What do you do to keep the sabbath holy?

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sabbath "had meaning" without the "problem of the sticks" believe it or not.
Notice that in Exodus 20:8-11 - no mention of "sticks".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said

The "point remains".

And your argument above that "you can not keep the Sabbath if you don't have a manservant or a cow" by referencing the restrictions for the same - is just silly.

You are simply grasping at Straw. (or should I say "sticks").

So "yes" I agree that Adam had no "sticks" to bother with - and no maidservants or manservants or other strangers- within-his-gates - but as we see in Lev 23 and in the New Earth in Isiah 66 - the REST of the Sabbath is not "targetting those with sticks and maidservants" as your attempted misdirection seeks to convey in your 'grasp-at-anything' argument.

More "straws"?

I fully agree that Adam was not fed by Manna - nor will mankind be fed by Manna in the New Earth.

"again" this is a matter of "rest as in worship".

We "observe" that the Hebrews were able to "keep Sabbath" when the manna ceased - as did the Disciples of Christ.

We "observe" that thought the disciples had not cows or manservants - they were also able to keep Sabbath.

Your "sticks" and "manna" and "cows" and "maidservant" arguments are simply shallow defenses - a "grasp-for-anything" style defense. You can't be serious.

Obviously the issue of Rest and of Worship was central from the very start of Christ the Creator's Holy day - and continues even into the Isaiah 66 "New Earth" in that same way.

The point "remains".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The command to rest is "Evident" (according to God) by the example of rest that God gave mankind. Furthermore - you have no support for a claim that when God made the day holy in Gen 2:3 He was not allowed to speak with mankind about the day He made FOR mankind. You simply suppose it. Though it is illogical to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Said

"Clearly" you have now lost the thread of your "own" argument.

My claim is that full and open communion with Adam and Eve means that when the Creator MADE His Holy day FOR mankind - then from the very MAKING of it - as a Blessing FOR mankind - we may be assured that He conveyed that blessing TO mankind since He takes the time and effort to TELL us in Gen 2:3 that it was a Holy for mankind STARTING with Gen 2:3.

It is "your argument" that says that ALTHOUGH thiw was a holy day FOR MANKIND starting with Gen 2;3 God forgot to tell mankind exactly HOW to avail himself of that blessing OR how to show honor to that which God MADE holy FOR mankind in Gen 2:3.

Your position is hopelessly contradicted in this case with the wooden argument that without ADDITIONAL commands added to the explicit statement in Gen 2:3 THEN mankind was still in the dark.

Your "in-the-dark" (mushroom defense) is seen to fail in Gen 4 when the sin of murder is defined WITHOUT the command and in Gen 6-8 when the details about what is clean and what is unclean are in place EVEN though those details are not written for the rest of us - until Lev 11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That's good.......
May I add a favorite verse of my own.

Rom 14:22 "Happy is the man who does not condemn himself for that which he allows"

God's word brings peace and applying that scripture to many situations brings that peace.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And as we see with the Clean and unclean - though NO distinction is made as to HOW you would know which is which - YET they have the distinction. This is proof that the Lev 11 "information" was being conveyed and that the Gen text is not in fact "an exhaustive account of very word spoken for 1500 years".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here again you abandon your own argument. According to your argument - if it is not spelled out in detail then it does not exist.

In the clean vs unclean criteria does not exist in Gen 6-7 - it is not recorded for us until Lev 11 where we see that split hooves and chewing the cud for land animals is how the distinction is made.

It does not matter how you want to "use the clean" animal AFTER using the criteria to identify it. The "devastation" to your argument is in the fact that the criteria does not exist LET ALONE the use that you might want to use for something that the criteria "would have identified" as a clean animal - HAD the criteria been in existence.

The clear fact is that the criteria DID exist - EVEN though it is not spelled out in detail in the Gen 6 text. This utterly refutes your "in-the-dark" defense about the Holy Day of Gen 2:3 not being as blatant as Exodus 20:8-11 declares it WAS.

