Law/laws/sabbath (split from OSAS)

[FreeAtLast]

in essence what you are saying is right--but you cant throw away the way of living that comes out as a result of whats inside
if it was right for the new testament Believers---is it not right for us ??? :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:

If you desire to observe Sabbath, do so. I don't set aside days for God. And, I don't believe that if I am loving my brothers, and walking in love for my neighbors, that I have anything to be concerned about regarding the severity of God. I don't think that the Apostles observed Sabbaths for the purpose of pleasing God and following his Law, any more than I believe Timothy was circumcised physically for the same reason.

one thing we will have to agree with is that the believers did come together on the Sabbath day(weekly and yearly)if you do not observe a day then how can there be a gathering together of the believers ?  and even paul encouraged them not to forsake that gathering together(Sabbath day)

I know that today is totally different than that day as far as there are so many false doctrines and traditions in the professing church--that it is a hard thing to find a congregation today---but still there remains a gathering together on a certain day  :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:

[Searching_For_The_Truth]

This article best sums up my thoughts on OSAS

http://tentmaker.org/articles/once_saved_always_saved_slagle.html

[FreeAtLast]

This article best sums up my thoughts on OSAS

http://tentmaker.org/articles/once_saved_always_saved_slagle.html

Hello Searching

The ET crowd that believes OSAS(Baptists--I was one of them before)everything they teach is related to one thing---ET

with this in mind--they teach their version of OSAS because they know that the other side is ET---they skip right over passages or make them to fit their false doctrine ---that mention plainly of saints being cast into outer darkness and being beaten with many stripes--and others also

they try to explain away these scriptures or just plain skip over them in their preaching because they know that ET(according to their teaching)awaits them

it all boils down to ET being a road block for them not being able to see the truth--may Yah shine  his light upon them  :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:

[Seth]

one thing we will have to agree with is that the believers did come together on the Sabbath day(weekly and yearly)if you do not observe a day then how can there be a gathering together of the believers ?  and even paul encouraged them not to forsake that gathering together(Sabbath day)

I think it's important to parse things out. None of the New Testament scriptures say that an INDIVIDUAL Christian must observe a special day of the week unto himself  for rest from literal work and worship on a certain day of the week. If he meets with other Christians on Sunday, he could still go to work afterwords and be fine with God. In fact, it takes work to get to a local church, by driving a car, and when we observe the letter, we start to have disagreements on what constitutes "rest." Then, you have to create an oral law in order to define all the vague qualities of the Law, and you get into a very legalistic situation.

That's why it's better to follow the Spirit and know that we can worship and have rest EVERY day.

Hebrews did encourage us not to forsake gathering together, but I think you are taking the "sabbath day" part as implication, because it doesn't actually mention the sabbath day in that verse. It doesn't actually prescribe how much we ought to gather, as we could gather more than one day a week and that would be fine too.

Hebrews does say "as you see the day approaching" but if you look at the very next verse, I think it makes clear that the "day" is the "day of the lord" which is coming in the future.

Gathering together may not always be possible by way of physical proximity. Paul said that he was there with believers in Spirit when they had to judge a member for sexual immorality with his father's wife. He didn't let proximity keep him from being present with them.

I understand your concern about meeting together, but I don't think it is proscribed to the saints in the same manner you are proscribing it.

[eaglesway]

My personal belief is that the early believers were a community. They were always gathering, house to house; in synagogues and open meeting places. I don't believe they needed a special day. Altho i think it entirely possible that the churches that were made up of predominantly Hebrew believers met on the Sabbaths, I don't think there is any scriptural basis for prescribing Sabbath meeting days. :2c:

[ed]

I think it's important to parse things out. None of the New Testament scriptures say that an INDIVIDUAL Christian must observe a special day of the week unto himself  for rest from literal work and worship on a certain day of the week. If he meets with other Christians on Sunday, he could still go to work afterwords and be fine with God. In fact, it takes work to get to a local church, by driving a car, and when we observe the letter, we start to have disagreements on what constitutes "rest." Then, you have to create an oral law in order to define all the vague qualities of the Law, and you get into a very legalistic situation.

That's why it's better to follow the Spirit and know that we can worship and have rest EVERY day.

Hebrews did encourage us not to forsake gathering together, but I think you are taking the "sabbath day" part as implication, because it doesn't actually mention the sabbath day in that verse. It doesn't actually prescribe how much we ought to gather, as we could gather more than one day a week and that would be fine too.

