Quote from: Seth on August 25, 2014, 11:59:55 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 25, 2014, 11:51:38 PM
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:
This article best sums up my thoughts on OSAS
http://tentmaker.org/articles/once_saved_always_saved_slagle.html
Quote from: Searching_For_The_Truth on August 26, 2014, 12:04:59 AM
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:
Quoteone 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.
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:
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 12:29:04 AM
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on August 26, 2014, 12:37:00 AM
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:
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.
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 12:29:04 AM
Quoteone 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:
Quote from: eaglesway on August 26, 2014, 12:37:00 AM
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
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on August 26, 2014, 01:01:35 AM
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteGentiles 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 01:41:28 AM
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)
"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.
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 02:07:10 AM
"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
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 26, 2014, 02:15:48 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 02:22:30 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 26, 2014, 02:15:48 AM
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:
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?
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 02:45:31 AM
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?
QuoteI 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:
Quoteif 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteSo 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.
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 03:23:07 AM
Quoteif 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteSo 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:
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.
Quoteif there still needs to be something done--we are still living in some shadows of some of the Sabbaths and not the realities
That's not what Jesus said. He didn't say that his followers must follow the Law until all is fulfilled. If he said that, you must go be circumcised physically. What he said is that the jots and tittles will not pass. I was never under the Law as a Gentile according to the flesh. Therefore, I was not following the jots and tittles at all, even though they hadn't passed. Therefore, the fact that they have not passed, does not mean all his followers are following the Law.
As I said, the jots and tittles may stay, but that doesn't mean that the contract is BINDING. It's only binding upon them who are married to their sin. Those jots and tittles are still binding...ONLY UPON THOSE WHO ARE ALIVE TO SIN.
When Jesus kills the old man, the jots and tittles, while not passed, are NOT binding, because we have been resurrected under a new contract under the Spirit. That old contract is still there, but not applicable to those who are dead to sin.
Read the first few paragraphs of Romans 7.
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 03:43:18 AM
Quoteif there still needs to be something done--we are still living in some shadows of some of the Sabbaths and not the realities
That's not what Jesus said. He didn't say that his followers must follow the Law until all is fulfilled. If he said that, you must go be circumcised physically. What he said is that the jots and tittles will not pass. I was never under the Law as a Gentile according to the flesh. Therefore, I was not following the jots and tittles at all, even though they hadn't passed. Therefore, the fact that they have not passed, does not mean all his followers are following the Law.
As I said, the jots and tittles may stay, but that doesn't mean that the contract is BINDING. It's only binding upon them who are married to their sin. Those jots and tittles are still binding...ONLY UPON THOSE WHO ARE ALIVE TO SIN.
When Jesus kills the old man, the jots and tittles, while not passed, are NOT binding, because we have been resurrected under a new contract under the Spirit.
why do you keep bringing up circumcision---I have never in any posts mentioned anything about circumcision or us having to have it ??
What do you think the Laws were that were put in our minds and written in our hearts ??
If we don't have to be circumcised physically, that is because the reality has come within the believers. That's the same reason we don't have to observe sabbath days. The reality of that "rest" that the Law was symbolizing has come in the form of Christ within us.
Because he is within us, he has released us from the jots and tittles, and they are not binding. We are now free from the letter to follow the Spirit. We are under NO obligation to follow shadows, because "the body is of Christ."
The Body is here as a current reality.
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 03:32:57 AM
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.
have you ever studied what the Sabbaths represent and what Shadows of things to come they are ?
do you mean other people's opinions about what they represent?or do you mean the Scripture itself?
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 03:53:47 AM
If we don't have to be circumcised physically, that is because the reality has come within the believers. That's the same reason we don't have to observe sabbath days. The reality of that "rest" that the Law was symbolizing has come in the form of Christ within us.
Because he is within us, he has released us from the jots and tittles, and they are not binding. We are now free from the letter to follow the Spirit. We are under NO obligation to follow shadows, because "the body is of Christ."
The Body is here as a current reality.
think that the Spirit is gonna lead you against that which is Holy and Good ???
will the spirit lead you to Sin ??
Just because you are not under the law---does that give you the right to transgress it ???
being freed from the law and not under it--means that you are no longer facing that Death Penalty that the law had pronounced on you---Yahshua has freed us from that
the law no longer hath dominion over you---it cant pronounce DEATH on you for breaking it
paul said plainly shall we Sin(transgress the law) because we are under grace and not under law----YAH forbid it
We establish the law
Brother just because we are no longer under the grip of the law that was to condemn us to DEATH--we now have mercy---Grace and are under it
For Yah saith himself--for I(YAH) am HOLY---be you also HOLY
The law is Good and Holy :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
:doh:
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 03:57:53 AM
do you mean other people's opinions about what they represent?or do you mean the Scripture itself?
I mean what they represented unto the jewish mind and what they stood for ???
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 26, 2014, 04:06:12 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 03:57:53 AM
do you mean other people's opinions about what they represent?or do you mean the Scripture itself?
I mean what they represented unto the jewish mind and what they stood for ???
so you mean other peoples opinions. The Jewish mind.what did the Jewish mind think about the Savior?
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:05:58 AM
:doh:
is it right to murder someone just to do it ??
is it right to commit adultery ??
is it right to steal ??
is it right to not honor your parents ???
these are just 4 of the 10 are they all right to go against ???
read Galatians 5
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:07:43 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 26, 2014, 04:06:12 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 03:57:53 AM
do you mean other people's opinions about what they represent?or do you mean the Scripture itself?
I mean what they represented unto the jewish mind and what they stood for ???
so you mean other peoples opinions. The Jewish mind.what did the Jewish mind think about the Savior?
tell me what each Sabbath represents then
the Sabbath is a shadow. The body is of Christ. There you have it.did the Jewish mind accept that? No, the Jewish mind rejected it.
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:09:56 AM
read Galatians 5
yes it tells you to walk in the spirit and you will be keeping the commandments :dsunny: :dsunny:
no it says if you walk by the Spirit you are not under the law
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:13:18 AM
the Sabbath is a shadow. The body is of Christ. There you have it.did the Jewish mind accept that? No, the Jewish mind rejected it.
did you know that there is more than 1 Sabbath ? there are several Sabbaths--and each with a very special meaning behind it :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:14:49 AM
no it says if you walk by the Spirit you are not under the law
I think where our non agreement is at is what Under the law actually means
the Spirit does not inspire us to follow the letter. It inspires us to love our neighbor. No moral codes and no living in the shadow
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:14:49 AM
no it says if you walk by the Spirit you are not under the law
exactly
if we be led of the Spirit--were not under the law--meaning we are not doing what we do trying to earn favor and Life from Yah---we already have been given Life freely
the spirit leads us to do Righteous and Holy works---we now do what we do because we LOVE Yah--not because we are under bondage of the law :dsunny:
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:20:19 AM
the Spirit does not inspire us to follow the letter. It inspires us to love our neighbor. No moral codes and no living in the shadow
do you know that the 2 LOVE commandments came directly from the old testament ?? I can look them up and post them later---everything that was taught and written in the new came from the old :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
if there is no punishment then then no Christian is obligated to follow the Sabbath as a literal day.. Obligation has disappeared
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 26, 2014, 04:27:33 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:20:19 AM
the Spirit does not inspire us to follow the letter. It inspires us to love our neighbor. No moral codes and no living in the shadow
do you know that the 2 LOVE commandments came directly from the old testament ?? I can look them up and post them later---everything that was taught and written in the new came from the old :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
like I said we don't follow moral codes. This spirit inspires us to love our neighbor
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:29:10 AM
if there is no punishment then then no Christian is obligated to follow the Sabbath as a literal day.. Obligation has disappeared
true we are freed from DEATH---but we are also going to be judged according to our works as paul explains it
Now what are considered Good Works ??? are they not after that which is Good and Holy ??
nobody will be judged for not keeping the Sabbath as a literal day
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:30:03 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 26, 2014, 04:27:33 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:20:19 AM
the Spirit does not inspire us to follow the letter. It inspires us to love our neighbor. No moral codes and no living in the shadow
do you know that the 2 LOVE commandments came directly from the old testament ?? I can look them up and post them later---everything that was taught and written in the new came from the old :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
like I said we don't follow moral codes. This spirit inspires us to love our neighbor
exactly :iagree: :iagree:
do you steal from your neighbor
do you lie against your neighbor
why not ??? because you love them :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
God does not require keeping the Sabbath as a literal day as a sign that we love him. He commands us to believe in Jesus and love our neighbor those are his commandments
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:38:32 AM
nobody will be judged for not keeping the Sabbath as a literal day
that's part of 1 of the LOVE commandments---loving Yah with all your being :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
do you have another God before you---NO you say ?
do you take the name of Yah in vain--No you say??
do you make any graven images for yourself--No you say ??
Why don't you do these things--because you LOVE YAH ??
well theres 1 more there--that's the one everyone has problems with---Do you still LOVE YAH like with the other ones ???
the 10 are examples of how to LOVE your neighbor and YAH--which the 2 LOVE commandments speak of
you cant say you don't do any of the 9 because you love yah and your neighbor and let the other 1 go undone :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:40:53 AM
God does not require keeping the Sabbath as a literal day as a sign that we love him. He commands us to believe in Jesus and love our neighbor those are his commandments
are you not forgetting that Yahshua said to LOVE YAH and your neighbor--theres 2 there friend :-)
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 26, 2014, 04:45:09 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:38:32 AM
nobody will be judged for not keeping the Sabbath as a literal day
that's part of 1 of the LOVE commandments---loving Yah with all your being :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
do you have another God before you---NO you say ?
do you take the name of Yah in vain--No you say??
do you make any graven images for yourself--No you say ??
Why don't you do these things--because you LOVE YAH ??
well theres 1 more there--that's the one everyone has problems with---Do you still LOVE YAH like with the other ones ???
the 10 are examples of how to LOVE your neighbor and YAH--which the 2 LOVE commandments speak of
you cant say you don't do any of the 9 because you love yah and your neighbor and let the other 1 go undone :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
we don't follow codes. You keep quoting codes to me we believe in Jesus and love our neighbor as the Holy Spirit inspires us. That is all that is required of the Christian.
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 26, 2014, 04:46:20 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:40:53 AM
God does not require keeping the Sabbath as a literal day as a sign that we love him. He commands us to believe in Jesus and love our neighbor those are his commandments
are you not forgetting that Yahshua said to LOVE YAH and your neighbor--theres 2 there friend :-)
the Holy Spirit inspires that not according to code but by the power of the Spirit. When we believe in Jesus and love our neighbor we are loving God.
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:46:52 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 26, 2014, 04:45:09 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 26, 2014, 04:38:32 AM
nobody will be judged for not keeping the Sabbath as a literal day
that's part of 1 of the LOVE commandments---loving Yah with all your being :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
do you have another God before you---NO you say ?
do you take the name of Yah in vain--No you say??
do you make any graven images for yourself--No you say ??
Why don't you do these things--because you LOVE YAH ??
well theres 1 more there--that's the one everyone has problems with---Do you still LOVE YAH like with the other ones ???
the 10 are examples of how to LOVE your neighbor and YAH--which the 2 LOVE commandments speak of
you cant say you don't do any of the 9 because you love yah and your neighbor and let the other 1 go undone :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
we don't follow codes. You keep quoting codes to me we believe in Jesus and love our neighbor as the Holy Spirit inspires us. That is all that is required of the Christian.
I like to call them guidelines--LOVE has guidelines to express to you on how to openly show forth
You don't know how to properly LOVE without guidelines and without an example--Yahshua was our greatest example of this
you can love your neighbor without written guidelines. You don't have to know how to read in order to love your neighbor
Besides, if the Holy Spirit is involved, you can do anything. He can place it in your heart to love your neighbor even if you've never heard of the guidelines. Christ can do it all within you by the power of himself. Where the law is weak through the flesh, Christ is strong through the Spirit.
Just because someone doesn't know the guidelines, would that limit God?
The Sabbath rest of the believer is the finished work of Christ on the cross. Hebrews chapters 1-4
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 26, 2014, 12:04:19 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 25, 2014, 11:59:55 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 25, 2014, 11:51:38 PM
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:
This was the gathering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havdalah
http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/havdalah.htm
Quote
This was the gathering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havdalah
http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/havdalah.htm
Learning to be Jewish really looks tough.
I did see some things in the article that I liked, but that was because I could spiritualize it. Spiritualizing makes it something everyone can do without the worry of being offensive to those who do everything just right.
For me the most interesting thing is that it means "separation".
That makes me think of "cut of"like Jesus was.
Somehow that gathering, that dates way before Jesus, points to Him. (like so many other things)
It does prove one thing, the ne w Christians did keep Jewish customs.
I believe Ronen has said he keeps the Sabbath, but not because he thinks it is binding on Christians. He says he does it as a reminder and it helps him in his understanding. That's a big difference. He's not suggesting to other Christians that without observing the Sabbath they are being disobedient to God, or not loving him, or should be concerned about judgment day. These are big differences. It's a personal choice for him that he doesn't believe is to be enforced on Christians. The issue is binding vs. not binding.
1Co 8:7-13 and :iagree: with Seth.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 26, 2014, 03:30:11 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". The meeting in Acts 15 points in another direction, where
the apostles and the entire church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit made it clear that new Gentile Christians coming into the fold were not to be put under ANY Jewish customs in a binding way- and in fact were only commanded to avoid certain grievous pagan practices that were common in the time and to avoid fornication(to keep sexually pure).
The voluminous writings of Paul on this subject also make that clear. To take a brief historical event and expand it to negate clear teaching to the contrary is a bit confounding to me. :dontknow:
Also, as late as Acts 11:19, the church being dispersed because of the persecutions that arose because of Stephen were still preaching the gospel to the Jews only, so naturally, they were meeting on the Sabbaths, as well as continually meeting from house to house as the evangelistic work went on in the streets and public meeting places daily. It wasnt until Acts 14 that a widespread door among the Gentile was being opened, and recognized by the churches, through the ministry of Paul and Barnabus. Up to and for years past that poibnt it stands to reason that the Jewish practices were predominant.
This, however, does not translate into scriptural authority to teach contrary to what Paul taught, regardless what even his own practices, when among Jewish believers might have been- because Paul himself declares that he became all things to all people if by any means he might save some.In Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem, including Peter, James, Paul, and Barnabus met over the issue of bringing the new Gentile congregations under the laws of mosesn and customs of the Jews, and after much debate, they concluded as follows.
"The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.
24 "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication;
if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."
This conclusion is also repeated later in Acts- as an accusation against Paul by Jewish believers and unbelievers.
The reasonings for this conclusion were presented by Peter at the council and also are set forth in many of Paul's epistles.
The religious organizations of today want to dispute over the "proper day to meet". Such a limitation would have been considered lukewarm at best and apostate at worst in the early church, where the community of believers sent up a continual voice of praise and intercession throughout the week- and evangelized in the power of the Holy Spirit continually as well.
To neglect the "gathering of ourselves together" is unwise- but so is enforcing ANY laws about when such gatherings should occur, or teaching as if wtih some scriptural authority(none exists) that God insists they occur on a particular day- and that any feasts or sabbaths or new moons should be observed anyone under fear of scriptural authority or any custom or tradition or law that God is still commanding.
The free will observance of such traditions is sanctioned- and almost "excused" by Paul- saying that we who are free should be considerate of the weakness of conscience that some of our brethren labor under- but Paul is very insistent in several places that no such authority may be exercised over the flock of God, or individual congregations, or individual believers.
Quote from: eagleswayThe fact that they gathered on the Sabbath for these meetings does not prove that all the early Christians kept Jewish "customs".
Amen on your whole post. To this specific thing, I'm wondering where it says that the church met every week on Sabbath. I am not saying that a scripture like that does not exist, but I would certainly like to take a look at it.
I wonder where they met when they threw them out? John 9;22,Jhn 12;42
It seems to me, at least by those scriptures that the only reason they met on the Sabbath was for practical reasons. It was the best time to preach to a large gathering of Jews, not because they were observing customs for their own edification.