Notice that God says (in that Exodus 20 text) that BECAUSE He made the world in 6 days and rested in Gen 2:3 - that THEN Gen 2:3- THAT act alone in Gen 2:3 - ALREADY established it.

But you argue "no it did not" and then when you can be convinced to agree somewhat with Exodus 20 you try the other argument "well then if it DID establish it in Gen 2:3 God was careful not to let mankind know about it" no matter how much fellowship they had on that day and on the 7th day to follow.

YHour argument "from the void" against Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 holy day - failed with the example of the Gen 6 clean / unclean "criteria" which your argument would say "did not exist" until Lev 11 - no way to "identify" a clean animal until Lev 11 gives the criteria. Yet the Clean/unclean distinction in Gen 6 refutes your view just as the Holy day of Christ the Creator STARTING in Gen 2:3 - refutes your "in-the-dark" argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree that Romans 14 argues for peace. In the first illustration with meat offerred to idols and those that eat no meat in order to avoid it - vs those who eat meat whether offerred to idols or not.

The second case Paul gives is of those who observes "everu day" in the Hebrew list of holy days given in Lev 23 vs those that "observe one of those days above another".

In both cases - Pauls says that the worshipper should not be condemned for choosing to honor God by observing the restrictions.

However in the case of this thread - it has moved on to the question of what the intent was - when Christ the Creator made His Gen 2:3 Holy day on day 7 of mankind's creation week.

He says "He made it for mankind" Mark 2:27 but some argue that mankind could not possibly have known that - indicating a barrier of some kind must have existed for the Holy day starging in Gen 2:3 must have been a "secret from mankind" in God's muddled way of implementing it - only telling Hebrews about it some 2500 year later.

There is genuine "fear" that if Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day made FOR mankind is actually "let out of the bag" from the very start as described in Gen 2:3 - it might mean that "all mankind" is supposed to come before God to Worship "from Sabbath to Sabbath" as we see happening in the New Earth in Isaiah 66.

And of course -- it is understandable that such a fear would exist.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So my point was, in Adam's time, there was to be no strenuous work. That came with the Fall. Needing to "rest" a day came later, still, once again, because of the "curse of the ground". If not for sin, then whatever "work" we would have done would not have been so strenuous that we would need rest. We would be in constant fellowship with God, and not need a special day to have to specifically focus on Him. In fact, priest in the NT and sabbatarian preachers today, "work" on the sabbath, as the Law necessitated. That "work" is allowed, because it is directly connected with God. But what about "rest" for them?
My point is, that the sabbath, as it was practiced under the Law, was clearly defined in terms of the results of man's fall. Outside of that, you can not speculate on what the Sabbath would be like, (originally, or in the New earth), and then, to try to use this to make a command out of it for today.

To both Adam pre fall, and the New Earth, it will be a time of rest and worship.

It does NOT say "Holy day FOR mankind", NOR "a Blessing FOR mankind". Nor anything about "fellowship" on a particular "day". You cannot read the scriptures without putting your little twist on them, and cross pasting different conepts to where they do not belong. It says He sanctified it then, meaning He gave it a holy significance, whether to man or not. This does not mean He had to reveal that significance to man, immediately. Then Christ said the sabbath was made for man. This mean we are not made for it, not that "all men, not some, are obligated to it", thus in effect making man "for it". You cannot put these two points together into "He blessed this holy day for all mankind immediatly to be bound by, so why would He hot reveal it immediately?". He made He has mansions in Heaven FOR us, but has not revealed the details of them to us now. We are left "in the dark", well, not totally, but "seeing theough a glass darly".