Hebrews does say "as you see the day approaching" but if you look at the very next verse, I think it makes clear that the "day" is the "day of the lord" which is coming in the future.

Gathering together may not always be possible by way of physical proximity. Paul said that he was there with believers in Spirit when they had to judge a member for sexual immorality with his father's wife. He didn't let proximity keep him from being present with them.

I understand your concern about meeting together, but I don't think it is proscribed to the saints in the same manner you are proscribing it.

My personal belief is that the early believers were a community. They were always gathering, house to house; in synagogues and open meeting places. I don't believe they needed a special day. Altho i think it entirely possible that the churches that were made up of predominantly Hebrew believers met on the Sabbaths, I don't think there is any scriptural basis for prescribing Sabbath meeting days. :2c:

:iagree:

[sheila]

Acts2 ;46  Everyday they continued to meet togather in the temple courts[of coarse we

know our body is the real temple now] they broke bread in their homes and ate togather

with glad and sincere hearts.Praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people.

   spiritually we all come togather here most every day and sup on the word of God,the

body and blood of Jesus Christ,I think.

  now I am not adverse to meeting togather in person,if it were possible.........would love it

  and I wouldn't care what day of the week it is.......

   some universalists hold meetings in their homes..that's great,too. 

 

 

[FreeAtLast]

one thing we will have to agree with is that the believers did come together on the Sabbath day(weekly and yearly)if you do not observe a day then how can there be a gathering together of the believers ?  and even paul encouraged them not to forsake that gathering together(Sabbath day)

I think it's important to parse things out. None of the New Testament scriptures say that an INDIVIDUAL Christian must observe a special day of the week unto himself  for rest from literal work and worship on a certain day of the week. If he meets with other Christians on Sunday, he could still go to work afterwords and be fine with God. In fact, it takes work to get to a local church, by driving a car, and when we observe the letter, we start to have disagreements on what constitutes "rest." Then, you have to create an oral law in order to define all the vague qualities of the Law, and you get into a very legalistic situation.

That's why it's better to follow the Spirit and know that we can worship and have rest EVERY day.


I was just illustrating that the new testament saints had a set aside day for gathering together(Sabbath days)

I agree that today---we may be so far apart that our finances or health or whatever may not allow us to come a great distance

after all Yahshua said that where just 2 or 3 folks gather together in his name--he is in their midst  :dsunny:

so if it is just you and 1 other person in your own house or their house---then it is scriptural--don't have to have mass people or a building called church

their has always been a set aside day to worship Yah---yes I agree we worship him in truth and spirit everyday--but there has always been a gathering together of the Saints of Yah on a certain day all the way back to Gen.   even unto today(although today its a man made day instead  of the Father's Day)

Oh that there would be more of us in the same area to gather together on the Sabbath(7th day Saturday) :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:

Hebrews did encourage us not to forsake gathering together, but I think you are taking the "sabbath day" part as implication, because it doesn't actually mention the sabbath day in that verse. It doesn't actually prescribe how much we ought to gather, as we could gather more than one day a week and that would be fine too.

Hebrews does say "as you see the day approaching" but if you look at the very next verse, I think it makes clear that the "day" is the "day of the lord" which is coming in the future.

Gathering together may not always be possible by way of physical proximity. Paul said that he was there with believers in Spirit when they had to judge a member for sexual immorality with his father's wife. He didn't let proximity keep him from being present with them.

I understand your concern about meeting together, but I don't think it is proscribed to the saints in the same manner you are proscribing it.

I was just illustrating that the new testament saints had a set aside day for gathering together(Sabbath days)

I agree that today---we may be so far apart that our finances or health or whatever may not allow us to come a great distance

after all Yahshua said that where just 2 or 3 folks gather together in his name--he is in their midst  :dsunny:

so if it is just you and 1 other person in your own house or their house---then it is scriptural--don't have to have mass people or a building called church

their has always been a set aside day to worship Yah---yes I agree we worship him in truth and spirit everyday--but there has always been a gathering together of the Saints of Yah on a certain day all the way back to Gen.   even unto today(although today its a man made day instead  of the Father's Day)

Oh that there would be more of us in the same area to gather together on the Sabbath(7th day Saturday) :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:

[FreeAtLast]

My personal belief is that the early believers were a community. They were always gathering, house to house; in synagogues and open meeting places. I don't believe they needed a special day. Altho i think it entirely possible that the churches that were made up of predominantly Hebrew believers met on the Sabbaths, I don't think there is any scriptural basis for prescribing Sabbath meeting days. :2c:

Acts 13:42-44

Gentiles besought paul to preach to them the Gospel on the next SABBATH(7th day Saturday) this is when they gathered together

verse 44 says and on the next Sabbath came almost the whole city gathered together to hear the Word of Yah.

