANNUAL or WEEKLY – the PRE-Cross rule was not to judge others on how well they observed it..

    Furthermore - Col 2:16 identifies the things about which they were judged to include the things of God - whose origin was in the word of God - his shadow (predictive) Sabbaths given in Lev 23. "things which are a mere shadow of things to come". That is, things which point not to present or past reality but to a future events that "belong to Christ". Things already given for the people of God - prior to Paul's day that pointed predictively toward the messiah when given.

    These annual feast days -- shadow Sabbaths -- point forward to a future event regarding the Messiah. But “the traditions of man” had turned these “shadow Sabbaths” into a kind of alternative to the Savior who died for our sins and paid our debt. Their judgmental spirit is condemned in the Matt 7 statement of Christ saying “Judge not that you be not judged” and Paul says that even after the cross – the spirit if judging was not to be tolerated. In Romans 14 Paul observes of these annual feast days "one observes every day and another observes one above another but all observe to the Lord" Rom 14,
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Let's look at the PRE-CROSS injunction against "judging others" that CHRIST gives in Matt 7.

    Paul condemns this same form of abuse in Col 2.

    Sin is "sin" in both OT and NT (as it turns out).

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Honor your Father and Mother.. which is the FIRST commandmente WITH a promise" Eph 6:3

    Which means that the UNIT of TEN that Paul identied in Eph 6 AND that James references in
    James 2 -- remains.


    Furthermore -- John writing long AFTER the temple is destroyed says of the SAINTS - in Rev 12 that these are they who "KEEP the Commandments of God".
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of your lists is "Quoted by Paul" in his quote of the 5th commandment. (But it is interesting that you would go to PRE-CROSS LISTS as in the case of John 13 and John 15 don't you think?)

    ALL translators/scholars SEE clearly that Eph 6 is quoting from the Ten Commandments - your "need" to avoid the obvious is certainly apparent but your results are conflicted at best.

    Paul says IT IS THE FIRST in that list WITH a promise. Did you think that Christ was BREAKING the Commandments up in the Gospels "pre-cross" with a NEW LIST that excluded the "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND"??

    Where is the commandment about taking God's name in vain?

    Your anything-but-Christ-the-Creator's-Sabbath approach is getting you into all kinds of self-conflicted statements.

    Try another approach.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
Loading...