Well, I corrected it to admit that it was used for sacrifices. Still, it does not tell us that God commanded anyone not to EAT the so-called "unclean". God told Noah to take two of certain kind of animals, and seven of others. So OK, the distinctions were there, but they weren't yet given the significance of not being for man's consumption. The argument is whether the kosher restrictions were in effect. At that time, they clearly weren't, as they were not permitted to eat any meat yet. Then when they are, in Gen.9:3, the disctinction used for loading the ark, and sacrificing were not recognized. They were allowed to eat anything. You cannot take a simple reference to "clean and unclean" and read some universal command into it, when we have a verse in the midst of here that clearly contradicts it. Interpret unclear scriptures (e.g. that "mention", but do not command or forbid something) in light of clear ones (that do actually command or forbid something).
Murder was a universal command, so was known even wiothout written mention of a command. If God gave life, how could we take it? Yet there is no such reference to any universal application of the sabbath back then,nor condemnation for not keeping it. If you're going to keep referring to this "uncommanded" murder command being judged, then be consistent and realize then there should be a judgement for people not keeping the sabbath. If God had commanded it, make no mistake, those people would have been breaking it like everything else.

In neither case have you proved that there was a COMMAND to avoid certain animals for food, or change ones' routine on a particular weekly day. We point out that they were not always commanded, but even if they were commanded from Creation, that still does not mean that they are in effect today. Sacrifice went back to Cain and Abel, but they were still abolished with the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses included a lot of things that had been gradually added along the way before Moses. But it was still codified int hat Law, and would be set aside with it when the Reality (Christ)came. You simply say "it was MENTIONED; therefore, it was "commanded". But remember, people do the same exact thing with the mentions of Sunday in the New Testament.

Once again, this does not specify weekly or annual days. That is your weakest argument.

 

You are simply "making things up".

You have no idea what was done before the fall during the 6 days of the week or whether it was the SAME as a full day of worship instead of activity in the Garden.

All you know is that the "effort" was increased to the point mentioned in Gen 3 after the fall. You have nothing telling you how compatible it was BEFORE the fall - with a day of focused worship.

But we do know that engaging enterprise and focused task-oriented accomplishments are NOT all conducive to meditation or worship "just because you may not be sweating".

You are grasping at straws again - out of the void of "what you don't know" so that you can "assume" the HOLY day that is MADE in Gen 2:3 "served no purpose" for mankind THOUGH Christ HIMSELF says it was MADE FOR mankind when MADE.


Eric said

The Holy day given in Gen 2:3 makes no reference to sin.

The Holy day of Gen 2:3 is to be "remembered" in Exodus 20 without refernce to "sin" as stated in the text.

You simply "make up" a reference to "sin" in the text. There is none.

And in the same way - Isaiah 66 shows a CONTINUED observance of Sabbath in the new earth - a fact devastating to your "only-in-sin" view of the Sabbath.

You are ignoring that which is so clearly refuting your proposals.

In Christ,

Bob
Outside of that, you can not speculate on what the Sabbath would be like, (originally, or in the New earth), and then, to try to use this to make a command out of it for today.

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that God says (in that Exodus 20 text) that BECAUSE He made the world in 6 days and rested in Gen 2:3 - that THEN Gen 2:3- THAT act alone in Gen 2:3 - ALREADY established it.

But you argue "no it did not" and then when you can be convinced to agree somewhat with Exodus 20 you try the other argument "well then if it DID establish it in Gen 2:3 God was careful not to let mankind know about it" no matter how much fellowship they had on that day and on the 7th day to follow.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark 2:27 has Christ the Creator saying that the Sabbath "Was MADE for MANKIND" and we see you needing to "downplay that point"?

And the idea that being made FOR mankind - shows it to be a gift - a blessing FORM God made FOR mankind - so "obvious" to the reader - your view also needs to "reject" as we see from your response.

And the fact that God Himself shows the day to be a day of worship in Lev 23:1-3 and in Isaiah 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship" - you deny - that this reference to worship would have anything to do with fellowship with God - simply because your view "needs it" - not because it could successfully be "Shown" to be true.

Each of these key statements from God's Word must be "denied" in your view - to "hold your view" by contrast to what we are reading "in the text".

I find that "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh, but you apparently know, and that it was different from what they were doing on the 7th day.