Notice how the Gentiles even knew that the set aside day was the Sabbath-- that's why they besought him to preach to them on the next Sabbath--a whole week later

it was the practice of the saints to gather on the Sabbath and also on the yearly Sabbaths also

[eaglesway]

I have no problem with that,as the early church began among Jewish believers. However, that same Paul said that we ought not judge one another concerning Sabbaths, and one man esteems one day above another, another esteems all days the same- let each do so in clear conscience as unto the Lord. There is no scriptural proscription to meet on a particular day.

[jabcat]

I have no problem with that,as the early church began among Jewish believers. However, that same Paul said that we ought not judge one another concerning Sabbaths, and one man esteems one day above another, another esteems all days the same- let each do so in clear conscience as unto the Lord. There is no scriptural proscription to meet on a particular day.

amen - some esteem a day, some every day the same - as unto the Lord.

[Seth]

I was just illustrating that the new testament saints had a set aside day for gathering together(Sabbath days)

My disagreement is largely on whether Christians are commanded to follow a law, or encouraged to follow a custom. Those are two different things. Also, there is a difference between observance of days for INDIVIDUALS as opposed to certain days for the gathering. Inidividuals do not need to set aside special days for observing, but if they wish to meet on specific days with each other, that's encouraged. They could meet every day. Or on Wednesday. Or every other week if necessary. The point is about what is encouraged by custom vs what is enforced by God's law.

If a Christian is stranded on a desert island alone, then I don't think he need be concerned about it because there's nothing he can do save for a miracle. However, if that Christian were under the Law, then he couldn't build a hammock on Sabbath, and he needed to observe a specific day unto himself for God. Being that the island stranded Christian is under Grace, he wouldn't need to observe ANY special day.

I agree with you, that we should not abandon meeting together if possible. But I disagree that there is a specific law concerning specific days that Christians are commanded to observe. In fact, as Sheila mentioned above, the saints actually met every day. That was a custom for a while, but it doesn't mean others are under a commandment just because they did that.

Gentiles besought paul to preach to them the Gospel on the next SABBATH(7th day Saturday) this is when they gathered together

There's no indication to me here, that Paul was preaching to believers.

Acts 13
13 From Paphos, Paul and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, where John left them to return to Jerusalem. 14 From Perga they went on to Pisidian Antioch. On the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and sat down. 15 After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, "Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak."....42 As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath.

Some Gentiles were believers in God of the Jews, but not in the Gospel, so they attended the synagogue on Sabbath. So, it makes sense that they asked them to come back on Sabbath because that is when THEY meet in their synagogues, not because the church is commanded to do so. If you look at Paul's message there, it's geared for conversion not for the already converted. The Gentiles accepted the message and wanted to hear more, but the Jews rejected the message because they were jealous of the crowds it was drawing in the city.

Paul was an Apostle. His job was not to be a travelling preacher to the already converted, but to go out and build churches and convert the unconverted. Non-Apostle shepherds (pastors) were tasked with maintaining the church after Paul was gone.

[FreeAtLast]

At first blush, Romans 14:5-6 seems to say that it makes no difference to God which days we keep holy. Actually, these verses do not concern any days that must be kept holy. This is proved by the context of the entire chapter.

Paul admonishes the saints at Rome to receive the "weak in the faith" and not to sit in judgment of them (verse 1). Some of those recently converted, not yet having grown strong in the faith, refused to eat meat and subsisted mainly on vegetables.

The apostle explains why in another of his letters. Most of the available meat in the city had been offered to idols. Some Gentiles who had been converted and come out of idolatry still held some superstitious beliefs. They thought that idols actually had power over their lives. Therefore, "some, with consciousness of the idols," ate meat "as a thing offered to an idol" (I Corinthians 8:7). Paul assures them that "we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one" (verse 4).

But why does Paul break into his discussion about eating or refraining from eating meat to mention "esteem[ing] a day"? Notice the answer from within these very verses:


One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. (Romans 14:5-6)

Not only were some weak converts afraid of eating meat offered to idols, but others customarily abstained from a particular food—they practiced a kind of fast—on certain days, much as devout Catholics abstain from meat on Friday. Others regarded all days alike as far as eating was concerned.

