Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
Lounge / Re: Law/laws/sabbath (split from OSAS)
« Last post by FreeAtLast on Today at 07:56:53 PM »

It does prove one thing, the new Christians did keep Jewish customs.

Not sure WW how far you take that statement- so please regard this post in the context of the whole conversation thus far......

The fact that they gathered on the Sabbath for these meetings does not prove that all the early Christians kept Jewish "customs".
Both the Sabbath and Havdallah are Jewish customs. But I understand you just assume that purely accidently they gathered on days that accidently were "Jewish days"? Maybe Jesus never kept any of the feast either. He just purely accidently was there at that moment and just enjoyed the party.

Historical writings clearly show that the early Christians just worshipped on the Sabbath by Jews in the same synagogue at the same time, listening to the same teachings. Yeah, they had their arguments, but still were very many Jews. The early Christians were just Jews who believed Jesus was the long awaited Messiah. The "normal Jews" believed Jesus was not. It's no different than for example, some Christians believe the end-times happened around 70AD while others believe it has yet to come.

Anyway we had this chat before. There is simply no way to convince me all Jewishnes is replaced by Christanity the moment Jesus rose from the dead. If it was, then why is Revelelation on of the most Jewish orientated books of the whole Bible? I know there are a lot of verses that support the OT should be in the trash bin because it's obsolete. At least they seem to support so. But not if  'you' really look at the verses. They are crammed with references to Jewishness.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is an elephant....

The Sabbath was there long before there were jewish people---Sabbath was a jewish custom--but long before the jews came about the Sabbath was there at the beginning.So it was hnot only for the jews when they came on the scene--but for all mankind  :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
2
Lounge / Re: Law/laws/sabbath (split from OSAS)
« Last post by Seth on Today at 07:37:27 PM »
Hi Ronen,
I just want to point out that our discussion of Colossians 2 has also gone beyond just that verse, but also the following "for these things are having a shadow, but the body is of Christ."

So, whether anyone believes that the church was observing sabbaths or abstaining from certain foods etc, it's clear to me that those things are pointing to a present reality in Christ. If you have the body, then you have the Sabbath all the time.

I personally haven't seen proof directly in the text that the Early Church was observing sabbath days for their own edification, and especially not by necessity. I believe if it was a necessity, Paul would have a very clear teaching on it, not just a verse or two which could be debated on translation.

I think what was absolutely necessary for the church was presented to them in a very clear way on multiple occasions all through the scripture. If the Early Church is supposed to keep those things as a matter of doctrine and obedience, we wouldn't even need to debate it. It would be all over the scripture, like Paul's teaching about sin, and newness in Christ, and the carnal mind, and the cross, and how nobody is righteous of themselves etc etc.

If the Sabbath was an important subject, I think Paul would have plainly taught it "and don't forget to keep the Sabbath every week, guys. That's what God wants."

The very fact that we need to fuss with translations over a verse to try and determine something that some Christians believe is so utterly important to Christian life, yet was not clearly and demonstrably taught is dubious on the face of it, at least to me. Many times in discussions like this, Christians look at the text and will say "Paul was not saying..." But, where is the text that says that Paul IS saying we need to keep the Sabbaths, or holy days or abstain from meats? If it's so important, why are the verses about it so sparse and dependent on interpretation?
3
Christian Life / Re: Understanding the 4 Gospels
« Last post by FreeAtLast on Today at 07:35:33 PM »
Quote from Freeatlast:

Everything that Yahshua spoke in these 4 gospels was unto the jewish people only--with the 1 exception of the gentile woman who came to him--notice he never went to not 1 gentile.

Wrong. It's ALL the word of God to ALL, except and unless He made it specifically to the Jews. The teachings of Jeus the Messiah were carried on by the apostles to the whole world. Even the heralds described His life as "Good news of good will to all."

I understand what you are saying--but Yahshua said himself he was only sent unto the jewish people while in the flesh---im not leaving the gentiles out--scripture reveals they did also come into the fold at a later time

something written too someone is not the same as something that is for all---something written to someone is only to that person or persons--im not saying we should not follow Yahshua's teachings today at all---they are for us also.

but what I am saying is that the 4 gospels messages was originally unto the jewish people

when Yahshua and his apostles never go unto the gentiles but only unto the jews--the messages were unto them and them only at that particular time frame.

please don't misunderstand what I am saying   :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
4
Lounge / Re: Law/laws/sabbath (split from OSAS)
« Last post by gregoryfl on Today at 07:23:02 PM »
I have been reading these posts over the last several days and would like to share purely from a linguistic and grammatical view, another way to understand Colossians 2:16. I have been on both sides of understanding, and like most, parroted what I was told one way or the other. Although I know for sure that studying the languages for yourself does not in any way guarantee that you will be kept from error, I do believe it does offer a help toward correct understanding.