In Acts 13, they met several consecutive Sabbaths to hear Paul. However these meetings began in actual regular Jewish synagogue meetings not believers meetings, and they were later driven out. It was from there that Paul decided to go only to the Gentiles.
In Acts 17 Paul again preaches in the regular Jewish synagogue meeting, in order to persuade/evangelize Jews and devout Greeks.
In Acts 18:4 s. 4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
IN Acts 16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met [there].
These again were not believers meetings, they were regular Jewish Sabbath meetings and Paul was evangelizing- "seeking to persuade Jews and Greeks".
These verses are used to prove that Paul taught Sabbath keeping, because he practiced it. Paul was simply going where there were people gathered and evangelizing in all these instances. He would have to be the ultimate hypocrite to teach as he did in the epistles and practice otherwise. He wasn't there to observe the Sabbath. He was there to declare the Sabbath rest of God in Christ.
Some people keep the Sabbath in a willing heart without trying to press other's into it, and are blessed.
Often times the Sabbath is the point where people are first trapped into keeping the law and the traditions of the Jews. They are asked, "Don't you love Yah?" Then they are read a lot of scriptures on keeping the Sabbath and, being unaware/untaught that Christ has fulfilled the Sabbath and indeed IS our Sabbath, they get drawn into Jewish identity sects that then teach, in varying degrees, bondage to the law.
:thumbsup:
Amen.
:thumbsup: there's an account in Lystra in Acts 14;8 that makes me believe no
synagogue there...as jews come from antioch and Iconium and persuaded the people
against Paul..so they stoned him and drug him from the city,fordead.
that where the people tried to worship Paul and Barnabus.
Quote from: sheila on August 27, 2014, 12:30:41 AM
:thumbsup: there's an account in Lystra in Acts 14;8 that makes me believe no
synagogue there...as jews come from antioch and Iconium and persuaded the people
against Paul..so they stoned him and drug him from the city,fordead.
that where the people tried to worship Paul and Barnabus.
Yup, they called them "gods come down" and "Zeus and Hermes" as they began to worship them, so they most likely wasnt Jewish :o)
Great stuff guys !! :thumbsup: Thanks
Made me think of Jesus SPIRIT speaking through Revelations to John saying ,
Message to the Church in Philadelphia [brotherly love ] philo
...8'I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name.
9 Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan[accuser and adversary ], who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie--
I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you.
10Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing,
that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth
But God knows our hearts purest form of worship and sincerity
Sabbath keeping is holy
no man can judge
Quote from: eaglesway on August 26, 2014, 11:23:26 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 26, 2014, 03:30:11 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....
WW, I hav absolutely no problem with Jewishness, or the celebration of it by Jews. I am not Jewish myself(other than imwardly by the Spirit a child of Abraham the father of faith), but I love all the rich history of the scripture and the heritage of the forefathers, the law and the prophets.
I hav simply said that there is no scriptural injunction for believers to keep the traditions or the feasts or the laws or the Sabbaths- because they have been transcended in Christ. He is the sunshine that fulfills all that they foreshadowed, and the sun shines and the shadows fade.
2 Cor 3:7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses(transcends) it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
The former glory is being surpassed in the glory of transformation into the image of the son of God- my Sabbath.
2 Cor 2:16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Heb 8:4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses [d]was warned by God when he was about to erect the [e]tabernacle; for, "See," He says, "that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
As Eaglesway said, the scriptures indicate that the Christians met on Sabbath to preach to unconverted Jews, not to observe the Sabbath as a continual day of worship or rest for believers. As to the feast, of course Jesus was there, and so were his parents. What does that have to do with Christians observing them after the cross?
I have personally kept some feasts myself......and when I did..the gist of the celebration was
centered on the fulfillment through Christ.... really,I would rather the christians keep them instead
of Easter..etc as a memorial of Christ fulfilling them.
But I also realize we are under no commandment to do so..each one..being cnvinced.
one thing that settles this for me is at the transfiguration...Peter asking if perhaps a house
built for Moses,Elijah and Christ...and the reply.......".This is my son,hear ye Him"
.....remember....when God said......'I will make them jealous of a nation that is not a nation
and a people without knowledge "? Most christians have no more than a surface knowledge
of these feasts and how Christ fulfilled them or the rich spiritual imagery of these things portraying
Christ.......
.
I think thats fine, and I agree that Easter and Christmas are really just pagan feasts merged with Christian religion. I think the feasts have plenty if typology and info in them and I even think it could be fun and interesting to keep them on occasion. I have been just re-iterating that there is no scriptural imperative for them under the new covenant - for Gentiles or for Jews. :o)
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.
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:
:laughing7:
"I'm good with your beliefs....until I'm not"
I am perfectly willing to give you an opportunity to hang yourself :punish:
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.
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?
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 27, 2014, 08:38:53 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on August 26, 2014, 11:23:26 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 26, 2014, 03:30:11 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:
I hope not to side-track too much but I simply think that a follower of Christ is a follower of Christ, and the Christ-Spirit will lead that follower of Christ to follow Him, serve Him and worship Him in a spiritual manner, if they let Him, and there is no "set" observance in a ritualistic way.
If someone came to me today, 27th August, and asked me if I could find a spare half hour later because they had a strong desire to remember the Baby Jesus and His wondrous birth, and perhaps sing a few carols, and perhaps remember a few of the priceless treasures that the Jewel of Baby Jesus brought to humanity - then I think I would find that half hour and I might say, because it would be true, it would be my privilege, a privilege to draw closer to the humility of it all through remembrance, perhaps remembrance of a perfect living Being choosing to be born as a human out of an unending love for humanity, perhaps to try and enter into the utter sweetness of that humility where He gave up the privileges that were rightfully His and submitted Himself the laws of His own Creation, being dependent even for His physical life upon His mother's supply, perhaps remembering the difficulty and harshness of His life from the very beginning, right through to the end and His overcoming all temptations, even the temptation to use His power to alleviate His own suffering from man's point of view - and perhaps many more thoughts that could be remembered during a half hour.
And if that person came to me again in twenty years time and said, "You know what, I have a family now and I kept that little summer remembrance of Christ's birth going, and now we all stop what we're doing for half an hour every 27th of August and celebrate His birth, can you make it tonight?"
Well, I would say, absolutely I can make it, thank you for inviting me.
Quote from: lastpost on August 27, 2014, 08:03:55 PM
I hope not to side-track too much but I simply think that a follower of Christ is a follower of Christ, and the Christ-Spirit will lead that follower of Christ to follow Him, serve Him and worship Him in a spiritual manner, if they let Him, and there is no "set" observance in a ritualistic way.
I agree.
The question of physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision damages the argument that Sabbath must be kept the same way as it was under the Law. Paul spiritualized circumcision, and he also spiritualized the Sabbath (these things are having a shadow, but the body is of Christ). He showed Sabbath to be a metaphor of Christ, just like physical circumcision.
But the Sabbath keepers tell us to observe circumcision in the NEW way, but keep observing Sabbath in the OLD way. Don't be physically circumcised, because it "availeth nothing" but DO keep Sabbath as a literal day, because it availeth something? It doesn't follow.
ll those things are shadows. If circumcision is observed spiritually as in Romans 2, there is no reason that the Sabbath cannot also be observed spiritually, as in being in the body of Christ.
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 08:08:15 PM
Quote from: lastpost on August 27, 2014, 08:03:55 PM
I hope not to side-track too much but I simply think that a follower of Christ is a follower of Christ, and the Christ-Spirit will lead that follower of Christ to follow Him, serve Him and worship Him in a spiritual manner, if they let Him, and there is no "set" observance in a ritualistic way.
I agree.
The question of physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision damages the argument that Sabbath must be kept the same way as it was under the Law. Paul spiritualized circumcision, and he also spiritualized the Sabbath (these things are having a shadow, but the body is of Christ). He showed Sabbath to be a metaphor of Christ, just like physical circumcision.
But the Sabbath keepers tell us to observe circumcision in the NEW way, but keep observing Sabbath in the OLD way. Don't be physically circumcised, because it "availeth nothing" but DO keep Sabbath as a literal day, because it availeth something? It doesn't follow.
ll those things are shadows. If circumcision is observed spiritually as in Romans 2, there is no reason that the Sabbath cannot also be observed spiritually, as in being in the body of Christ.
Sabbath was kept long before the law came through Moses---did they keep it the same way as under the law ?
Sabbath was was always a shadow of the body of Christ. Therefore it doesn't matter how anyone kept it before Christ came in his body to the Church.
God's rest day from His finished work[let us make man in our image] man in the incorruptible image
of Jesus Christ is the GREAT SABBATH where God and man rest.
the Father has continued working until now,and so do I.
is it lawful to heal or to kill on the Sabbath?
Quote from: sheila on August 27, 2014, 09:27:28 PM
God's rest day from His finished work[let us make man in our image] man in the incorruptible image
of Jesus Christ is the GREAT SABBATH where God and man rest.
the Father has continued working until now,and so do I.
is it lawful to heal or to kill on the Sabbath?
:thumbsup:
It's a tough question to answer if one believes we must observe as the Jews did.
any thoughts on Hebrews 4 about entering into his rest ??
its all surrounded by the Sabbath in Hebrews 4---even the warning given which was being spoken of from Ezekiel 20
How Israel rebelled against him in the wilderness,walking not in his statues,despised his judgements,and polluted his Sabbaths--
Hebrews 4 is a warning to NOT fall after the same example of unbelief as they did in Ezekiel
it is plainly speaking of the 7th day Sabbath there in Hebrews 4---there remains the rest unto the people of Yah
what remains was here long before or it could not be remaining at the present time---let us labor therefore to enter this rest(7th day Sabbath)unless we fall after the same unbelief as they did in Ezekiel ???
read it in Ezekiel ---we have been warned by the writer of Hebrews :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
since Jesus said come on to me and I shall give you rest, my thoughts on Hebrews 4 is that our that entering into his rest means entering into his body. By way of the Spirit. That is the only way we can enter into Christ. Therefore the Sabbath is in his body not a literal day. the literal day was only a shadow of everything I have just said.
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 10:08:00 PM
since Jesus said come on to me and I shall give you rest, my thoughts on Hebrews 4 is that our that entering into his rest means entering into his body. By way of the Spirit. That is the only way we can enter into Christ. Therefore the Sabbath is in his body not a literal day. the literal day was only a shadow of everything I have just said.
question---did the jews of the old testament have this rest you talk about ??
Some of the prophets had the Spirit, but that does not mean they were converted by it.
John 7
37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
So, the manifestation of the Spirit as a river of water by which man may come to Christ and drink and out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, was not available until Christ was glorified. This is why the crucifixion was necessary. Otherwise it wasn't necessary for Christ to be resurrected to give these rivers of water to anyone else who wanted it.
None can receive the Holy Spirit unless they believe in Christ (Acts 2:38). But they murdered Christ instead because Christ said that they did not believe.
actually the 1000yr reign is JESUS CHRIST SABBATH REST DAY...that many do not enter into while
in this life[they shall not enter my rest]just as many of the jews rejected Jesus and would not enter into Him..
so He handed them over to satan for the destruction of their flesh...that the spirit may be saved
on the day of the Lord.
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 10:17:14 PM
Some of the prophets had the Spirit, but that does not mean they were converted by it.
John 7
37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
So, the manifestation of the Spirit as a river of water by which man may come to Christ and drink and out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, was not available until Christ was glorified. This is why the crucifixion was necessary. Otherwise it wasn't necessary for Christ to be resurrected to give these rivers of water to anyone else who wanted it.
None can receive the Holy Spirit unless they believe in Christ (Acts 2:38). But they murdered Christ instead because Christ said that they did not believe.
No Prophet in the old testament as I recall had the spirit indwelling--they only had the spirit come upon them to do the ministry they were given--not came to indwell.
Hebrews 4 talks of the 7th day Sabbath rest----the jews in Ezekiel didn't have the rest you are talking about because messiah had never come neither had the spirit been given to indwell people.
point is that the writer of Hebrews said that the rest that the jews of Ezekiel had still REMAINED unto that present time--and for them not to fall after the same example of their unbelief--the rest remained for the people of God in the new testament just as it was in the old testament
basically don't pollute his Sabbaths,walk in his statues and commandments or fall after the same example of unbelief :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: sheila on August 27, 2014, 10:25:42 PM
actually the 1000yr reign is JESUS CHRIST SABBATH REST DAY...that many do not enter into while
in this life[they shall not enter my rest]just as many of the jews rejected Jesus and would not enter into Him..
so He handed them over to satan for the destruction of their flesh...that the spirit may be saved
on the day of the Lord.
nothing like a good ole fashion stoning by the high priest and his devils to help persuade someone :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 27, 2014, 10:42:56 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 10:17:14 PM
Some of the prophets had the Spirit, but that does not mean they were converted by it.
John 7
37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
So, the manifestation of the Spirit as a river of water by which man may come to Christ and drink and out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, was not available until Christ was glorified. This is why the crucifixion was necessary. Otherwise it wasn't necessary for Christ to be resurrected to give these rivers of water to anyone else who wanted it.
None can receive the Holy Spirit unless they believe in Christ (Acts 2:38). But they murdered Christ instead because Christ said that they did not believe.
No Prophet in the old testament as I recall had the spirit indwelling--they only had the spirit come upon them to do the ministry they were given--not came to indwell.
Hebrews 4 talks of the 7th day Sabbath rest----the jews in Ezekiel didn't have the rest you are talking about because messiah had never come neither had the spirit been given to indwell people.
point is that the writer of Hebrews said that the rest that the jews of Ezekiel had still REMAINED unto that present time--and for them not to fall after the same example of their unbelief--the rest remained for the people of God in the new testament just as it was in the old testament
basically don't pollute his Sabbaths,walk in his statues and commandments or fall after the same example of unbelief :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Have you ever read the prophecy that Hebrews 4 is referencing?
Psalm 95
8"Do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah,[a]
as you did that day at Massah in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors tested me;
they tried me, though they had seen what I did.
10 For forty years I was angry with that generation;
I said, 'They are a people whose hearts go astray,
and they have not known my ways.'
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall not
enter my rest.'"
Hebrews is not referring to the 10 commandment ordinance of the Sabbath, but to the failure ofIsrael to enter into the promised land. Just as Paul spiritualized the Sabbath as being a shadow of the body of Christ, so also did David and the author of Hebrews spiritualize the promised land as being God's rest.
Numbers 14:22-23
Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they
shall not see the land which I swore unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it.
The Bible says that
"Israel is God's first born son." Both the LAND and the literal sabbath day represent (being shadows) the body of Christ. Christ really meant it when he said that the scriptures testify
ABOUT HIM.
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 11:05:52 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 27, 2014, 10:42:56 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 10:17:14 PM
Some of the prophets had the Spirit, but that does not mean they were converted by it.
John 7
37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
So, the manifestation of the Spirit as a river of water by which man may come to Christ and drink and out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, was not available until Christ was glorified. This is why the crucifixion was necessary. Otherwise it wasn't necessary for Christ to be resurrected to give these rivers of water to anyone else who wanted it.
None can receive the Holy Spirit unless they believe in Christ (Acts 2:38). But they murdered Christ instead because Christ said that they did not believe.
No Prophet in the old testament as I recall had the spirit indwelling--they only had the spirit come upon them to do the ministry they were given--not came to indwell.
Hebrews 4 talks of the 7th day Sabbath rest----the jews in Ezekiel didn't have the rest you are talking about because messiah had never come neither had the spirit been given to indwell people.
point is that the writer of Hebrews said that the rest that the jews of Ezekiel had still REMAINED unto that present time--and for them not to fall after the same example of their unbelief--the rest remained for the people of God in the new testament just as it was in the old testament
basically don't pollute his Sabbaths,walk in his statues and commandments or fall after the same example of unbelief :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Have you ever read the prophecy that Hebrews 4 is referencing?
Psalm 95
8"Do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah,[a]
as you did that day at Massah in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors tested me;
they tried me, though they had seen what I did.
10 For forty years I was angry with that generation;
I said, 'They are a people whose hearts go astray,
and they have not known my ways.'
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall not enter my rest.'"