The whole matter involves abstention from foods on particular days. "To eat or not to eat" is the question at hand. Paul is not referring to God's Sabbath or holy days at all!

Jesus says that we should fast before God and not be seen or let it be known by others unnecessarily (Matthew 6:16). But Jews and Gentiles both practiced semi-fasts on particular days of each week or month. Though divided on the matter, the Jews customarily fasted "twice in the week" (Luke 18:12) and on specific days of certain months (Zechariah 7:4-7). The Gentiles also were of various opinions over when to abstain from certain foods. These things are mentioned in Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.

In God's sight, it does not matter when one abstains or fasts, but He does care whether we do it in a proper attitude and for the right reasons (see Isaiah 58). Paul wants the brethren to live at peace with one another and not argue or judge each other over their human opinions, which he calls "doubtful things" (Romans 14:1).

The Bible elsewhere teaches very plainly which days God made holy and commands us to keep holy. They are found in Exodus 20:8-11 and Leviticus 23.

[Seth]

I disagree with your analysis of Romans 14

Romans 14
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Paul is likening the eating of meat sacrificed to idols as like esteeming one day above another. Neither one is mandatory. Culturally NO Christian esteemed the day of sacrificing a meat to an idol as as a special holy day, so Paul was not addressing that issue. BUT, some Christians were esteeming Sabbath days because it came from the Law:

Colossians 2
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Paul is mirroring the same thing he said in Romans 14. Some people esteem holy days, and others esteem not eating meat sacrificed to idols. The idol is nothing, so you you can eat the meat. The holy day is a shadow, so you can either esteem it or not.

[FreeAtLast]

I disagree with your analysis of Romans 14

Romans 14
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Paul is likening the eating of meat sacrificed to idols as like esteeming one day above another. Neither one is mandatory. Culturally NO Christian esteemed the day of sacrificing a meat to an idol as as a special holy day, so Paul was not addressing that issue. BUT, some Christians were esteeming Sabbath days because it came from the Law:

Colossians 2
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Paul is mirroring the same thing he said in Romans 14. Some people esteem holy days, and others esteem not eating meat sacrificed to idols. The idol is nothing, so you you can eat the meat. The holy day is a shadow, so you can either esteem it or not.

let no man judge you in meat(unclean foods were not even considered a meat unto the jew
let no man judge you in an Holy day(in the keeping of it)
let no man judge you in Sabbath days(in the keeping of them)

all the believers in the new testament kept the weekly and yearly Sabbaths and ate meat(clean foods)

also even Paul commanded the Corinthians in 1st Corin. 5:8   To keep the feast(Feast of Unleavened Bread)

[Seth]

"let no man judge you in meat (unclean foods were not even considered a meat unto the jew)
let no man judge you in an Holy day(in the keeping of it)
let no man judge you in Sabbath days(in the keeping of them)"

Not in "the keeping of." Rather, not AT ALL. No man may judge you in meat, AT ALL, not in the particular ways you added.

I don't believe that the all the believers ket the weekly and yearly sabbaths. And I believe Paul is speaking to the WEDDING FEAST which is in Christ. That is why he is using metaphorical language.

1st Corin. 5:8
Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Paul is not telling people to literally eat actual unleavened bread. He is explaining what the metaphor meant, just like he explained with circumcision. Remember, the Law is having a SHADOW. We are living in the reality.

[FreeAtLast]

"let no man judge you in meat (unclean foods were not even considered a meat unto the jew)
let no man judge you in an Holy day(in the keeping of it)
let no man judge you in Sabbath days(in the keeping of them)"

Not in "the keeping of." Rather, not AT ALL. No man may judge you in meat, AT ALL, not in the particular ways you added.

I don't believe that the all the believers ket the weekly and yearly sabbaths. And I believe Paul is speaking to the WEDDING FEAST which is in Christ. That is why he is using metaphorical language. Remember, the Law is having a SHADOW. We are living in the reality.