It wasn't just "effort"; the ground was cursed, and tilling it and providing sustanence became very strenuous. I know enough from what was stated that it was very different from before the Fall asn also in the restored Eden of the New Earth, both of which can be desceibed as a state of "rest".)

The Law was added because of sin. That is, the "restrictive" aspect of it, which you keep emphasizing. If it was really "made for man", then it won't be defined in terms of a bunch of restrictions. (whether manmade, or the genuine Law of Moses). This is what Jesus was telling them. You keep trying to make His words proof of restrictions binding man, as if he was made for the sabbath.

 

There is "no case" where the Bible says that the 7th day of creation week exists "because of sin".

There is "no case" where the Bible says that the 7th day of creation week was anything OTHER than the Holy day of Christ the Creator.

There is "no case" where the Bible records God making "a thing Holy" but man is free to ignore it.

There is "no case" where the Bible rejects Christ's statement that the veryi MAKING of the Holy Day - Christ the Creator's Holy day - was as a blessing TO mankind, made FOR mankind from its very MAKING. And "even you" have to admit He MADE it on the 7th day and that is WHY to this VERY DAY we have a 7 day week STILL in use, STILL commemorating that 7 day Creation week of Christ the Creator.

Unnable to refute these Bible facts - you are simply ignoring them and "obfuscating" with "the law was added because of sin".

Something that we all know can not possibly "apply to Gen 2:3" NOR can it apply to the details God gives in HIW OWN review of the Gen 1-2:3 event culminating in the Gen 2:3 7th-day EVENT - a summary that God gives in Exodus 20:8-11.

The fact that Exodus 20 and THIS thread is discussing events BEFORE the fall of man (not just BEFORE Sinai) is innescapable.

The fact that you "need to rework" this around to "Gen 2:3 added because of sin" or possibly "God's summary of Gen 2:3 in Exodus 20:8-11" added because of sin - is not helping your case - it only exposes the flaw in it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And now you're twisting my words again. I didn't say those scriptures were added because of sin. Just the restrictive nature of the sabbath. Man fell, and needed to focus on God for a day. the ground was cused, and "work" was more strenuous, and man needed rest. In the NT, we have the Spirit, and this takes the place of the restrictions.
All of the rest of that was answered in the sentences after "the Law was added because of sin. You are pushing the sabbath in terms of a set of restrictions that all the rest of Christendom is living in sin for not observing. But once again, is it really for man, or is man made for it? You keep taking "made for man" as meaning "all men are obligated", but that would equal all men being made for it.

But God does not have to reveal it right then. It is not "ignoring" it if He did not reveal it. He sanctified it Himself by resting on it; "sanctified" mening "set apart". This says nothing about whether all men from Adam He would expect to keep it.
As was said long ago, marriage is holy (and made for man, instilled at Creation), but not all are obligated to partake in it.

 

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is "no case" where the Bible records God making "a thing Holy" but man is free to ignore it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric responds...

#1 There is NO case in all of scripture where God makes something FOR mankind and "doesn't tell someone so that it can FUNCTION".

#2. There is NO case in all of scripture where God pronounces something Holy and sets it apart - "but does not tell mankind" nor does He tell mankind to "ignore" what He sanctifies NOR does He "trick" mankind into ignoring THAT which HE has made holy.

So lacking "any text" in support of your guesswork - you "make it up". Even to the point of ignoring the Words of God in Exodus 20 when HE refers to the Gen 2:3 event as establishing that Holy day. And Christ as He affirms that He made it FOR mankind.

You are not arguing from Bible principles showing that God makes things FOR mankind and makes something here HOLY but "tells no one". So you simply "make up" what your traditions "need to be true" no matter how it stands out without Biblical support.

So ... you are dedicated on that point if nothing else.

Eric tries another solution...

The person that engages in marriage is obligated to honor it JUST as God demands.

The human that lives long enough to know what a 7 day week is - and that learns about Christ the Creator's action on the 7th-day of that week - also THEN becomes obligated to submit to the will of God regarding that point. To him that "knows to do right" and does it not - to him it is sin.