Hebrews is not referring to the 10 commandment ordinance of the Sabbath, but to the failure ofIsrael to enter into the promised land. Just as Paul spiritualized the Sabbath as being a shadow of the body of Christ, so also did David and the author of Hebrews spiritualize the promised land as being God's rest.
Numbers 14:22-23
Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I swore unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it.
The Bible says that "Israel is God's first born son."
Both the LAND and the literal sabbath day represent (being shadows) the body of Christ. Christ really meant it when he said that the scriptures testify ABOUT HIM.
did you also read Ezekiel 20---says the same things as psalms does---but psalms say his ways and Ezekiel tells you what his ways are--Sabbaths,Statues
Ezekiel 20 gives you more plainer vision of the context--indeed it is talking about the 7th day Sabbath rest that remained for the people of God in new testament just as it did for those in Ezekiel --and the warning was not to fall after the same unbelief --what was their unbelief--polluted his Sabbaths,despising his Statues---
read Ezekiel 20---this is the portion of scripture that the writer is quoting from--
how can you labor to enter that rest if you have it everyday ?? you cant
you labor to enter that rest in the 6 days of the week and finally enter it on the 7th :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
When did God warn them that he would not allow them to keep the literal Sabbath day? That doesn't even make sense. He ORDERED them to keep the Sabbath day.
Jesus was very clear that the scriptures testify about HIM. That means that BOTH the Sabbath and the promised land representative CHRIST.
That is why Jesus says COME TO ME and I will give you rest. Anyone who.enters into Christ has come into the fulfillment of both the promised land and the shadows and are therefore not violating the Sabbath by honoring it as a literal day.
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 11:22:22 PM
When did God warn them that he would not allow them to keep the literal Sabbath day? That doesn't even make sense. He ORDERED them to keep the Sabbath day.
Jesus was very clear that the scriptures testify about HIM. That means that BOTH the Sabbath and the promised land representative CHRIST.
That is why Jesus says COME TO ME and I will give you rest. Anyone who.enters into Christ has come into the fulfillment of both the promised land and the shadows and are therefore not violating the Sabbath by honoring it as a literal day.
still you must deal with Hebrews 4 in context--and that context is 7th day Sabbath rest
they were warned to NOT to do as the jews in Ezekial did--what did they do ?/ they polluted the 7th day rest,despised his statues.
that same rest that they had in Eze. still remained for the people of yah in Hebrews--that's what he said--and for them to not fall after the same unbelief--its very clear to me---you cant say it wasn't saying the 7th day rest--they both had that in old and new
if you say it is a spiritual rest its talking about--I say not possible because the jews of Eze. didn't have the spirit indwelling for that kind of rest
So therefore it could not be remaining for new testament believers if the old never had it ??
the old had the 7th day rest and it remained as the writer said for the people of Yah even in Hebrews time :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Ezekiel 20 proves the same thing as I was saying
Ezekiel 20
13 "'Yet the people of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not follow my decrees but rejected my laws—by which the person who obeys them will live—and they utterly desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and destroy them in the wilderness. 14 But for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 15 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would not bring them into the land I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands.
So, we know a few things
1) The Old Testament speaks of Christ
1) Hebrews 4 is a reference to the Holy Land
2) The Holy land is God's rest
3) Jesus is our rest
4) The Holy Land is a shadow of Jesus
5) The Jews were held from entering the literal land for not following statutes
Fast forward to the New Covenant. Jesus declares himself to be God's rest and requires us to enter into him by what means?
Galatians 3
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
Well, of course, Paul's point is that it wasn't works of the Law by which we receive the promise, but faith. As it happens there is a statute for Christians about that.
1 John 3:23
And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
We DON'T enter into God's rest by the works of the Law. This is BASIC STUFF. The Jews had their statutes, and absent their obedience they did not enter into the land. CHRISTIANS have one statute to receive Christ: BELIEVE.
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 11:59:36 PM
Ezekiel 20 proves the same thing as I was saying
Ezekiel 20
13 "'Yet the people of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not follow my decrees but rejected my laws—by which the person who obeys them will live—and they utterly desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and destroy them in the wilderness. 14 But for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 15 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would not bring them into the land I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands.
So, we know a few things
1) The Old Testament speaks of Christ
1) Hebrews 4 is a reference to the Holy Land
2) The Holy land is God's rest
3) Jesus is our rest
4) The Holy Land is a shadow of Jesus
5) The Jews were held from entering the literal land for not following statutes
Fast forward to the New Covenant. Jesus declares himself to be God's rest and requires us to enter into him by what means?
Galatians 3
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
Well, of course, Paul's point is that it wasn't works of the Law by which we receive the promise, but faith. As it happens there is a statute for Christians about that.
1 John 3:23
And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
We DON'T enter into God's rest by the works of the Law. This is BASIC STUFF. The Jews had their statutes, and absent their obedience they did not enter into the land. CHRISTIANS have one statute to receive Christ: BELIEVE.
your still not dealing with Hebrews 4 :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
how can something remain for some that others had--if they never had the indwelling spirit ???
if you have that rest already---why labor to enter something you already have ??
falling after the same example--Hebrews dealt with the 7th day rest
eze dealt with the 7th day rest
that same rest that eze jews had remained for the Hebrew people of Yah
what do you say about these comments I just made ??
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 11:59:36 PM
Ezekiel 20 proves the same thing as I was saying
Ezekiel 20
13 "'Yet the people of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not follow my decrees but rejected my laws—by which the person who obeys them will live—and they utterly desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and destroy them in the wilderness. 14 But for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 15 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would not bring them into the land I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands.
So, we know a few things
1) The Old Testament speaks of Christ
1) Hebrews 4 is a reference to the Holy Land
2) The Holy land is God's rest
3) Jesus is our rest
4) The Holy Land is a shadow of Jesus
5) The Jews were held from entering the literal land for not following statutes
Fast forward to the New Covenant. Jesus declares himself to be God's rest and requires us to enter into him by what means?
Galatians 3
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
Well, of course, Paul's point is that it wasn't works of the Law by which we receive the promise, but faith. As it happens there is a statute for Christians about that.
1 John 3:23
And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
We DON'T enter into God's rest by the works of the Law. This is BASIC STUFF. The Jews had their statutes, and absent their obedience they did not enter into the land. CHRISTIANS have one statute to receive Christ: BELIEVE.
your still not dealing with Hebrews 4 :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
how can something remain for some that others had--if they never had the indwelling spirit ???
if you have that rest already---why labor to enter something you already have ??
falling after the same example--Hebrews dealt with the 7th day rest
eze dealt with the 7th day rest
that same rest that eze jews had remained for the Hebrew people of Yah
what do you say about these comments I just made ??
sure they were not brought in the land---why ??? because of their unbelief in doing some horrible things
polluting the Sabbaths
despising his statues
that same rest they had and polluted remained for the Hebrew people of Yah--don't fall after their example ???
First, here is the statute necessary for entering into the rest.
Hebrews 4
3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
SO, we enter into sabbath-rest by believing in Jesus:
Hebrews 4
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from their works,[e] just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.
So, Just as Jesus said: Come to me and I will give you rest, and Paul said that the Sabbath is a shadow of the body of Christ, the Sabbath rest represents no longer leaning on our own righteousness which is by the Law, but to rest from our own works of the Law in the Spirit, which inspires us to love our neighbor.
Quotesure they were not brought in the land---why ??? because of their unbelief in doing some horrible things
polluting the Sabbaths
despising his statues
that same rest they had and polluted remained for the Hebrew people of Yah--don't fall after their example ???
Today, the statute is "believe." That is how you enter into sabbath rest, NOT by works of the law, like observing Sabbath as a literal day. Sabbath is a reality in Christ which the shadow foretold.
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 12:12:00 AM
First, here is the statute necessary for entering into the rest.
Hebrews 4
3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
SO, we enter into sabbath-rest by believing in Jesus:
Hebrews 4
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from their works,[e] just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.
So, Just as Jesus said: Come to me and I will give you rest, and Paul said that the Sabbath is a shadow of the body of Christ, the Sabbath rest represents no longer leaning on our own righteousness which is by the Law, but to rest from our own works of the Law in the Spirit, which inspires us to love our neighbor.
Quotesure they were not brought in the land---why ??? because of their unbelief in doing some horrible things
polluting the Sabbaths
despising his statues
that same rest they had and polluted remained for the Hebrew people of Yah--don't fall after their example ???
Today, the statute is "believe." That is how you enter into sabbath rest, NOT by works of the law, like observing Sabbath as a literal day. Sabbath is a reality in Christ which the shadow foretold.
we who believe do enter into that rest----that's what he said--true :dsunny:
Now he also said Let US(those who believe)labor to enter into that rest---?????if we already entered that rest and have it--how can we possibly labor for it :eek:
Those that enter that rest have ceased from their works just as Yah did---????if we cease from our works--where does the let us labor to enter come in ??
see this spiritual rest--which is true in the proper light--does not apply to this context--cannot apply---too many contradictions for it to do so.
Now on the other hand with the 7th day Sabbath rest---what can we say ??
Let us labor to enter it(work 6 days of labor and enter the 7th day Sabbath rest)
we who believe do enter into it(once a week)
we cease from our works when we enter this rest(we don't work or labor on the 7th day Sabbath )
see how there are no contradictions with the 7th day Sabbath rest ???all fits in nicely---unlike the one above :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
You got caught up in the Old English.
The word "labor" is from this:
Cognate: 4704 spoudázō – properly, be swift (go fast, be speedy); (figuratively) to move speedily by showing full diligence
It means to have HASTE and be diligent, not to add works of the Law in order to maintain your promise of the Spirit. The promise of the Spirit is given according to faith, not by works of the Law.
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 12:27:12 AM
You got caught up in the Old English.
The word "labor" is from this:
Cognate: 4704 spoudázō – properly, be swift (go fast, be speedy); (figuratively) to move speedily by showing full diligence
It means to have HASTE and be diligent, not to add works of the Law in order to maintain your promise of the Spirit. The promise of the Spirit is given according to faith, not by works of the Law.
you added in that other part of adding works of the law--that's no where in this context at all
Just proves the same anyway--let us speedily enter into that rest--again how can you speedily enter something that you suppose to already have ????
again---we who believe enter that rest --can you speedily enter in after you already have it--no need to enter is there ???
according to your view that you are saying--the writer says that we have already entered if we belief--then comes back and says let US(believers) speedily enter in to that rest
still too many contradictions---doesn't even make sense at all :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Look again:
Hebrews 4
3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
"So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.'"
And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world. 4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "On the seventh day God rested from all his works." 5 And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."
6 Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, 7 God again set a certain day, calling it "Today."
First of all, the fact that sabbath-rest is offered TODAY undoes your previous assertion that we must wait for the second coming of Christ for it. It's available TODAY.
Secondly, why do you keep claiming that he is talking to people who already have it, when he is clear that IT STILL REMAINS for some to enter into that rest. It logically follows, therefore, that since we enter into God's rest by faith, that he is talking to some people that do not have faith. He is using the words "let us" because he wants THE ENTIRE body of Israel to believe (hastily) and enter into the rest.
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 11:05:52 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 27, 2014, 10:42:56 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 10:17:14 PM
Some of the prophets had the Spirit, but that does not mean they were converted by it.
John 7
37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
So, the manifestation of the Spirit as a river of water by which man may come to Christ and drink and out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, was not available until Christ was glorified. This is why the crucifixion was necessary. Otherwise it wasn't necessary for Christ to be resurrected to give these rivers of water to anyone else who wanted it.
None can receive the Holy Spirit unless they believe in Christ (Acts 2:38). But they murdered Christ instead because Christ said that they did not believe.
No Prophet in the old testament as I recall had the spirit indwelling--they only had the spirit come upon them to do the ministry they were given--not came to indwell.
Hebrews 4 talks of the 7th day Sabbath rest----the jews in Ezekiel didn't have the rest you are talking about because messiah had never come neither had the spirit been given to indwell people.
point is that the writer of Hebrews said that the rest that the jews of Ezekiel had still REMAINED unto that present time--and for them not to fall after the same example of their unbelief--the rest remained for the people of God in the new testament just as it was in the old testament
basically don't pollute his Sabbaths,walk in his statues and commandments or fall after the same example of unbelief :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Have you ever read the prophecy that Hebrews 4 is referencing?
Psalm 95
8"Do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah,[a]
as you did that day at Massah in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors tested me;
they tried me, though they had seen what I did.
10 For forty years I was angry with that generation;
I said, 'They are a people whose hearts go astray,
and they have not known my ways.'
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall not enter my rest.'"
Hebrews is not referring to the 10 commandment ordinance of the Sabbath, but to the failure ofIsrael to enter into the promised land. Just as Paul spiritualized the Sabbath as being a shadow of the body of Christ, so also did David and the author of Hebrews spiritualize the promised land as being God's rest.
Numbers 14:22-23
Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I swore unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it.
The Bible says that "Israel is God's first born son."
Both the LAND and the literal sabbath day represent (being shadows) the body of Christ. Christ really meant it when he said that the scriptures testify ABOUT HIM.
how do you explain the writer saying let US enter in that rest--when the writer and the believers had already believed ???
we who do believe enter that rest--how can they speedily enter that rest after they have believed and entered already ???
please give attention to these 2 questions :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 01:05:39 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 11:05:52 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 27, 2014, 10:42:56 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 27, 2014, 10:17:14 PM
Some of the prophets had the Spirit, but that does not mean they were converted by it.
John 7
37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
So, the manifestation of the Spirit as a river of water by which man may come to Christ and drink and out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, was not available until Christ was glorified. This is why the crucifixion was necessary. Otherwise it wasn't necessary for Christ to be resurrected to give these rivers of water to anyone else who wanted it.
None can receive the Holy Spirit unless they believe in Christ (Acts 2:38). But they murdered Christ instead because Christ said that they did not believe.
No Prophet in the old testament as I recall had the spirit indwelling--they only had the spirit come upon them to do the ministry they were given--not came to indwell.
Hebrews 4 talks of the 7th day Sabbath rest----the jews in Ezekiel didn't have the rest you are talking about because messiah had never come neither had the spirit been given to indwell people.
point is that the writer of Hebrews said that the rest that the jews of Ezekiel had still REMAINED unto that present time--and for them not to fall after the same example of their unbelief--the rest remained for the people of God in the new testament just as it was in the old testament
basically don't pollute his Sabbaths,walk in his statues and commandments or fall after the same example of unbelief :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Have you ever read the prophecy that Hebrews 4 is referencing?
Psalm 95
8"Do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah,[a]
as you did that day at Massah in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors tested me;
they tried me, though they had seen what I did.
10 For forty years I was angry with that generation;
I said, 'They are a people whose hearts go astray,
and they have not known my ways.'
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall not enter my rest.'"
Hebrews is not referring to the 10 commandment ordinance of the Sabbath, but to the failure ofIsrael to enter into the promised land. Just as Paul spiritualized the Sabbath as being a shadow of the body of Christ, so also did David and the author of Hebrews spiritualize the promised land as being God's rest.
Numbers 14:22-23
Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I swore unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it.
The Bible says that "Israel is God's first born son."
Both the LAND and the literal sabbath day represent (being shadows) the body of Christ. Christ really meant it when he said that the scriptures testify ABOUT HIM.
how do you explain the writer saying let US enter in that rest--when the writer and the believers had already believed ???
we who do believe enter that rest--how can they speedily enter that rest after they have believed and entered already ???
please give attention to these 2 questions :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
well I must be going for a bit--
Brother I really do enjoy our conversations whether we agree or not ---Blessings--- :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
QuoteThere remaineth therefore a rest to the people of Yah---this is stating that the rest still remains for the people of Yah in that day just as it did in the eze days
If there remaineth a rest for the people of God, then it therefore remains for them to enter in, because his point is that some persist in unbelief. That means the author was saying that some do not believe but persist in unbelief so there remains a rest FOR THEM TO ENTER (they haven't yet), through faith.
The "rest" was made available when Jesus Christ was resurrected, and there remains a rest for them if they believe TODAY. This was symbolized by the promised land that they were not able to enter. God swore that they would not enter into his sabbath rest (the body of Jesus Christ), and you can see that prophecy true today by the fact that they are blinded to the truth and therefore unable to enter into his rest by faith.