I would ask you a question---Has Yahshua come back yet ??

if your answer is yes---then you are correct you are living in the reality instead of the shadow

if your answer is no---then my friend you are still living in the shadow of what the Sabbaths represent  :dsunny: :dsunny:

you cant be in the reality if he hasn't returned and all things be fulfilled---you are still  living in the shadows of the Sabbaths if you say no

[Seth]

I would ask you a question---Has Yahshua come back yet ??

if your answer is yes---then you are correct you are living in the reality instead of the shadow

if your answer is no---then my friend you are still living in the shadow of what the Sabbaths represent

you cant be in the reality if he hasn't returned and all things be fulfilled---you are still  living in the shadows of the Sabbaths if you say no

My answer is yes. Jesus is within his followers. He promised to come back to them just before he left them. Remember?

John 14:18
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

And he did. AND, that is why we don't have to be phsyically circumcised in the hope of being Spiritually circumcised. We can have the latter now.However, we are awaiting a second return to earth so Christ will glorify himself in his saints. There is no indication that we must observe shadows until that time. I think you just made that rule up on your own.

[ed]

So do Sabbaths have anything to do with once saved always saved?

Do people think that keeping a Sabbath has something to do with salvation?

You are saved if you do and not saved if you don't?

Sabbaths seem awful important to some and not so important to others.

It is the stuff that great sectarianism is made of.

I accept both positions just as I do with trinity and other sectarian arguments.

[FreeAtLast]

I would ask you a question---Has Yahshua come back yet ??

if your answer is yes---then you are correct you are living in the reality instead of the shadow

if your answer is no---then my friend you are still living in the shadow of what the Sabbaths represent

you cant be in the reality if he hasn't returned and all things be fulfilled---you are still  living in the shadows of the Sabbaths if you say no

My answer is yes. Jesus is within his followers. He promised to come back to them just before he left them. Remember?

John 14:18
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

And he did. AND, that is why we don't have to be phsyically circumcised in the hope of being Spiritually circumcised. We can have the latter now.However, we are awaiting a second return to earth so Christ will glorify himself in his saints. There is no indication that we must observe shadows until that time. I think you just made that rule up on your own.

I asked if he has returned in the 2n coming.

and if you study hard enough you will find the believers in the new testament keeping the Sabbaths--its there I promise   :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:

[Seth]

Ed: The topic of the Law came about with regard to salvation because there is a question as to whether one can be saved while still sinning. I don't believe so, because salvation is FROM sin not in sin. On the other hand, I don't believe we need to follow moral or ceremonial codes to be saved from sin, just follow the Spirit, and grow in Grace. We did go off topic, but it did come about organically from the topic. Can we split it?

I asked if he has returned in the 2n coming.

I know what you were referring to. But, Jesus did return to his followers just as he promised. The second coming from the book of Hebrews is contrasted against the first time he was witnessed by unbelievers. He will be witnessed by them again when he comes to glorify his saints. Other people will be observing the Law until Jesus comes back and is witnessed by the world along with his followers.

With respect to the law of shadows, yes Jesus did return after he ascended to heaven to live as the reality within his saints, the reality that the OT foretold. He put his saints to death in the spirit to resurrect them under a new covenant, to follow the Spirit and not the Law. We are are not waiting for him to be a reality of the shadows within us daily, and we don't have to observe Old Testament shadows until he is witnessed by the world, and comes to glorify the saints. Like I said, that is an invented rule.

[FreeAtLast]

Ed: The topic of the Law came about with regard to salvation because there is a question as to whether one can be saved while still sinning. I don't believe so, because salvation is FROM sin not in sin. On the other hand, I don't believe we need to follow moral or ceremonial codes to be saved from sin, just follow the Spirit, and grow in Grace. We did go off topic, but it did come about organically from the topic. Can we split it?

I asked if he has returned in the 2n coming.

I know what you were referring to. But, Jesus did return to his followers just as he promised. The second coming from the book of Hebrews is contrasted against the first time he was witnessed by unbelievers. He will be witnessed by them again when he comes to glorify his saints. Other people will be observing the Law until Jesus comes back and is witnessed by the world along with his followers.

With respect to the law of shadows, yes Jesus did return after he ascended to heaven to live as the reality within his saints, the reality that the OT foretold. He put his saints to death in the spirit to resurrect them under a new covenant, to follow the Spirit and not the Law. We are are not waiting for him to be a reality of the shadows within us daily, and we don't have to observe Old Testament shadows until he is witnessed by the world, and comes to glorify the saints. Like I said, that is an invented rule.

if my wife was in Alaska and was coming home in 2 weeks--I would have the promise of her coming home unto me

Now would I have the reality of her being Home with me--No

I would have the reality  that she is coming home in 2 weeks

The point is that you cant have the reality of something without it already coming to pass