No change.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I make it up without biblical support? There is NO case where God ever doesn't tell us about something? Just think about what you are saying. God has revealed everything He has created for us for all eternity? There is nothing we don't know that He has planned for us. If He planned these things "from the beginning", then He must have revealed them all to us from the beginning.
You make it seem as if I said He never revealed it to man. (God pronounces something Holy and sets it apart - "but does not tell mankind") Then you would be right, that that would be meaningless. But I didn't say He never told mankind; I said He didn't tell them right away, because He had a plan, where He would raise the nation of Israel, and give them this "sign" to identify them as his peculiar people in the fallen world. That is not "tricking" anyone, or "telling them to ignore" anything. You are just rehashing the same straw men that have nothing to do with anything I said. And you continue to misconstrue "made for man" as "it is binding upon all men" rather then "man was not made for it", and falsely read Exodus 20 as somehow saying it was always known about or commanded. I'm not ignoring the word of God; I'm ignoring the preconceived ideas you read into it to prove your tradition (keeping the sabbath as still mandatory for all and denouncing everyone else as disobedient; contrary to NT teaching).

 

But the point is not everyone who lives long enough to get married is obligated to get married. Even though this was "created in the beginning", is a picture of something eternal (our union with christ), and even has an actual command associated with it: "Be fruitful and multiply".

"To him who knows to do right"-- that's another good scripture pertaining to this. Any culture pretty much knows what marriage means, and about not violating it, as that is a universal command. Once again, who would "know" to keep a sabbath, unless intructed from the Law of Moses? Together, with NT scriptures such as Rom.14, Col.2:16, etc. it appears that the sabbath was for Israel and not binding on everyone. I was getting ready to put together these points to try to wind these discussions down (especially the other one, at 20 pages, twice what the moderators of other forums allow). But while there is no NT scripture that clearly says "the weekly sabbath is still binding" or "the weekly sabbath is no longer binding", we have to weigh the evidence for both sides. Your main evidence is "it was established at creation, "made for mankind", included in the 10 Commandments, and mentioned in Isaiah as being in the New Heavens. All but "made for mankind' are legitimate, as you have to change the meaning of that phrase to get it to support your view; Christ said "the sabbath was made for man; not man for the sabbath", rather than "the sabbath was made for [all] man; not only some men". But the other three together have a bit more substance.
Still, they do not really equal a command for us today; they are more inferential. The closest they can prove is that the sabbath has some universal significance. That in itself doesn't tell us what to do with it. Especially when you take into consideration the points on the other side, involving New Testament scriptures. Rom. and Col. tell us not to judge over days. This seems clear, yet you have to interpret it as referring to annual days. (But then those who believe the annual days are still in effect have other ways of interpreting them). Col. for one thing distinguishes "feast days" (annual sabbaths) from "the sabbath day". Even in Rom. there is no distinction between which "day" (weekly or annual) that is esteemed above another. You insist that there are, though I do not see it. Hebrews 4 interprets the true "sabbath rest" as a spiritual state we must "strive" to enter it, rather than a physical day of rest. You take it is referring to the physical day, though the context seems to argue otherwise. Then, of course, the Gal.4 debate.
So in all those cases, the evidence seems to weigh on the side of the sabbath not being binding on all. We must interpret the not so clear scriptures in light of clear ones.
Gen.2:3, records the instituting of the sabbath; Exodus 20:8-11 uses that account to establish its significance to the Israelites who were being commanded to "observe" it as a special day, Isaiah says it will be kept in the New Earth, but this possibly could be a conditional picture, as new moons and other facets of Israel are mentioned as well, and In Mark, Jesus simply tells the people that the sabbath was made for man, not made for the sabbath. Then we see gentiles meeting on the Temple in the Sabbath. This too does not prove they, let alone all "kept" it. They met on the day the synagogue or temple had its services. None of these are clear on the sabbath as being binding on all at all times. Only for Israel, or perhaps all in the new Earth. You must put these together and generalize them to conclude "it was always expected of man". But admit, they do not SAY that. Yes, other laws we see enforced or judged before they were recorded as commanded, but the fact that they even have such a first-mentioning is proof enough that God expected them of man, and perhaps they were universal laws. (This is supported by the human consience, which we are told, tells man what is right and condemns or justifies.) This we do not see with the sabbath until Ex.16. So the scriptures you have provided, while some of them being genuine "evidence", are not "clear" PROOF. Yet, there are these NT scriptures that seem to confirm that it was for Israel only, not for the church. These you say are annual days or pagan days. Paul teaches that we live by the spirit of the Law, not the letter, and Jesus had showed us how the spirit of the Law differed somewhat from the letter. Then Hebrews gives us a spiritual application of "sabbath rest". This seemed to echo Jesus' own words in Matt.11:28. You say "but the spirit of the other laws still means that the letter is kept, and they are magnified, not diminished (or "ignored" as you like to put it). But the sacrifices and other temple rituals are, and to you, the annual feast are. So taking Heb.4 in its context would allow for that principle to apply to the sabbath as well. And Col. and Rom. confirm that by telling us not to judge over days.