Quotestill the writer is saying let us enter that rest--which means they don't have it all the time--or they would not have to enter it again
11 Let us labour (be hasty) therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
The commandment to believe is the ONLY statute by which we enter into his rest under the new covenant. So the criteria to lose his rest is to "fall into the example of unbelief." So to regain rest in Christ we must not faulter in our faith. When we go to the Law, that is exactly what we do. Then, we fall from Grace which teaches us to say no to ungodliness because the Law is not of faith.
So if we fall away from faith unto the works of the Law, we will not be able to grow in Grace, because Christ (our sabbath rest) will avail us nothing, and rather than rest from our works and have Christ be our inward righteousness within, we will be fallen from Grace.
It is educational to witness different viewpoints. For myself, entering the rest of God through Christ, is having the privilege of active service by the grace of the Spirit of Christ the Restorer; to serve Him is my rest, and not to be able to serve Him is to deny me my spiritual birthright which is unrest. This means that I do not wish for a dreamy floating life in eternity, but rather a full and evermore progressive life of devoted service to the Lord of Life filled with His Spirit - Joy of Joys.
For myself, Christ is my Law, He is my Saviour, and faith in Christ removes all fear because even thinking of Christ fills one with His love. I do not depend upon any other laws, just the laws that come from God through Christ, which I perceive according to my perception - which are not statutes as such, but laws there are and they create sin when broken. He has set me free. I have such abundance with Christ it overshadows following religious laws of the type of observing the Sabbath.
Oh, what a brilliant and perfect plan by God, a simple Gift for all humanity if only the human mind was not so complicated. I do not expect others to see things exactly the way I see them, I have an understanding of Christ's life and 'Christian spiritual laws', and it is not tied to scriptural legalism, and to wrap it up in some sentences, if I may, it is like this.
I believe that the life of Christ must be taken as a whole with His death, as One, as united and inseparable; and that not to do so misses a wealth of spiritual treasure which He brought as multiple helps to simplify the path that man complicates for himself. Christ declared truth and lived by it too.
I see that Christ expressed a perfect and deep love which was self-sacrificing, and it was emblazoned upon the highest height for humanity to see, so that it, humanity, could know its God; He expressed that love because He was that love. Christ hoisted aloft the standard of self-sacrifice and self-denial, charity and love.
Today, it is there as a Pattern for a generation to attempt to imitate. Jesus Christ lovingly toiled during His time in the body for the humanity that He did indeed love with a true love, like no other could love; a love which for the most part was unrequited, the pain of which far exceeded in intensity any pain the Physical could inflict.
I believe that should it wish to do so, mankind can see the earnestness of Christ's purpose amongst men, the loving labour of His life; in Christ is seen a simple sincerity; He is distinguished and lifted up above all others by His pure life and perfect thought. If men and women are shown that it is the perfect Way for their imitation, they can pledge their time and their energies to His Divine example, assured that there is no higher law of love. Christ in the flesh was Purity Incarnate.
I see that Christ used reason - His perfect mind met the minds of men and women with reason; He placed before them life and death, He provided knowledge of an eternity where death is not seen; He dignified the nature of humanity and made known its noble attributes; an unfolding life of hope was gifted by Him not just to a pleading people who were crushed by a failed priesthood and a cruel earthly authority, but to humanity today desperately in need of a reasoned Pattern into which they can place their complete faith.
I see in Christ the perfect Saviour - a Saviour in every manner and direction. Salvation for all humanity was paid for by His Blood. From His life came the betterment of humanity, and as far as I am concerned, His life was also part of humanity's salvation. To me, Christ fulfilled the religious law into which He was born; He demonstrated by teaching and example the end of such a law, which was Himself, the Great Completer, the Anointed Accomplisher - and He exposed the commandments from which the rituals of the law sprang. I see that for Christ Himself, He was the fulfilment of the law rather than its abolition. At the heart of Mosaic law was truth, and Christ revealed it, He declared it, He stated in a few sentences the truth upon which the whole law was based. The blind hypocrisy, endless speculation, and empty ritualistic materialism of the upholders of the religion which Christ found Himself amongst, covered the truth like filthy clothes; the facade of the priests was removed, and instead Christ brought forth into daylight the beautiful Divine Truth which had been entombed for an age. Now that truth is written into the hearts and minds of those who love Him - and that love goes to all of humanity.
What I see is that Christ made possible the testing and assessing, by a man or a woman, of his or her religion or way of life, by the examination of the manifesting fruits; He provided the means as to how men could probe deep within their hearts in order that their lives be inspected and judged; He showed ways for the self-investigation of motives. As Truth Incarnate He instructed those who watched and listened that they should be truthful; His commandments and teachings ensured that man should always strive for a heart which is honest and has true intent; that man should show mercy and self-denial, purity and humility. What Christ taught, He displayed it Himself to perfection before man.
Christ reformed in the social sphere as well as the religious sphere. He uplifted people in body and spirit; revealed false claimants as wild animals, exposed deceit, dishonesty and pretence. He spoke the truth and exposed the lies; from God He came and set people free with the truth, He wanted to remove the cruel whips of tyrants' hearts from the backs of down-trodden slaves. He was the Christ of God and He spent His time healing people, elevating people, pouring out the truth on people, calling to people for honest repentance and inner transformation. This, amongst other things, He called the things of His Father for which He was responsible to carry out.
Christ went about the Business which was His Father's: "...preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15)" - which included helping man's lot at least tangibly in this life, providing a way to free man from narrow-mindedness, selfishness and bigotry; He called for people to be inwardly honest and repent of their sins; of the Hereafter He declared a Better Life and provided a glimpse of it. He dealt with the past, the present and the future, yet He pointed people to their daily life, leaving tomorrow to look after itself - it was a process of life.
According to my understanding, Christ taught of a spiritual life, a life which was for the soul within the body, but He also taught about a duty, while the spirit is earth-bound, to ones fellows, brothers and sisters, old, young, poor and broken-hearted. He chose to live as a common person amongst the poor, needy and destitute and showed them dignity like a beautiful hedgerow flower amongst the weeds; He taught in their homes truths which they were able to take in, lessons of a simple nature which they needed; those of worldly wisdom He hardly went amongst, whose orthodox respectability blinded them to truth. Yet those who could listen heard Jesus Christ teach, and their hearts and minds were set ablaze with love, they desired something better than they had, and Christ gave them direction on how they might have it; He gave man something which could provide his necessities, something which could reach that which he lacked; it was a teaching for humanity; He took that which was buried under a pile of materialism created by man and He spiritualised it. Man had altered truth and He straightened it out.
As for myself, I will take Jesus as my Guide, as my Law. What I do know is that He has bound Himself with me for eternity, my spirit with His Spirit, the Christ Spirit. Where this little earth is concerned, I care about the simple Christ Jesus, the most spiritually dynamic Entity this world has ever been graced with, the Gentle Jesus who represents a God so Mighty that man can only begin to fathom Him during this short fragment of existence he calls life.
I know of progress, something which I consider essential in a spiritual life, and which I hear Christ talking about. I am not content with the present because content only belongs to a past if well-spent, which, along with lessons I perceive I have yet to conquer, spurs me on in the present that I might progress in the future. I think it a serious danger if one should think they have arrived at finality - it leads to retrogression inevitably, in my opinion, for someone who arrives at a stage where they think there is nothing else for them to learn, well, they have no lessons left to learn, or so they think. Choice sentences which people favour do not alter this most basic and fundamental understanding for myself; in the life of Christ is found that which works; in the life of man is found that which stops it working - I refer to the lesser self of man with his fear, his desire to be right, his desire to be applauded, his desire for power. I believe that the Light of the bright Spheres of God soon dries up the doctrines of men and then each finds themself as they really are, open to the sight of all - and in my opinion, the meaning of judgement shall then be truly understood.
In His Peace, He who is the Master of Life.
For myself, He is Life itself, or rather He is One with the Supreme God and I am kept safe in God in Christ. He is the Guide and He never leaves, although He allows for the individual to pick up his own cross so he might learn his own lessons that he may know the zest of eternal life in its fullness.
Quote from: lastpost on August 28, 2014, 01:35:48 AM
It is educational to witness different viewpoints. For myself, entering the rest of God through Christ, is having the privilege of active service by the grace of the Spirit of Christ the Restorer; to serve Him is my rest, and not to be able to serve Him is to deny me my spiritual birthright which is unrest. This means that I do not wish for a dreamy floating life in eternity, but rather a full and evermore progressive life of devoted service to the Lord of Life filled with His Spirit - Joy of Joys.
For myself, Christ is my Law, He is my Saviour, and faith in Christ removes all fear because even thinking of Christ fills one with His love. I do not depend upon any other laws, just the laws that come from God through Christ, which I perceive according to my perception - which are not statutes as such, but laws there are and they create sin when broken. He has set me free. I have such abundance with Christ it overshadows following religious laws of the type of observing the Sabbath.
Oh, what a brilliant and perfect plan by God, a simple Gift for all humanity if only the human mind was not so complicated. I do not expect others to see things exactly the way I see them, I have an understanding of Christ's life and 'Christian spiritual laws', and it is not tied to scriptural legalism, and to wrap it up in some sentences, if I may, it is like this.
I believe that the life of Christ must be taken as a whole with His death, as One, as united and inseparable; and that not to do so misses a wealth of spiritual treasure which He brought as multiple helps to simplify the path that man complicates for himself. Christ declared truth and lived by it too.
I see that Christ expressed a perfect and deep love which was self-sacrificing, and it was emblazoned upon the highest height for humanity to see, so that it, humanity, could know its God; He expressed that love because He was that love. Christ hoisted aloft the standard of self-sacrifice and self-denial, charity and love.
Today, it is there as a Pattern for a generation to attempt to imitate. Jesus Christ lovingly toiled during His time in the body for the humanity that He did indeed love with a true love, like no other could love; a love which for the most part was unrequited, the pain of which far exceeded in intensity any pain the Physical could inflict.
I believe that should it wish to do so, mankind can see the earnestness of Christ's purpose amongst men, the loving labour of His life; in Christ is seen a simple sincerity; He is distinguished and lifted up above all others by His pure life and perfect thought. If men and women are shown that it is the perfect Way for their imitation, they can pledge their time and their energies to His Divine example, assured that there is no higher law of love. Christ in the flesh was Purity Incarnate.
I see that Christ used reason - His perfect mind met the minds of men and women with reason; He placed before them life and death, He provided knowledge of an eternity where death is not seen; He dignified the nature of humanity and made known its noble attributes; an unfolding life of hope was gifted by Him not just to a pleading people who were crushed by a failed priesthood and a cruel earthly authority, but to humanity today desperately in need of a reasoned Pattern into which they can place their complete faith.
I see in Christ the perfect Saviour - a Saviour in every manner and direction. Salvation for all humanity was paid for by His Blood. From His life came the betterment of humanity, and as far as I am concerned, His life was also part of humanity's salvation. To me, Christ fulfilled the religious law into which He was born; He demonstrated by teaching and example the end of such a law, which was Himself, the Great Completer, the Anointed Accomplisher - and He exposed the commandments from which the rituals of the law sprang. I see that for Christ Himself, He was the fulfilment of the law rather than its abolition. At the heart of Mosaic law was truth, and Christ revealed it, He declared it, He stated in a few sentences the truth upon which the whole law was based. The blind hypocrisy, endless speculation, and empty ritualistic materialism of the upholders of the religion which Christ found Himself amongst, covered the truth like filthy clothes; the facade of the priests was removed, and instead Christ brought forth into daylight the beautiful Divine Truth which had been entombed for an age. Now that truth is written into the hearts and minds of those who love Him - and that love goes to all of humanity.
What I see is that Christ made possible the testing and assessing, by a man or a woman, of his or her religion or way of life, by the examination of the manifesting fruits; He provided the means as to how men could probe deep within their hearts in order that their lives be inspected and judged; He showed ways for the self-investigation of motives. As Truth Incarnate He instructed those who watched and listened that they should be truthful; His commandments and teachings ensured that man should always strive for a heart which is honest and has true intent; that man should show mercy and self-denial, purity and humility. What Christ taught, He displayed it Himself to perfection before man.
Christ reformed in the social sphere as well as the religious sphere. He uplifted people in body and spirit; revealed false claimants as wild animals, exposed deceit, dishonesty and pretence. He spoke the truth and exposed the lies; from God He came and set people free with the truth, He wanted to remove the cruel whips of tyrants' hearts from the backs of down-trodden slaves. He was the Christ of God and He spent His time healing people, elevating people, pouring out the truth on people, calling to people for honest repentance and inner transformation. This, amongst other things, He called the things of His Father for which He was responsible to carry out.
Christ went about the Business which was His Father's: "...preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15)" - which included helping man's lot at least tangibly in this life, providing a way to free man from narrow-mindedness, selfishness and bigotry; He called for people to be inwardly honest and repent of their sins; of the Hereafter He declared a Better Life and provided a glimpse of it. He dealt with the past, the present and the future, yet He pointed people to their daily life, leaving tomorrow to look after itself - it was a process of life.
According to my understanding, Christ taught of a spiritual life, a life which was for the soul within the body, but He also taught about a duty, while the spirit is earth-bound, to ones fellows, brothers and sisters, old, young, poor and broken-hearted. He chose to live as a common person amongst the poor, needy and destitute and showed them dignity like a beautiful hedgerow flower amongst the weeds; He taught in their homes truths which they were able to take in, lessons of a simple nature which they needed; those of worldly wisdom He hardly went amongst, whose orthodox respectability blinded them to truth. Yet those who could listen heard Jesus Christ teach, and their hearts and minds were set ablaze with love, they desired something better than they had, and Christ gave them direction on how they might have it; He gave man something which could provide his necessities, something which could reach that which he lacked; it was a teaching for humanity; He took that which was buried under a pile of materialism created by man and He spiritualised it. Man had altered truth and He straightened it out.
As for myself, I will take Jesus as my Guide, as my Law. What I do know is that He has bound Himself with me for eternity, my spirit with His Spirit, the Christ Spirit. Where this little earth is concerned, I care about the simple Christ Jesus, the most spiritually dynamic Entity this world has ever been graced with, the Gentle Jesus who represents a God so Mighty that man can only begin to fathom Him during this short fragment of existence he calls life.
I know of progress, something which I consider essential in a spiritual life, and which I hear Christ talking about. I am not content with the present because content only belongs to a past if well-spent, which, along with lessons I perceive I have yet to conquer, spurs me on in the present that I might progress in the future. I think it a serious danger if one should think they have arrived at finality - it leads to retrogression inevitably, in my opinion, for someone who arrives at a stage where they think there is nothing else for them to learn, well, they have no lessons left to learn, or so they think. Choice sentences which people favour do not alter this most basic and fundamental understanding for myself; in the life of Christ is found that which works; in the life of man is found that which stops it working - I refer to the lesser self of man with his fear, his desire to be right, his desire to be applauded, his desire for power. I believe that the Light of the bright Spheres of God soon dries up the doctrines of men and then each finds themself as they really are, open to the sight of all - and in my opinion, the meaning of judgement shall then be truly understood.
In His Peace, He who is the Master of Life.
For myself, He is Life itself, or rather He is One with the Supreme God and I am kept safe in God in Christ. He is the Guide and He never leaves, although He allows for the individual to pick up his own cross so he might learn his own lessons that he may know the zest of eternal life in its fullness.
Beautiful post, brother! :dsunny:
:thumbsup: :dsunny:
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 01:33:09 AM
QuoteThere remaineth therefore a rest to the people of Yah---this is stating that the rest still remains for the people of Yah in that day just as it did in the eze days
If there remaineth a rest for the people of God, then it therefore remains for them to enter in, because his point is that some persist in unbelief. That means the author was saying that some do not believe but persist in unbelief so there remains a rest FOR THEM TO ENTER (they haven't yet), through faith.