Colossians 2:16 is an example. Based on how most translate it, it reads basically this way:

Let no man therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day,
(Col 2:16)

Let no one, then, be judging you in food or in drink or in the particulars of a festival, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,
(Col 2:16)

Reading these two literal translations objectively, you get the sense of there being 5 separate things making up a clause, of which no one is to judge:

1. Eating
2. Drinking
3. Feast Day
4. New Moon
5. Sabbath

The conjuction 'or' separates each of those entities, and there is a neutral tone to the text, meaning...do not let anyone judge you concerning anything having to do with these 5 things, one way or another.

Most would, of course, see this as proof that these believers were not keeping these days, and most likely eating and drinking whatever they wanted, and that Paul was encouraging them to continue on, not letting anyone judge them about this.

I would like to submit however, that grammatically and linguistically, the text actually is definitively stating the opposite. I will be seeking to demonstrate this from my Aramaic text first, although the Greek also can be used to show the same thing. My next post will be concerning this.
5
Welcome Martin! UR got me the "right boot of fellowship" from most believers I knew at the time, but every situation is different!
6
Lounge / Re: Law/laws/sabbath (split from OSAS)
« Last post by eaglesway on Today at 06:56:00 PM »
I am perfectly willing to give you an opportunity to hang yourself  :punish:
7
Lounge / Re: Law/laws/sabbath (split from OSAS)
« Last post by Seth on Today at 06:53:23 PM »
 :laughing7:

"I'm good with your beliefs....until I'm not"
8
Lounge / Re: Law/laws/sabbath (split from OSAS)
« Last post by eaglesway on Today at 06:51:17 PM »
I agree.I think the Jews understood mid-rash in a way that we don't(discussing the scriptures). They probably allowed more varying views to be shared from the platform and discussed more thoroughly. Then when they figured out the implications of what you were espousing- they killed you  :laugh:
9
Christian Life / Re: The fall of Satan
« Last post by rosered on Today at 06:46:44 PM »
as far as I can tell..satan and the evil spirits[demons] are the negative contrast to

  God's good/holy spirit.  designed to 'tempt draw out into sin then accuse"

    just as God can 'cause us to desire to do His good pleasure" so,too,this wicked

  contrast spirit. Just as the prophets and men of God can have the word of God come to

 them while in the spirit,so,too,magicians,enchanters,witches etc can have the words of the

 evil spirits come unto them.

  it is not that evil spirits are man's carnal thoughts/wicked desires

,covetnous/hate.lusts...but that the wicked works of the devil is the root cause of

 such things in man's unregenerated mind and heart.  Our bodies[corruptible] is like a

 device that runs on both ac and dc current[good/evil]  but thing is...the wicked contrast

  corrupts and destroys our bodies.
     
 

 :thumbsup:       Yes God shortened the days  by   sending Jesus Christ !!
 
  and in Adam   930 years of flesh   to  Noah 500 years  to Moses 120 years to David  70 years  80 by grace even to our day !!
 
 flesh shorten days earth and in 70 ad  we saw the fall of  a nation /Israel     Matthew 24 
 
 21"For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22"Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23"Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him.
 
Romans  9
 Paul's Anguish Over Israel
 
Darby Bible Translation
for he is bringing the matter to an end, and cutting it short in righteousness; because a cutting short of the matter will the Lord accomplish upon the earth.

10
Lounge / Re: Law/laws/sabbath (split from OSAS)
« Last post by Seth on Today at 06:46:04 PM »
The thing that I don't see happening in the Early Church was peaceful ecumencism. I don't think the early church was attending festivals with unconverted Jews just to enjoy the day and get some meaning out of it for themselves. Not that I think there is anything wrong with doing so. But, if the Bible recorded the early church attending a festival (which they would do in a heartbeat), it would also record them getting tossed out on their rear ends for preaching Jesus. That was their agenda concerning the Sabbath and it would be their agenda concerning the festivals too. Oh, those annoying Christians and their Jesus.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10