You say this cannot be, and your basis for that is the four scriptures you have given as proof that the sabbath is universal. So instead of weighing the evidence from both sides, you take your evidence as given clear "proof", and claim to "obliterate' my evidence with it. But both sets of interpretation of various scriptures are on the stand. You can't declare yous proven because we are still in the process of arguing it. I try to prove to you that your interpretations of those scriptures are mistaken first. I try not to say "it is wrong, because these scriptures [which I am using] say this", because you are not convinced that I am interpreting those right. I uses them as evidence, not conclusive proof. Then the debate swings over to the meaning of the scriptures on my side.
From the testimony of history, we see the the earliest Christians understood scripture more the way I do. Some still kept the sabbath, but there was liberty. Some then decided to change it to Sunday, and this eventally became the norm. there was no mass conspiracy that forced a strictly sabbatarian church to become strictly Sunday within a century. This shows there was liberty, though some abused and ultimately violated it to try to force out the Jewish day in favor of their new day.
So while you can have your interpretations of these scriptures, and we can go on forever about it, it seems to me that the evidence weighs in favor of liberty regarding the sabbath in the Church age. This by taking all the scriptures in their contexts, and understanding unclear ones (as far as proving the universality of a command for all men in all times) in light of clearer ones (giving us liberty today). So then by your last scripture, "To him who knows to do right, and does it not, to him it is sin", I cannot say that I know from scripture that the sabbath is still binding; because the evidence of scriptures taken in their context does not support it. You cannot accuse me of "attacking" the "creator's Holy Day", or even "ignoring" it, or "rebelling", or willfully "living in disobedience". If you think it is so important and pleasing to Him, then you can keep it unto the Lord. But you can't judge others on it. But then this right here goes along with what I have been saying regarding romans and Colossians. So to me, it is unanimous.

Believe men, I have been through the gamut, or quitting jobs over the sabbath; another one took me and gave it to me off, but then got rid of me quicker because it was inconvenient to them. At the same time, I was walking around thinking all other "christians" were living in disobedience and deceived by the antichrist (though it wasn't officially his "mark" yet), and argued with just about very pastor and evangelist I met. I read Wlter Martin and other apologists, and dismissed their use of Rom.14 and Col.2:16 looking for a valid answer (Armstrong said they referred to "fast days", and I just bought that) But when one evangelist really expounded upon Galatians, then then Romans, Col. and Heb4 in light of that, it was clear the evidence weighed in favor it it not being binding upon all. I could keep it unto the Lord, but man, it would no longer be "fun" thinking I was better than "all those churches" as Armstrong said in his story, that were "wrong". I then learned a valuable lesson regarding the Law and our fallen nature. It was then that I wrote My Sabbath and the Faith of Abraham page, and now, some 15 years later, decided to put it online. So I am defending no "tradition". This is what the acriptural evidence weighs in favor of.