The "rest" was made available when Jesus Christ was resurrected, and there remains a rest for them if they believe TODAY. This was symbolized by the promised land that they were not able to enter. God swore that they would not enter into his sabbath rest (the body of Jesus Christ), and you can see that prophecy true today by the fact that they are blinded to the truth and therefore unable to enter into his rest by faith.
Quotestill the writer is saying let us enter that rest--which means they don't have it all the time--or they would not have to enter it again
11 Let us labour (be hasty) therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
The commandment to believe is the ONLY statute by which we enter into his rest under the new covenant. So the criteria to lose his rest is to "fall into the example of unbelief." So to regain rest in Christ we must not faulter in our faith. When we go to the Law, that is exactly what we do. Then, we fall from Grace which teaches us to say no to ungodliness because the Law is not of faith.
So if we fall away from faith unto the works of the Law, we will not be able to grow in Grace, because Christ (our sabbath rest) will avail us nothing, and rather than rest from our works and have Christ be our inward righteousness within, we will be fallen from Grace.
The writer still says let US(himself included) did the writer fall from grace also and need to return ??
can you enter that rest more than once ??
I believe the wrtier was paul--paul had already believed before he wrote this and he was stedfast in the faith
So how can paul say let US(himself included)speedily enter this rest if he was already in that rest???
this is a question you have failed to answer--many contradictions arises in the way you are saying it. :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
didn't I already demonstrate how we made fall out of his rest?
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 03:26:00 AM
didn't I already demonstrate how we made fall out of his rest?
so you are saying that Paul was in a fallen state is why he said let US ????
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 03:26:00 AM
didn't I already demonstrate how we made fall out of his rest?
also just what is the works we have ceased from ?? :dsunny:
the author of Hebrews was not suggesting that he was a in a fallen state. The word us does not always have to mean that the person is referring to himself personally. That is a huge linguistic mistake that you are making. a basketball coach that says come on guys let's hustle doesn't mean that he himself is not hustling.However it is possible to fall from grace and have Christ avail nothing. It's not that I believe that the author of Hebrews had done that but neither do I believe that the word us must mean that he referred to himself personally.
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 03:44:24 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 03:26:00 AM
didn't I already demonstrate how we made fall out of his rest?
also just what is the works we have ceased from ?? :dsunny:
we are to cease from our labors so that God can make us the workmanship of Christ and Christ can work through us instead so that we become the righteousness of Christ that is by faith.
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 03:45:01 AM
the author of Hebrews was not suggesting that he was a in a fallen state. The word us does not always have to mean that the person is referring to himself personally. That is a huge linguistic mistake that you are making. a basketball coach that says come on guys let's hustle doesn't mean that he himself is not hustling.However it is possible to fall from grace and have Christ avail nothing. It's not that I believe that the author of Hebrews had done that but neither do I believe that the word us must mean that he referred to himself personally.
For unto US was the gospel preached as well as unto them
was the gospel preached to paul // of course the US is all inclusive in the context of Hebrews 4 all the believers including paul himself :dsunny: :dsunny:
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 03:59:58 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 03:45:01 AM
the author of Hebrews was not suggesting that he was a in a fallen state. The word us does not always have to mean that the person is referring to himself personally. That is a huge linguistic mistake that you are making. a basketball coach that says come on guys let's hustle doesn't mean that he himself is not hustling.However it is possible to fall from grace and have Christ avail nothing. It's not that I believe that the author of Hebrews had done that but neither do I believe that the word us must mean that he referred to himself personally.
For unto US was the gospel preached as well as unto them
was the gospel preached to paul // of course the US is all inclusive in the context of Hebrews 4 all the believers including paul himself :dsunny: :dsunny:
so according to your view--paul had fallen from grace and needed to enter that rest. :dsunny: :dsunny:
I think he missed reading one of my posts or you would've said that. a collective noun does not mean that the person is using it as a personal reference.
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 04:04:10 AM
I think he missed reading one of my posts or you would've said that. a collective noun does not mean that the person is using it as a personal reference.
answer this---was the gospel preached unto paul ???
if you answer yes--which you have no other choice but to do :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
then you must agree that the uses in Hebrews 4 of US are all inclusive--including the writer--cant get away from it
if the first us was all of them then all the US in Hebrews 4 are referring unto the same Paul included
then you have the problem of trying to figure out that paul was fallen from grace according to your view and needed to enter that rest again :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 04:08:53 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 04:04:10 AM
I think he missed reading one of my posts or you would've said that. a collective noun does not mean that the person is using it as a personal reference.
answer this---was the gospel preached unto paul ???
if you answer yes--which you have no other choice but to do :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
then you must agree that the uses in Hebrews 4 of US are all inclusive--including the writer--cant get away from it
if the first us was all of them then all the US in Hebrews 4 are referring unto the same Paul included
then you have the problem of trying to figure out that paul was fallen from grace according to your view and needed to enter that rest again :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
That's actually not true because the author of Hebrews is referring to the collective. The Gospel was preached to the COLLECTIVE, but within the COLLECTIVE, not everyone profited because some were faultering in faith (Hebrews 4:1,3 where only the part of the collective who believed had entered into his rest.). So the author of Hebrews encourages THE COLLECTIVE to enter into the rest. The whole collective has not entered into rest if some are left out.
Some in the collective profited and some did not through unbelief, so, like a basketball coach he in encourages the collective to enter into the rest.
You have a basic misunderstanding of how collective pronouns work. A Basketball coach can say "we lost the game" and include himself. Then in the next sentence, he could say, "we need to hustle more," and in that instance he is not referring personally to himself.
By the way, are you aware that the term "us" doesn't appear in the Greek in these verses?
Hi everyone,
This summer, my attention has drifted from UR, and instead I've spent a lot of time thinking about the subject of the Law and what it means to be free from the Law. Here are my present thoughts:
I don't believe that we are free from some OT laws, but bound to others. Nor do I exactly think that every individual OT law has a spiritual fulfillment. Rather, I think that OT Law vs. NT Grace is about two frameworks, two mentalities, for thinking about obedience. The Law framework is about do's and don't. The focus is on what we do to either be justified or condemned. The grace framework is about what Christ has done to set us free from the bondage of sin. Our part, under grace, is to become what God has made us to be (Romans Chapters 5-8). But what does that look like? What are the characteristics of those who have been chosen and justified by God in this age? The purpose of the New Testament's moral admonitions is to answer those questions. Some of the New Testament exhortations (such as avoidance of adultery, theft, etc.) match OT laws. However, those orders for believers are not given because they were in the OT Law (since we're free from the Law - Romans Ch. 6-7). They are given to describe the kind of life that God has made us to live, and those who are called and justified by God seek to grow into that kind of life to see their destiny come to fruition.
Some of the laws given to Israel in the OT were given because they represent eternal virtues, but others were given because of the unique situation of Israel in that time in history. Some regulations that were essential for a holy life back then, may not be anymore. In our present age, the New Testament says that honoring our parents is decidedly a virtue of those who are saved (1 Tim. 5:8), but adherence to the old Sabbath laws does not have to be, as Paul writes,
"Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." (Col. 2:17).
Law and grace are really just two paradigms to reach the same end, which is a life reflecting God's righteousness revealed in Christ. In the OT era, Law was the mentality that God ordained for people to relate to Him, but now a new paradigm of grace has been revealed. What gets people in trouble is when they boast in their obedience to certain laws (or get self-righteous about simply believing in Jesus) and then try to use grace to excuse them from the laws they don't want to follow. I think the passages of the NT which call believers' salvation into question are addressing this syndrome.
What do you think about this?
Samuel
As I see it, in Hebrews 1-4 the writer is not speaking of initial justification or falling from grace. He is speaking of continuing in grace into rest- walking in the Spirit, entering the finished work. When, in our soul, we really hear the words, "It is finished", we no longer strive- as they did in the wilderness due to unbelief. The writer is encouraging us, "Today, if you hear His voice, harden not your heart"- walking with God is the promise of the new covenant. "I will be there God and they will be My people and I will live among them and walk among them". He that has entered the rest of God has "ceased from His own works, as God did". Faith- abiding, resting faith is the finished work in us. "Cease striving, and kno that I am God".
The ones who strove wandered until "every unbelieving member perished".
Jesus said to Peter- "When you are converted strengthen the brethren". He was not speaking of salvatiobn. He had already said to Peter, "You are all clean because of the word I have spoken to you" and "Man has not revealed this unto you, but the Father".
As James puts it
13 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. 18 And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.
Peter's "conversion" was out of mixture(selfish ambition and bitter jealousy Peter: They may all forsake you but I never will!") into the "gentleness of wisdom"(Jesus:"Peter, do you agape me? Peter: "Thou knowest Lord")
Conversion is about brokeness, humility, wisdom and faith. It is about crossing over the Jordan(when the last unbelieving member perishes- a little leaven leavens the whole lump). It is about becoming mature(entrust your souls to those who by reason of experience have their senses exercised to know the difference between good and evil). It is about becoming a servant, a trustworthy steward of the oracles of God, and receiving the keys to the kingdom as a son in the Father's house.
Hebrews is about the believers transition into priesthood and understanding the nature of that priesthood, as an intercessor and as a faithful steward- and not falling back into the law or the flesh after having "tasted of the heavenly gift, the good word of God and the powers of the age to come."
That is why In Hebrews 4, as the writer is transitioning into the qualification of a priest in Heb 5(he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; ..... 4 And no one takes the honor upon himself) he interjects this intense presentation of the scrutiny within which all those who serve in the tabernacle must abide.
He 4:10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
Looking at the translation in Hebrews 4 though, this is a summary:
Verse 1: There is a group (the church) who should enter into God's rest in fear, while the promise stands, lest anyone in the group is "falling short." He will compare those people to the Jews who have heard the gospel and also did not believe.
Verse 2: The group (the church) has had the Gospel preached to it just as the Jews (they). But the Jews who heard the message did not profit because they did not believe.
verse 3: Only the group which believes enters into God's rest (but it's possible that some might be faultering)
verses 4-10: He mentions the literal sabbath day, and the holy land in reference to God's rest (which is Christ), and he long ago swore that the Jews would not enter his rest due to their disobedience and lacking faith, and therefore, it remains for some Jews to enter it today. God has fixed today to hear and not harden the hearts.
verse 11: Therefore the group (the church) should hastily enter God's rest, so that nobody among them will fall through being disobedient
In other words the author of Hebrews doesn't know if anyone has "fallen short." So, in case anyone has, he wants the whole group to hastily enter into God's rest through obedience and faithfulness, while it is still called today, so that nobody among them will fail through disobedience.
BTW, the Old Testament view of believing was to become faithful (enumah) to enter into faithfulness. One can fall short of faithfulness.
Hebrews 4 contains several rich veins of gold running deep into heart of the Rock.
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 04:32:20 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 04:08:53 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 04:04:10 AM
I think he missed reading one of my posts or you would've said that. a collective noun does not mean that the person is using it as a personal reference.
answer this---was the gospel preached unto paul ???
if you answer yes--which you have no other choice but to do :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
then you must agree that the uses in Hebrews 4 of US are all inclusive--including the writer--cant get away from it
if the first us was all of them then all the US in Hebrews 4 are referring unto the same Paul included
then you have the problem of trying to figure out that paul was fallen from grace according to your view and needed to enter that rest again :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
That's actually not true because the author of Hebrews is referring to the collective. The Gospel was preached to the COLLECTIVE, but within the COLLECTIVE, not everyone profited because some were faultering in faith (Hebrews 4:1,3 where only the part of the collective who believed had entered into his rest.). So the author of Hebrews encourages THE COLLECTIVE to enter into the rest. The whole collective has not entered into rest if some are left out.
Some in the collective profited and some did not through unbelief, so, like a basketball coach he in encourages the collective to enter into the rest.
You have a basic misunderstanding of how collective pronouns work. A Basketball coach can say "we lost the game" and include himself. Then in the next sentence, he could say, "we need to hustle more," and in that instance he is not referring personally to himself.
By the way, are you aware that the term "us" doesn't appear in the Greek in these verses?
the actual case is this---
the gospel was preached unto US( was the gospel preached unto paul ??) then paul was including himself in the US.
would paul tell everyone else to do something and he himself did not do it ??
Let US enter(Paul included himself in that US)
Beside he still is talking to believers in the US
He makes the distinction of US having the gospel preached unto US and (them) to them also was it preached
Paul was either in the US or the THEM---which is it ?? I think it is US
still the question remains that you cant rightly answer according to your view---did paul fall from grace and have to re-enter that rest ???
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:19:03 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 04:32:20 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 04:08:53 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 04:04:10 AM
I think he missed reading one of my posts or you would've said that. a collective noun does not mean that the person is using it as a personal reference.
answer this---was the gospel preached unto paul ???
if you answer yes--which you have no other choice but to do :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
then you must agree that the uses in Hebrews 4 of US are all inclusive--including the writer--cant get away from it
if the first us was all of them then all the US in Hebrews 4 are referring unto the same Paul included
then you have the problem of trying to figure out that paul was fallen from grace according to your view and needed to enter that rest again :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
That's actually not true because the author of Hebrews is referring to the collective. The Gospel was preached to the COLLECTIVE, but within the COLLECTIVE, not everyone profited because some were faultering in faith (Hebrews 4:1,3 where only the part of the collective who believed had entered into his rest.). So the author of Hebrews encourages THE COLLECTIVE to enter into the rest. The whole collective has not entered into rest if some are left out.
Some in the collective profited and some did not through unbelief, so, like a basketball coach he in encourages the collective to enter into the rest.
You have a basic misunderstanding of how collective pronouns work. A Basketball coach can say "we lost the game" and include himself. Then in the next sentence, he could say, "we need to hustle more," and in that instance he is not referring personally to himself.
By the way, are you aware that the term "us" doesn't appear in the Greek in these verses?
the actual case is this---
the gospel was preached unto US( was the gospel preached unto paul ??) then paul was including himself in the US.
would paul tell everyone else to do something and he himself did not do it ??
Let US enter(Paul included himself in that US)
Beside he still is talking to believers in the US
He makes the distinction of US having the gospel preached unto US and (them) to them also was it preached
Paul was either in the US or the THEM---which is it ?? I think it is US
still the question remains that you cant rightly answer according to your view---did paul fall from grace and have to re-enter that rest ???
Sorry brother, the word "us" doesn't appear in the verse in the Greek.
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:19:03 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 04:32:20 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 04:08:53 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 04:04:10 AM
I think he missed reading one of my posts or you would've said that. a collective noun does not mean that the person is using it as a personal reference.
answer this---was the gospel preached unto paul ???
if you answer yes--which you have no other choice but to do :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
then you must agree that the uses in Hebrews 4 of US are all inclusive--including the writer--cant get away from it
if the first us was all of them then all the US in Hebrews 4 are referring unto the same Paul included
then you have the problem of trying to figure out that paul was fallen from grace according to your view and needed to enter that rest again :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
That's actually not true because the author of Hebrews is referring to the collective. The Gospel was preached to the COLLECTIVE, but within the COLLECTIVE, not everyone profited because some were faultering in faith (Hebrews 4:1,3 where only the part of the collective who believed had entered into his rest.). So the author of Hebrews encourages THE COLLECTIVE to enter into the rest. The whole collective has not entered into rest if some are left out.
Some in the collective profited and some did not through unbelief, so, like a basketball coach he in encourages the collective to enter into the rest.
You have a basic misunderstanding of how collective pronouns work. A Basketball coach can say "we lost the game" and include himself. Then in the next sentence, he could say, "we need to hustle more," and in that instance he is not referring personally to himself.
By the way, are you aware that the term "us" doesn't appear in the Greek in these verses?
the actual case is this---
the gospel was preached unto US( was the gospel preached unto paul ??) then paul was including himself in the US.
would paul tell everyone else to do something and he himself did not do it ??
Let US enter(Paul included himself in that US)
Beside he still is talking to believers in the US
He makes the distinction of US having the gospel preached unto US and (them) to them also was it preached
Paul was either in the US or the THEM---which is it ?? I think it is US
still the question remains that you cant rightly answer according to your view---did paul fall from grace and have to re-enter that rest ???
also again he said that WE who have believed do enter into that rest ???
is paul in the WE here---I think he is
Just as unto US---Paul is in the US as he is in the WE
:dsunny: :dsunny:
Those who have believed is not the entire collective. Some within the group could be falling short. The author of Hebrews wants the whole collective to.enter.