So in like manner those Shadows are still only Shadows until the Reality of them happen

what you are saying is that you have the Reality of the Spirit that came to dwell inside you--that is something that has already happened

So in the case of what the Sabbaths was pointing unto---it all depends on if you are a futurist or preterist

if all has been fulfilled as he said in Mat.24  then it is a reality because all has been accomplished

but if any part still has to been fulfilled--it is no Reality until it happens  :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:

[Seth]

if my wife was in Alaska and was coming home in 2 weeks--I would have the promise of her coming home unto me

Now would I have the reality of her being Home with me--No

The problem with that analogy is that your wife is not a life giving Spirit. You wouldn't have to wait for her if she could dwell within you until her arrival 2 weeks later.

Your children might have to wait because if they don't believe, then she wouldn't be a life giving spirit within them.

The point is that you cant have the reality of something without it already coming to pass

So in like manner those Shadows are still only Shadows until the Reality of them happen

It has come to pass within the believers. The shadow of the CIRCUMCISION, for example has come to pass as the reality of being circumcised by the SPIRIT.

Therefore, we don't have to be physically circumcised. Why? Because the reality has come through Christ.

So in the case of what the Sabbaths was pointing unto---it all depends on if you are a futurist or preterist

if all has been fulfilled as he said in Mat.24  then it is a reality because all has been accomplished

He said that no jot or tittle would pass from the Law until it is fulfilled. And here we are, not being physically circumcised.....things that make you go....HMMMMMMMM  :Chinscratch:

You see, Jesus does not need to make jots or tittles pass from the Law in order for him to put us to death and resurrect us under a NEW covenant. That's what Romans 7 explains. The law was like a wedding contract. Jesus killed our old man and resurrected us unto a new covenant of following the Spirit not the Law. That's why circumcision is not observed literally anymore. The reality has come.

As I said, people are still following the Law until Christ comes to glorify himself in his saints. But those saints are living in the reality that the Law had promised long ago, the Life of Christ within us (aionios zoe). The Law promised that life. God delivered it. Jesus fulfilled that promise and is therefore the reality within us.

[FreeAtLast]

if my wife was in Alaska and was coming home in 2 weeks--I would have the promise of her coming home unto me

Now would I have the reality of her being Home with me--No

The problem with that analogy is that your wife is not a life giving Spirit. You wouldn't have to wait for her if she could dwell within you until her arrival 2 weeks later.

Your children might have to wait because if they don't believe, then she wouldn't be a life giving spirit within them.

The point is that you cant have the reality of something without it already coming to pass

So in like manner those Shadows are still only Shadows until the Reality of them happen

It has come to pass within the believers. The shadow of the CIRCUMCISION, for example has come to pass as the reality of being circumcised by the SPIRIT.

Therefore, we don't have to be physically circumcised. Why? Because the reality has come through Christ.

So in the case of what the Sabbaths was pointing unto---it all depends on if you are a futurist or preterist

if all has been fulfilled as he said in Mat.24  then it is a reality because all has been accomplished

He said that no jot or tittle would pass from the Law until it is fulfilled. And here we are, not being physically circumcised.....things that make you go....HMMMMMMMM  :Chinscratch:

You see, Jesus does not need to make jots or tittles pass from the Law in order for him to put us to death and resurrect us under a NEW covenant. That's what Romans 7 explains. The law was like a wedding contract. Jesus killed our old man and resurrected us unto a new covenant of following the Spirit not the Law. That's why circumcision is not observed literally anymore. The reality has come.

As I said, people are still following the Law until Christ comes to glorify himself in his saints. But those saints are living in the reality that the Law had promised long ago, the Life of Christ within us (aionios zoo). The Law promised that life. Jesus fulfilled that promise and is therefore the reality within us.

:iagree: :iagree: all you said in this post I agree

but as far as all the shadows of the Sabbaths being a reality is what I was talking about

seems like you are misunderstanding what im talking about

if all is fulfilled as mat 24 states--then we are in the realities and not the shadows of the Sabbaths
if there still needs to be something done--we are still living in some shadows of some of the Sabbaths and not the realities   :dsunny:

[Seth]

Notice he doesn't say "those are things having a shadow of things to come, but the second coming of Christ is the reality."

No. He says they are "having a shadow, but the body is of Christ."

The body casts the shadow. Nothing there indicates that Paul was talking about the shadows representing the second coming of Christ. Brother, Christ's BODY is HERE. He IS, was and will be.