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:28:29 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:19:03 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 04:32:20 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 04:08:53 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 04:04:10 AM
I think he missed reading one of my posts or you would've said that. a collective noun does not mean that the person is using it as a personal reference.
answer this---was the gospel preached unto paul ???
if you answer yes--which you have no other choice but to do :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
then you must agree that the uses in Hebrews 4 of US are all inclusive--including the writer--cant get away from it
if the first us was all of them then all the US in Hebrews 4 are referring unto the same Paul included
then you have the problem of trying to figure out that paul was fallen from grace according to your view and needed to enter that rest again :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
That's actually not true because the author of Hebrews is referring to the collective. The Gospel was preached to the COLLECTIVE, but within the COLLECTIVE, not everyone profited because some were faultering in faith (Hebrews 4:1,3 where only the part of the collective who believed had entered into his rest.). So the author of Hebrews encourages THE COLLECTIVE to enter into the rest. The whole collective has not entered into rest if some are left out.
Some in the collective profited and some did not through unbelief, so, like a basketball coach he in encourages the collective to enter into the rest.
You have a basic misunderstanding of how collective pronouns work. A Basketball coach can say "we lost the game" and include himself. Then in the next sentence, he could say, "we need to hustle more," and in that instance he is not referring personally to himself.
By the way, are you aware that the term "us" doesn't appear in the Greek in these verses?
the actual case is this---
the gospel was preached unto US( was the gospel preached unto paul ??) then paul was including himself in the US.
would paul tell everyone else to do something and he himself did not do it ??
Let US enter(Paul included himself in that US)
Beside he still is talking to believers in the US
He makes the distinction of US having the gospel preached unto US and (them) to them also was it preached
Paul was either in the US or the THEM---which is it ?? I think it is US
still the question remains that you cant rightly answer according to your view---did paul fall from grace and have to re-enter that rest ???
Sorry brother, the word "us" doesn't appear in the verse in the Greek.
doesn't matter if it does or not---was paul a believer ??? that right there includes him in the WE and US NO matter what the greek workd is behind it :HeartThrob:
Paul said WE that have believed(believers)do enter that rest
Paul said let the believers speedily enter into that rest
was paul a believer-- he was a believer and he was included in the text :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quotedoesn't matter if it does or not---was paul a believer ??? that right there includes him in the WE and US NO matter what the greek workd is behind it :HeartThrob:
Paul said WE that have believed(believers)do enter that rest
Paul said let the believers speedily enter into that rest
was paul a believer-- he was a believer and he was included in the text :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
The author of Hebrews says that some in his group could be falling short. Therefore, within the larger whole, some are NOT falling short, and some COULD BE falling short. We who believe (that's a qualifier) have entered in. But those who have fallen short, not so much.
Therefore, let the whole collective enter so that none within the collective are fallen short through disobedience.
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:41:22 PM
Those who have believed is not the entire collective. Some within the group could be falling short. The author of Hebrews wants the whole collective to.enter.
have to totally disagree with that statement
there are 2 groups of people here in this text---the WE and the THEM--are you gonna say that we doesn't mean the believers also ??
the collective--the WE that have believed
THEM--those who didn't believe
let the collective(those who have believed)speedily enter that rest
THEM--did not enter because of unbelief
still the root was THEM polluting the Sabbaths and despising his Statues
Collective(those that believed)not falling after the same example of THEM's unbelief
no matter how much you try---it still is referring unto the 7th day Sabbath in context :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:41:22 PM
Those who have believed is not the entire collective. Some within the group could be falling short. The author of Hebrews wants the whole collective to.enter.
have to totally disagree with that statement
there are 2 groups of people here in this text---the WE and the THEM--are you gonna say that we doesn't mean the believers also ??
You haven't read the text carefully. There is also a "you." Check verse 1.
There is a whole group
Then there is a "you" in the group that may have fallen short.
Then there is a "they" referring to the Jews.
The author of Hebrews is saying he wants the whole group to enter in....so that nobody within the group falls short by way of disobedience.
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:51:52 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:41:22 PM
Those who have believed is not the entire collective. Some within the group could be falling short. The author of Hebrews wants the whole collective to.enter.
have to totally disagree with that statement
there are 2 groups of people here in this text---the WE and the THEM--are you gonna say that we doesn't mean the believers also ??
You haven't read the text carefully. There is also a "you." Check verse 1.
have you read verse 14 of Hebrews 4 ???
WE have a Great High Priest
let US(collective)hold fast OUR profession of faith
Brother ---the collective ALL have Faith in the context of this chapter--do the unbelievers have faith ???
The US(collective)is referring unto the Believers(the collective all had faith)
still brother--I commend you for your efforts--but they are of no use
it still is Collective(All Believers) THEM(all unbelievers) :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
SOS 1;7,8 Tell me,you whom I love,where you graze your flock and where you Rest your sheep at
mid-day. Why should I be like a veiled woman beside the flock of your'e friends.
mid-day..the place of highest light....Christ alone is worthy to open the seals on the 'word of God'
why should I be like a veiled woman[those under law[Moses veil veiled hearts] 2 Cor 4;3
interesting aside
Quote from: sheila on August 28, 2014, 08:00:53 PM
SOS 1;7,8 Tell me,you whom I love,where you graze your flock and where you Rest your sheep at
mid-day. Why should I be like a veiled woman beside the flock of your'e friends.
mid-day..the place of highest light....Christ alone is worthy to open the seals on the 'word of God'
why should I be like a veiled woman[those under law[Moses veil veiled hearts] 2 Cor 4;3
interesting aside
thanks be unto my Great High priest that im under Grace :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:58:17 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:51:52 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:41:22 PM
Those who have believed is not the entire collective. Some within the group could be falling short. The author of Hebrews wants the whole collective to.enter.
have to totally disagree with that statement
there are 2 groups of people here in this text---the WE and the THEM--are you gonna say that we doesn't mean the believers also ??
You haven't read the text carefully. There is also a "you." Check verse 1.
have you read verse 14 of Hebrews 4 ???
WE have a Great High Priest
let US(collective)hold fast OUR profession of faith
You are proving my point. The very fact that he says "let us hold fast" is an encouragement to those of the group "you" who may have fallen short. The whole group has a high priest, but some of "you" might not be holding fast to our profession of faith.
The encouragement is for those within the group who are faltering, and he is encouraging them not to faultier. He wants the whole group to enter in.
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:58:17 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:51:52 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:41:22 PM
Those who have believed is not the entire collective. Some within the group could be falling short. The author of Hebrews wants the whole collective to.enter.
have to totally disagree with that statement
there are 2 groups of people here in this text---the WE and the THEM--are you gonna say that we doesn't mean the believers also ??
You haven't read the text carefully. There is also a "you." Check verse 1.
have you read verse 14 of Hebrews 4 ???
WE have a Great High Priest
let US(collective)hold fast OUR profession of faith
Brother ---the collective ALL have Faith in the context of this chapter--do the unbelievers have faith ???
The US(collective)is referring unto the Believers(the collective all had faith)
still brother--I commend you for your efforts--but they are of no use
it still is Collective(All Believers) THEM(all unbelievers) :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
also again Brother :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Hebrews 6:1
Let US(collective-all believers) go on to perfection--can the unbelievers go on to perfection ???
and this will WE(all believers) do
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 08:05:29 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:58:17 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:51:52 PM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 07:41:22 PM
Those who have believed is not the entire collective. Some within the group could be falling short. The author of Hebrews wants the whole collective to.enter.
have to totally disagree with that statement
there are 2 groups of people here in this text---the WE and the THEM--are you gonna say that we doesn't mean the believers also ??
You haven't read the text carefully. There is also a "you." Check verse 1.
have you read verse 14 of Hebrews 4 ???
WE have a Great High Priest
let US(collective)hold fast OUR profession of faith
Brother ---the collective ALL have Faith in the context of this chapter--do the unbelievers have faith ???
The US(collective)is referring unto the Believers(the collective all had faith)
still brother--I commend you for your efforts--but they are of no use
it still is Collective(All Believers) THEM(all unbelievers) :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
also again Brother :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Hebrews 6:1
Let US(collective-all believers) go on to perfection--can the unbelievers go on to perfection ???
and this will WE(all believers) do
Some within the group can indeed fall short of going on to perfection because (if you keep reading the 6th chapter) some within the group can turn away.
some within the group have already fallen short - there is falling away and there is falling short.
11 Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
Quotemy point was to say that after believing according to paul that did enter that rest
Yet, some of them may have "fallen short"....of "entering in." Check verse 1. Those people are referred to as "you." That's what you haven't been able to see yet.
Within the group there are those who have not fallen short, and some which may have fallen short.
The author of Hebrews is encouraging the group to enter in, so that nobody within the group will have fallen short. (check verse 11,
the whole verse)
Quote from: eaglesway on August 28, 2014, 08:12:10 PM
some within the group have already fallen short - there is falling away and there is falling short.
11 Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
These are all believers. Some are falling short. Some of them are not maturing. Some of them are in danger of falling away. All of them are being exhorted to enter the finished work, receive the promises, walk as a priesthood. All of them are being encouraged as to the incredible resources available to them through Jesus Christ.
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 28, 2014, 09:29:38 PM
Regarding Colossians 2:16, the Aramaic says:
לא הכיל אנש נדודכונ במאכלא ובמשתיא או בפולגא דעאדא ודרש ירחא ודשבא
The first part literally reads:
לא הכיל אנש נדודכונ במאכלא ובמשתיא
Let not a man disturb you all in the food and in the drink...
This is not speaking about food and drink in general, as two separate categories, but is referring to the food and drink related to what follows in the text. The and prefixed to 'drink' lets us know that Paul has 'food and drink' as a single category, not two.
This is followed by או which is the conjunction 'either/or'. Here, because there is a subordinate grouping 'feast days, new moon days, shabbats', או should be translated as 'either'.
בפולגא refers to multiple parts of a whole, in other words, the particulars of something. Translations that render this plural as a singular 'in regard to', are watering down the meaning and giving a misleading reading.
The main thrust of what Paul is saying in this verse has to do with not allowing anyone to judge these believers regarding the particulars of eating and drinking, and the next part of the verse is describing the when of this judging, when this judging would take place.
The judging would be concerning the eating and drinking on feast days, new moons, and shabbats. These days were noted for special meals and lots of drink, as part of the enjoyment of those times.
The context tells us that Paul knew that there were ascetics who were trying to influence these believers, for he goes on to describe these are saying...do not touch, do not taste, do not cleave (vs 21).
The Greek also shows this same pattern grammatically:
μη ουν τις υμας κρινετω εν βρωσει και εν ποσει η εν μερει εορτης η νεομηνιας η σαββατων
This first part is:
εν βρωσει και εν ποσει
in eating AND
thank you brother for your research and digging--greatly appreciated :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
this should clarify this subject completely---they were holding the Sabbaths
in the old testament with one of the feasts--they were told to bring what their hearts desired for the feast--one of the things was Strong Drink
I could understand why now paul was saying let no man judge in in what they ate or drank on the Sabbaths
to some it would have appeared that they were as the drunkards--so they would have been judged by man as so
but not so--it was ordained of the Father :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Sorry, I accidently posted before I finished my thought. :sigh: Here it is again in full :dsunny:
Regarding Colossians 2:16, the Aramaic says:
לא הכיל אנש נדודכונ במאכלא ובמשתיא או בפולגא דעאדא ודרש ירחא ודשבא
The first part literally reads:
לא הכיל אנש נדודכונ במאכלא ובמשתיא
Let not a man disturb you all in the food and in the drink...
This is not speaking about food and drink in general, as two separate categories, but is referring to the food and drink related to what follows in the text. The and prefixed to 'drink' lets us know that Paul has 'food and drink' as a single category, not two.
This is followed by או which is the conjunction 'either/or'. Here, because there is a subordinate grouping 'feast days, new moon days, shabbats', או should be translated as 'either'.
בפולגא refers to multiple parts of a whole, in other words, the particulars of something. Translations that render this plural as a singular 'in regard to', are watering down the meaning and giving a misleading reading.
The main thrust of what Paul is saying in this verse has to do with not allowing anyone to judge these believers regarding the particulars of eating and drinking, and the next part of the verse is describing the when of this judging, when this judging would take place.
The judging would be concerning the eating and drinking on feast days, new moons, and shabbats. These days were noted for special meals and lots of drink, as part of the enjoyment of those times.
The context tells us that Paul knew that there were ascetics who were trying to influence these believers, for he goes on to describe these as saying...do not touch, do not taste, do not cleave (vs 21).
The Greek also shows this same pattern grammatically:
μη ουν τις υμας κρινετω εν βρωσει και εν ποσει η εν μερει εορτης η νεομηνιας η σαββατων
This first part is:
εν βρωσει και εν ποσει
in eating AND in drinking...this is one category joined by the word 'and'.
This is followed by three eta's (η) which, when more than one is in a list, the first is grammatically 'either' and the rest are 'or'. So, in this case, η...η...η is 'either...or...or.
Again, this tells us that the eating and drinking has to do with the eating and drinking (the particulars) taking place during feast days, new moons, and shabbats.
The reason he is telling them not to let anyone judge them (the ascetics who were against bodily pleasures, including those involving the enjoyment of good food and drink) is because those times reflect a shadow, not of things in their past, but of things to come. That he is bringing this up shows that these brothers and sisters were keeping these days, eating and drinking festive meals as part of the celebrations, and being judged by the ascetics for doing so. These were not judaizers trying to get these believers to keep the feasts, new moons, and shabbats, but rather the Greek gnostics who thought of the physical world and all things physical as evil, and in need of being suppressed.
This is my personal reason for continuing to observe these special times, not because I get any brownie points with God, but because they, as a shadow of good things to come, have much to teach me and my family, and offer much to reflect on concerning the realities that they point to, and also concerning things yet to take place.
As an example, each year my wife and I celebrate a tradition called an anniversary. This is a commemoration of an event that was fulfilled for me and my wife 15 years ago when we got married. Although that event took place and was fulfilled in the past, the anniversary provides an annual reminder of that event, to reflect on our relationship, and to enjoy a festive meal together, something which was given to mankind as a means of bonding.
Ronen
The thing that I need to note is that the Aramaic is a translation from Greek, correct? In order to get the Aramaic, a translator had to interpret what the person would probably have written had the text been written in that language originally.
I am not saying that it was, but the most original text we have is the Greek, which is why I prefer it.
From the Greek we see a pattern of "e" which is a disjunctive particle, which separates two mutually exclusive possibilities. Which you can see represented by "η" In other words, it means "or." As in, should we have Chinese or Italian tonight?
Colossians 2:16
Let no man judge you in regard to food and (kai) regard to drink, or (e) in regard to holy days, or (e) in regard to a new moon, or (e) in regard to a Sabbath
In other words: don't let anyone judge you in food and drink, or holy days, or new moons, or sabbaths.
Why? Next verse 17, which are (the pluralization of everything he just mentioned) a shadow of that which was coming, and the body is of Christ. Sabbath = shadow of coming things. The body of Christ = that which casts the shadow. The body of Christ is today. The sabbath was a shadow of that coming thing.
Paul's logic is: let no man judge you in this...or this....or this...or this, because those things are shadows of coming things but the body is of Christ. So I don't let anyone judge me in Sabbaths because Paul told me not to. I have the body which is Christ.
-------
While I disagree that there is any sufficient evidence that the church was still keeping these things, even if they were, it would be a personal choice, and not a matter of obedience or disobedience to God, who justifies (makes man righteous) apart from the Law. That means that man is not unrighteous by not keeping sabbaths.
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 28, 2014, 09:59:46 PM
Sorry, I accidently posted before I finished my thought. :sigh: Here it is again in full :dsunny:
Regarding Colossians 2:16, the Aramaic says:
לא הכיל אנש נדודכונ במאכלא ובמשתיא או בפולגא דעאדא ודרש ירחא ודשבא
The first part literally reads:
לא הכיל אנש נדודכונ במאכלא ובמשתיא
Let not a man disturb you all in the food and in the drink...
This is not speaking about food and drink in general, as two separate categories, but is referring to the food and drink related to what follows in the text. The and prefixed to 'drink' lets us know that Paul has 'food and drink' as a single category, not two.
This is followed by או which is the conjunction 'either/or'. Here, because there is a subordinate grouping 'feast days, new moon days, shabbats', או should be translated as 'either'.
בפולגא refers to multiple parts of a whole, in other words, the particulars of something. Translations that render this plural as a singular 'in regard to', are watering down the meaning and giving a misleading reading.
The main thrust of what Paul is saying in this verse has to do with not allowing anyone to judge these believers regarding the particulars of eating and drinking, and the next part of the verse is describing the when of this judging, when this judging would take place.
The judging would be concerning the eating and drinking on feast days, new moons, and shabbats. These days were noted for special meals and lots of drink, as part of the enjoyment of those times.
The context tells us that Paul knew that there were ascetics who were trying to influence these believers, for he goes on to describe these as saying...do not touch, do not taste, do not cleave (vs 21).
The Greek also shows this same pattern grammatically:
μη ουν τις υμας κρινετω εν βρωσει και εν ποσει η εν μερει εορτης η νεομηνιας η σαββατων
This first part is:
εν βρωσει και εν ποσει
in eating AND in drinking...this is one category joined by the word 'and'.
This is followed by three eta's (η) which, when more than one is in a list, the first is grammatically 'either' and the rest are 'or'. So, in this case, η...η...η is 'either...or...or.
Again, this tells us that the eating and drinking has to do with the eating and drinking (the particulars) taking place during feast days, new moons, and shabbats.
The reason he is telling them not to let anyone judge them (the ascetics who were against bodily pleasures, including those involving the enjoyment of good food and drink) is because those times reflect a shadow, not of things in their past, but of things to come. That he is bringing this up shows that these brothers and sisters were keeping these days, eating and drinking festive meals as part of the celebrations, and being judged by the ascetics for doing so. These were not judaizers trying to get these believers to keep the feasts, new moons, and shabbats, but rather the Greek gnostics who thought of the physical world and all things physical as evil, and in need of being suppressed.
This is my personal reason for continuing to observe these special times, not because I get any brownie points with God, but because they, as a shadow of good things to come, have much to teach me and my family, and offer much to reflect on concerning the realities that they point to, and also concerning things yet to take place.
As an example, each year my wife and I celebrate a tradition called an anniversary. This is a commemoration of an event that was fulfilled for me and my wife 15 years ago when we got married. Although that event took place and was fulfilled in the past, the anniversary provides an annual reminder of that event, to reflect on our relationship, and to enjoy a festive meal together, something which was given to mankind as a means of bonding.
Ronen
that's exactly right brother :dsunny: :dsunny: :dsunny: :dsunny:
they were not kept to justify or earn us brownie points before Yah--Yahshua is our brownie points :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
And we do them through Faith---not in dead works under the law---but in newness of the Spirirt--being led by the Spirit in LOVE :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Faith without works is dead--through our faith we establish the law as paul said
I can see that the disagreement is not about translation. Ronen and I have the same translation. The disagreement is whether or not sabbaths are to be kept in obedience to God as shadows of something we are still waiting for.
Hebrews 4 shows us that God has fixed the sabbath-rest for when?
TODAY!!!!!
So, we who believe enter into that rest (as opposed to those in the group who fall short of entering his rest)
Jesus Christ says "come unto me and I shall give you rest."
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
I can see that the disagreement is not about translation. Ronen and I have the same translation. The disagreement is whether or not sabbaths are to be kept in obedience to God as shadows of something we are still waiting for.
Hebrews 4 shows us that God has fixed the sabbath-rest for when?
TODAY!!!!!
So, we who believe enter into that rest (as opposed to those in the group who fall short of entering his rest)
Jesus Christ says "come unto me and I shall give you rest."
again depends how to perceive Hebrews 4--I perceive it as the 7th day Sabbath :dsunny: :dsunny: :dsunny:
although I do believe there is rest in Yahshua--but the context in Hebrews 4 is Sabbath 7th day rest
Just like paul speedily hurried that he might make it for Pentecost
he said let the believers speedily hurry to enter that rest on the 7th day Sabbath--ceasing from our works just as yah did from his :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
James wasn't referencing works of the Law. He was referencing the commandment to "love your neighbor" which according to John is one of the two commandments Christ has for his people. The other is believe in Jesus.
James wasn't saying keep the sabbath as a way for your faith to remain alive and therefore to save you. We are saved APART FROM THE WORKS OF THE LAW.
But James says "what good is faith without works? Can that faith save him?"
And you are saying that James was talking about keeping Sabbath. Where James is actually talking about LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR.
Keeping Sabbath is not what saves man from his sin. This is error teaching. Have you actually carefully read James 2?
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 10:04:02 PM
From the Greek we see a pattern of "e" which is a disjunctive particle, which separates two mutually exclusive possibilities. Which you can see represented by "η" In other words, it means "or." As in, should we have Chinese or Italian tonight?
Colossians 2:16
Let no man judge you in regard to food and (kai) regard to drink, or (e) in regard to holy days, or (e) in regard to a new moon, or (e) in regard to a Sabbath
In other words: don't let anyone judge you in food and drink, or holy days, or new moons, or sabbaths.
Sorry, I know you posted this before I got my full post in, in which I address the eta's in the text, showing how they should not be 'or, or, or', but 'either, or, or', grammatically providing the context of the eating and drinking.
The rule is this: When you have one eta, it is 'or'. When you have multiple eta's, the first one starts a grouping, so it becomes 'either, or, or...etc.' Another example of this can be found in 1Co 14:6 where you have 4 eta's in the text.
λαλησω η εν αποκαλυψει η εν γνωσει η εν προφητεια η εν διδαχη
Literally it would be:
I do speak OR in revelation, OR in knowledge, OR in prophesy, OR in teaching.
Grammatically it is understood as:
I do speak EITHER in revelation, OR in knowledge, OR in prophesy, OR in teaching.
The first eta starts a grouping, just as it does in the Colossian passage. I hope that makes a bit more sense.
Ronen
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 10:20:27 PM
James wasn't referencing works of the Law. He was referencing the commandment to "love your neighbor" which according to John is one of the two commandments Christ has for his people. The other is believe in Jesus.
James wasn't saying keep the sabbath as a way for your faith to remain alive and therefore to save you. We are saved APART FROM THE WORKS OF THE LAW.
But James says "what good is faith without works? Can that faith save him?"
And you are saying that James was talking about keeping Sabbath. Where James is actually talking about LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR.
Keeping Sabbath is not what saves man from his sin. This is error teaching. Have you actually carefully read James 2?
you keep beating a dead dog Seth
I have stated over and over that Yahshua is our Righteousness through faith
not by the deeds of the law are we justified--but through Faith in Yahshua
the Sipirt leads us in LOVE-we establish the law through our faith LOVE
tradition has a strong grip of mankind today :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
You said "Faith without works is dead--through our faith we establish the law as paul said"
Therefore, faith without obeying the sabbath day is dead?
Therefore our faith cannot save without obeying the LAW?
James 2
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds (keeping the sabbath?) Can such faith save them?
ERROR
James is not talking about keeping the Law as a deed which added to faith keeps faith alive. He is talking about LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR. Look at the context.
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 28, 2014, 10:26:04 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 10:04:02 PM
From the Greek we see a pattern of "e" which is a disjunctive particle, which separates two mutually exclusive possibilities. Which you can see represented by "η" In other words, it means "or." As in, should we have Chinese or Italian tonight?
Colossians 2:16
Let no man judge you in regard to food and (kai) regard to drink, or (e) in regard to holy days, or (e) in regard to a new moon, or (e) in regard to a Sabbath
In other words: don't let anyone judge you in food and drink, or holy days, or new moons, or sabbaths.
Sorry, I know you posted this before I got my full post in, in which I address the eta's in the text, showing how they should not be 'or, or, or', but 'either, or, or', grammatically providing the context of the eating and drinking.
The rule is this: When you have one eta, it is 'or'. When you have multiple eta's, the first one starts a grouping, so it becomes 'either, or, or...etc.' Another example of this can be found in 1Co 14:6 where you have 4 eta's in the text.
λαλησω η εν αποκαλυψει η εν γνωσει η εν προφητεια η εν διδαχη
Literally it would be:
I do speak OR in revelation, OR in knowledge, OR in prophesy, OR in teaching.
Grammatically it is understood as:
I do speak EITHER in revelation, OR in knowledge, OR in prophesy, OR in teaching.
The first eta starts a grouping, just as it does in the Colossian passage. I hope that makes a bit more sense.
Ronen
So, it's a grouping of things we should not be judged according to? Either this and this, or this, or this, or that? I don't see how it changes the meaning.
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 10:31:16 PM
You said "Faith without works is dead--through our faith we establish the law as paul said"
Therefore, faith without obeying the sabbath day is dead?
Therefore our faith cannot save without obeying the LAW?
James 2
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds (keeping the sabbath?) Can such faith save them?
ERROR
James is not talking about keeping the Law as a deed which added to faith keeps faith alive. He is talking about LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR. Look at the context.
putting words in my mouth now ???
I never said obeying the Sabbath was that that saved us--you keep saying that :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 10:27:39 PM
So what should the correct translation be?
Therefore let no one judge you in eating and in drinking; either in the particulars of a feast or new moon or shabbats, which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is the Messiah.
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 28, 2014, 10:34:02 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 10:31:16 PM
You said "Faith without works is dead--through our faith we establish the law as paul said"
Therefore, faith without obeying the sabbath day is dead?
Therefore our faith cannot save without obeying the LAW?
James 2
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds (keeping the sabbath?) Can such faith save them?
ERROR
James is not talking about keeping the Law as a deed which added to faith keeps faith alive. He is talking about LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR. Look at the context.
putting words in my mouth now ???
I never said obeying the Sabbath was that that saved us--you keep saying that :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
You quoted James as a way to say that "faith without works is dead" in reference to the Sabbath. I don't think you quite realize what you were saying with respect to what James was actually talking about.
This thread has so any components.
About the keeping of the Sabbath. I held strongly to the belief that a true Christian had to "keep the Sabbath" (i.e.) physically with other believers of this command. I rested my argument on the likes of the Emphatic Diaglot of Heb 4:9:
Diaglott(i) 9 Therefore remains a keeping of a sabbath for the people of the God.
Strong's:
σαββατισμός
a "sabbatism", i.e. (figuratively) the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven)
Derivation: from a derivative of G4521;
KJV Usage: rest.
G4521
Thayer:
1) a keeping sabbath
2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians
I am now seeing this is a keeping of it in Spirit. Is it just one one day or everyday, I still do not know for sure.
You could just take Paul's word for it.
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—Col 2:16
:banana:
Quote from: joeteekay on August 28, 2014, 10:38:25 PM
This thread has so any components.
About the keeping of the Sabbath. I held strongly to the belief that a true Christian had to "keep the Sabbath" (i.e.) physically with other believers of this command. I rested my argument on the likes of the Emphatic Diaglot of Heb 4:9:
Diaglott(i) 9 Therefore remains a keeping of a sabbath for the people of the God.
Strong's:
σαββατισμός
a "sabbatism", i.e. (figuratively) the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven)
Derivation: from a derivative of G4521;
KJV Usage: rest.
G4521
Thayer:
1) a keeping sabbath
2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians
I am now seeing this is a keeping of it in Spirit. Is it just one one day or everyday, I still do not know for sure.
the worst things that are said is that you have to or you must do it--that attitude is that that was under the law--had to or else---DEATH
in newness of spirit says that I LOVE Yah--not because I have to keep it to have Life--but because I already have Life in Yahshua
it is through faith not from the dead works under the law that did not profit----LOVE
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 10:33:37 PMSo, it's a grouping of things we should not be judged according to? Either this and this, or this, or this, or that? I don't see how it changes the meaning.
It does. This is how:
If I say do not let anyone judge you regarding the particulars of eating or drinking or feasts or new moons or shabbats, I have just listed 5 things in a grouping, with a general encouragement not to let anyone judge concerning those things.
However, if I take the first two things...'eating and drinking', as their own separate category, and then add the either, or, or list following it, that list is no longer simply 1 of 5 separate things being judged, but is instead providing the context of 3 things in which no one is to judge you concerning the eating and drinking. If they were not eating and drinking in the observance of these days, Paul would have no reason to warn them about these Greek ascetics.
It changes from this listing...
Let no one judge you regarding the following 5 things:
1. eating
2. drinking
3 feast day
4. new moon
5. shabbat
to this listing...
Let no one judge you regarding the following group:
1. eating and drinking
when?
during the following times:
2. feasts, new moons, shabbats.
The clincher is the fact that this letter is not dealing with Judaizers, but Greek gnosticism. Greek gnostic ascetics would not be judging them for not observing these days, but they would be if they were and seeing them doing something they disapproved of...eating and drinking alot during thost times.
Grammatical and contextual evidence to me points to these believers observing these days. As to why, the text does not address this. It just says they were.
This thread has caused me to go into temporary retirement, but I agree with joeteekay :dsunny:
And I would like to make one thing clear, concerning why I do what I do.
I may differ from other believers who observe moedim and shabbats and new moons, but I do NOT do so because I have to. That is tantamount to observing the letter.
I observe them because I WANT to. It is in my heart to do so. I also love, not because I have to, but because I want to. If I love God or my neighbor because I have to, then I am just as guilty of observing the letter as the next guy and that command to love God and my neighbor as myself will kill me.
So, here is the contextual evidence which is more immediate
Colossians 2
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, and in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
So, if what you are saying is true, I can show up to a feast with a pork chop nobody can judge me on that....but I am commanded to obey and maintain the Sabbath as a literal day, even though the handwriting of ordinances is blotted out? I personally believe that the passage makes more sense how it was translated.
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 28, 2014, 11:00:07 PM
And I would like to make one thing clear, concerning why I do what I do.
I may differ from other believers who observe moedim and shabbats and new moons, but I do NOT do so because I have to. That is tantamount to observing the letter.
I observe them because I WANT to. It is in my heart to do so. I also love, not because I have to, but because I want to. If I love God or my neighbor because I have to, then I am just as guilty of observing the letter as the next guy and that command to love God and my neighbor as myself will kill me.
Thank you for making that clear.
BTW, Jesus does command us to love, so we do have to, but he makes us want to. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 28, 2014, 11:00:07 PM
And I would like to make one thing clear, concerning why I do what I do.
I may differ from other believers who observe moedim and shabbats and new moons, but I do NOT do so because I have to. That is tantamount to observing the letter.
I observe them because I WANT to. It is in my heart to do so. I also love, not because I have to, but because I want to. If I love God or my neighbor because I have to, then I am just as guilty of observing the letter as the next guy and that command to love God and my neighbor as myself will kill me.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
I'm not sure what the definitive (keeping the Sabbath means)
Could someone who keeps the Sabbath explain to me how they do it.
Starting with I get up in the morning then I -----------
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 11:02:34 PM
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 28, 2014, 11:00:07 PM
And I would like to make one thing clear, concerning why I do what I do.
I may differ from other believers who observe moedim and shabbats and new moons, but I do NOT do so because I have to. That is tantamount to observing the letter.
I observe them because I WANT to. It is in my heart to do so. I also love, not because I have to, but because I want to. If I love God or my neighbor because I have to, then I am just as guilty of observing the letter as the next guy and that command to love God and my neighbor as myself will kill me.
Thank you for making that clear.
BTW, Jesus does command us to love, so we do have to, but he makes us want to. :HeartThrob:
we want to do it because we LOVE Yah and our neighbor--LOVE is the motivating factor behind what we do :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
RONEN, do you believe that observing a literal Sabbath is a matter of obedience to a God which all Christians should remain obedient to? Not obeying God is bad.
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 11:01:30 PMI personally believe that the passage makes more sense how it was translated.
Then you should go with what you believe. We both will be enjoying our Father for eternity just the same, except I may be a little more plump from all the feast eating than you. :rolllol:
Quote from: dajomaco on August 28, 2014, 11:04:23 PM
I'm not sure what the definitive (keeping the Sabbath means)
Could someone who keeps the Sabbath explain to me how they do it.
Starting with I get up in the morning then I -----------
Sabbath(weekly) begins 6pm Friday until 6pm Saturday
ceasing from your own works just like Yah did from his--not working on the Sabbath--not doing your own things--preparing your food before the Sabbath begins--
it is a day to behold and worship Yah---to behold his creation in its beauty--all your thoughts towards Yah--
that's a start anyway :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
you can look it up and read about what was said to do on the Sabbath :dsunny:
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 28, 2014, 11:25:00 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 11:01:30 PMI personally believe that the passage makes more sense how it was translated.
Then you should go with what you believe. We both will be enjoying our Father for eternity just the same, except I may be a little more plump from all the feast eating than you. :rolllol:
Plumpy is what we will call you :LH: :LH:
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 11:13:57 PM
RONEN, do you believe that observing a literal Sabbath is a matter of obedience to a God which all Christians should remain obedient to? Not obeying God is bad.
Not at all. For me to do that will end up in death, just as with any other mitzvah, including love. Here is a series of 4 short articles I wrote that explains my position on this:
http://ronsrestingplace.blogspot.com/search?q=what+is+obedience (http://ronsrestingplace.blogspot.com/search?q=what+is+obedience)
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 28, 2014, 11:25:00 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 11:01:30 PMI personally believe that the passage makes more sense how it was translated.
Then you should go with what you believe. We both will be enjoying our Father for eternity just the same, except I may be a little more plump from all the feast eating than you. :rolllol:
:LH: :dsunny:
Quote from: FreeAtLastceasing from your own works just like Yah did from his--not working on the Sabbath--not doing your own things--preparing your food before the Sabbath begins--
Sounds like alot of obligation. If somebody has a job that feeds their kids but their boss schedules them for work on the Sabbath, do they need to choose between obeying man and obeying God?
I was truly joyed to read about celebrating a shadow although it is not necessary to do so to be in the Body of Christ.
I personally do not need to follow an old law. Moral and ethical laws to do with Divine love all spring naturally - (if I can use that word knowing what may come to mind in many minds here) - these all spring spiritually from following the commandments of Christ the Lord, and in anyone truly being guided by the Christ Spirit within and the Christ without.
Christ is for everyone, and even if someone's culture is actually to do something as ritual then that is fine with me because they follow Christ as their Saviour first and foremost, and judging them based on my interpretation of a scripture is, to me, a legalistic path that would take me in a Pharisaical direction.
I would feel privileged to be invited to special Jewish rituals or celebrations and would gladly partake if invited. Where I come from, that would be unlikely considering my expressed beliefs, but the shadow is shortening and will finally pass away, leaving the full light of Christ to shine down and bless all brothers and sisters in an inherited earth - inherited in His Name! It sometimes seems like only yesterday Christ was here. Thank you.
PEACE
Amen!
:HeartThrob:
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 28, 2014, 11:46:16 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 11:13:57 PM
RONEN, do you believe that observing a literal Sabbath is a matter of obedience to a God which all Christians should remain obedient to? Not obeying God is bad.
Not at all. For me to do that will end up in death, just as with any other mitzvah, including love. Here is a series of 4 short articles I wrote that explains my position on this:
http://ronsrestingplace.blogspot.com/search?q=what+is+obedience (http://ronsrestingplace.blogspot.com/search?q=what+is+obedience)
great article :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
I often say that I do what I do because of LOVE--your article points out the truth of it and what I really mean when I use that terminology
the obedience and LOVE is none other than a person--Yahshua is obedience and LOVE--and is working out through us --therefore when we say we do--it is none other than Yahshua doing through us
We LOVE him because HE first LOVED us---and gave us his spirit--Yahshua is the LOVE and Obedience within us or we would have none :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 11:49:45 PM
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 28, 2014, 11:25:00 PM
Quote from: Seth on August 28, 2014, 11:01:30 PMI personally believe that the passage makes more sense how it was translated.
Then you should go with what you believe. We both will be enjoying our Father for eternity just the same, except I may be a little more plump from all the feast eating than you. :rolllol:
:LH: :dsunny:
Quote from: FreeAtLastceasing from your own works just like Yah did from his--not working on the Sabbath--not doing your own things--preparing your food before the Sabbath begins--
Sounds like alot of obligation. If somebody has a job that feeds their kids but their boss schedules them for work on the Sabbath, do they need to choose between obeying man and obeying God?
through Faith my brother-- if you don't have the faith in that matter then don't do it :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
So, if the woman whose boss schedules her for work on Sabbath, if she doesn't do it, her faith is doubted?
If a woman has faith in Christ, does she need to choose between her schedule at work and the Sabbath day? After all, faith without works is dead, as you have said. So, the woman does not do the work of the Law to abstain from working on Sabbath in order to keep from being fired, his her faith dead?
Your doctrine is exposed.
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:06:48 AM
So, if the woman whose boss schedules her for work on Sabbath, if she doesn't do it, her faith is doubted?
If a woman has faith in Christ, does she need to choose between her schedule at work and the Sabbath day? After all, faith without works is dead, as you have said. So, the woman does not do the work of the Law to abstain from working on Sabbath in order to keep from being fired, his her faith dead?
Your doctrine is exposed.
I said Faith in that particular matter---not your faith as a whole
we have only a measure of faith some have a greater measure than others in some areas
if you don't have the faith in a particular area--then don't do it until you have it :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:06:48 AM
So, if the woman whose boss schedules her for work on Sabbath, if she doesn't do it, her faith is doubted?
If a woman has faith in Christ, does she need to choose between her schedule at work and the Sabbath day? After all, faith without works is dead, as you have said. So, the woman does not do the work of the Law to abstain from working on Sabbath in order to keep from being fired, his her faith dead?
Your doctrine is exposed.
while you are trying to spend all your time here trying to expose me(so called) try looking into the matter more so than you are and you might have rays of light shine upon you :Pray: :Pray: :Pray:
To share my anniversary example again, to do so does not come naturally up from within my heart. It is a tradition I learned from others and chose to follow. Likewise, celebrating His moedim does not spring up naturally within me. They are traditions handed down by my forefathers that I learned and chose to follow.
My observing a wedding anniversary or not does not affect my wife's love for me. The anniversary is simply a physical opportunity to express that love in a specific way.
My observing moedim does not affect our Father's love for me. They are just physical ways for me to express love for him concerning his plan and purposes.
Although many think observing feast days or shabbatot are burdensome, it is no more so than anniversaries in my experience. They are truly times that I and my family look forward to.
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 29, 2014, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:06:48 AM
So, if the woman whose boss schedules her for work on Sabbath, if she doesn't do it, her faith is doubted?
If a woman has faith in Christ, does she need to choose between her schedule at work and the Sabbath day? After all, faith without works is dead, as you have said. So, the woman does not do the work of the Law to abstain from working on Sabbath in order to keep from being fired, his her faith dead?
Your doctrine is exposed.
I said Faith in that particular matter---not your faith as a whole
we have only a measure of faith some have a greater measure than others in some areas
if you don't have the faith in a particular area--then don't do it until you have it :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
You have avoided my question because you understand the implications of your doctrine upon the poor.
Quote from: gregoryfl on August 29, 2014, 12:10:59 AM
To share my anniversary example again, to do so does not come naturally up from within my heart. It is a tradition I learned from others and chose to follow. Likewise, celebrating His moedim does not spring up naturally within me. They are traditions handed down by my forefathers that I learned and chose to follow.
My observing a wedding anniversary or not does not affect my wife's love for me. The anniversary is simply a physical opportunity to express that love in a specific way.
My observing moedim does not affect our Father's love for me. They are just physical ways for me to express love for him concerning his plan and purposes.
Although many think observing feast days or shabbatot are burdensome, it is no more so than anniversaries in my experience. They are truly times that I and my family look forward to.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:12:48 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 29, 2014, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:06:48 AM
So, if the woman whose boss schedules her for work on Sabbath, if she doesn't do it, her faith is doubted?
If a woman has faith in Christ, does she need to choose between her schedule at work and the Sabbath day? After all, faith without works is dead, as you have said. So, the woman does not do the work of the Law to abstain from working on Sabbath in order to keep from being fired, his her faith dead?
Your doctrine is exposed.
I said Faith in that particular matter---not your faith as a whole
we have only a measure of faith some have a greater measure than others in some areas
if you don't have the faith in a particular area--then don't do it until you have it :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
You have avoided my question because you understand the implications of your doctrine upon the poor.
you just don't understand faith and the Power of Yah--your accusations against me are of none effect
is anything impossible with Yah ??? Does he have all Power ??? all wisdom ??? im afraid brother for you--
Yah can take an impossible situation and make Possibilities--or in essence he can turn it around.
if you don't have enough faith to believe then that is fine--keep believing what you believe until Yah shines his light upon you and grants you more faith :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
my dear Brother--may Yah bless you richly in his good pleasure--and I will pray for you because of your accusations against me :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
It's quite easy for the wealthy to observe a literal Sabbath day. But not the poor. It's much more difficult a burden upon them, because to observe the Sabbath literally, they must forgo work that might pay, and put food on the table. For the wealthy, or those fortunate to have a job that does not require work on the Sabbath or being on-call that day, they can go about preaching God's commandments without care to those on whom such a literally observed commandment places great burden and is UNSCRIPTURAL.
Some people worship God every day, and they rest from their literal work on their days off, getting the same amount of rest as the Sabbath pusher without having to observe something God doesn't command for them.
Nobody who abstains from Sabbath observance is lacking any faith unto righteousness and obedience before God. Sabbath observance is not a command for Christians, nor anything they MUST do as an expression of love for God.
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 29, 2014, 12:24:16 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:12:48 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 29, 2014, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:06:48 AM
So, if the woman whose boss schedules her for work on Sabbath, if she doesn't do it, her faith is doubted?
If a woman has faith in Christ, does she need to choose between her schedule at work and the Sabbath day? After all, faith without works is dead, as you have said. So, the woman does not do the work of the Law to abstain from working on Sabbath in order to keep from being fired, his her faith dead?
Your doctrine is exposed.
I said Faith in that particular matter---not your faith as a whole
we have only a measure of faith some have a greater measure than others in some areas
if you don't have the faith in a particular area--then don't do it until you have it :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
You have avoided my question because you understand the implications of your doctrine upon the poor.
you just don't understand faith and the Power of Yah--your accusations against me are of none effect
is anything impossible with Yah ??? Does he have all Power ??? all wisdom ??? im afraid brother for you--
Yah can take an impossible situation and make Possibilities--or in essence he can turn it around.
if you don't have enough faith to believe then that is fine--keep believing what you believe until Yah shines his light upon you and grants you more faith :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
my dear Brother--may Yah bless you richly in his good pleasure--and I will pray for you because of your accusations against me :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
This is the same logic pushed upon the tithe crowds. They say "OBEY God and pay the tithe, and God will provide for you." Then they end up poorer than before, and doubting their faith.
The Sabbath is not a commandment to Christians.
Well after 15 good rounds I'm still convinced and in one camp.
I'm in the exact same discussion on another board, the thread is called: "You Christians pick and choose what you obey in the Bible".
I am convinced it is not "what" to obey but "who" you obey.
:dsunny:
Nice debate here. My hat is off to both sides.
Good job keeping it in the love of God.
.
Quote from: ed on August 29, 2014, 12:41:36 AM
Well after 15 good rounds I'm still convinced and in one camp.
I'm in the exact same discussion on another board, the thread is called: "You Christians pick and choose what you obey in the Bible".
I am convinced it is not "what" to obey but "who" you obey.
:dsunny:
Nice debate here. My hat is off to both sides.
Good job keeping it in the love of God.
.
To spin a pun off of your comment, I see us all as being in the same camp, the one חן (grace, encampment, favor) of our Father. I refuse to allow the differences we may have individual to divide that unity of the faith.
:friendstu:
FreeAtLast has said in the Sin thread: "brother the scripture says that he KEPT THE LAW Commandments statues this is how he obeyed Yah voice--in that he kept THE LAW that was given unto him we obey his voice also and obey what he has given unto us the same way"
There are two views which have been discussed in this thread
1) That the Sabbath is a custom that we can choose to keep or not, but has no connection to obedience to God for Christians, or
2) The Sabbath is a commandment to God from the 10 Commandments that those who hear his voice must also obey
These are mutually exclusive arguments. That is why I find it funny that FreeAtLast is giving multiple thumbs up to Ronen, when Ronen was denying his argument. Nobody but FreeAtLAst has made any argument that the Sabbath is a commandment for Christians to obey if they hear God's voice.
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:37:21 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 29, 2014, 12:24:16 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:12:48 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 29, 2014, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:06:48 AM
So, if the woman whose boss schedules her for work on Sabbath, if she doesn't do it, her faith is doubted?
If a woman has faith in Christ, does she need to choose between her schedule at work and the Sabbath day? After all, faith without works is dead, as you have said. So, the woman does not do the work of the Law to abstain from working on Sabbath in order to keep from being fired, his her faith dead?
Your doctrine is exposed.
I said Faith in that particular matter---not your faith as a whole
we have only a measure of faith some have a greater measure than others in some areas
if you don't have the faith in a particular area--then don't do it until you have it :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
You have avoided my question because you understand the implications of your doctrine upon the poor.
you just don't understand faith and the Power of Yah--your accusations against me are of none effect
is anything impossible with Yah ??? Does he have all Power ??? all wisdom ??? im afraid brother for you--
Yah can take an impossible situation and make Possibilities--or in essence he can turn it around.
if you don't have enough faith to believe then that is fine--keep believing what you believe until Yah shines his light upon you and grants you more faith :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
my dear Brother--may Yah bless you richly in his good pleasure--and I will pray for you because of your accusations against me :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
This is the same logic pushed upon the tithe crowds. They say "OBEY God and pay the tithe, and God will provide for you." Then they end up poorer than before, and doubting their faith.
The Sabbath is not a commandment to Christians.
im still praying for you brother for your bearing false witness against thy neighbor --- :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
God bless you, FAL
:banana: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 12:52:28 AM
FreeAtLast has said in the Sin thread: "brother the scripture says that he KEPT THE LAW Commandments statues this is how he obeyed Yah voice--in that he kept THE LAW that was given unto him we obey his voice also and obey what he has given unto us the same way"
There are two views which have been discussed in this thread
1) That the Sabbath is a custom that we can choose to keep or not, but has no connection to obedience to God for Christians, or
2) The Sabbath is a commandment to God from the 10 Commandments that those who hear his voice must also obey
These are mutually exclusive arguments. That is why I find it funny that FreeAtLast is giving multiple thumbs up to Ronen, when Ronen was denying his argument. Nobody but FreeAtLAst has made any argument that the Sabbath is a commandment for Christians to obey if they hear God's voice.
Abraham kept all his commandments,statues and laws--you are arguing with Yah not me--that what the scripture said--I was just quoting that unto you
Just to harken back:
Me: RONEN, do you believe that observing a literal Sabbath is a matter of obedience to a God which all Christians should remain obedient to? Not obeying God is bad.
Ronen: Not at all. For me to do that will end up in death, just as with any other mitzvah, including love.
Amen to that. :iagree:
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 01:17:26 AM
Just to harken back:
Me: RONEN, do you believe that observing a literal Sabbath is a matter of obedience to a God which all Christians should remain obedient to? Not obeying God is bad.
Ronen: Not at all. For me to do that will end up in death, just as with any other mitzvah, including love.
Amen to that. :iagree:
yea--were not the ones doing it--it is Yahshua within us that does it
under the law we were trying to do it of none avail
it has been made clear that the new testament church did all those Sabbaths--yet not them doing it but Yahshua in them --He is the Hope of Glory !!!
:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: also :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 29, 2014, 01:22:37 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 01:17:26 AM
Just to harken back:
Me: RONEN, do you believe that observing a literal Sabbath is a matter of obedience to a God which all Christians should remain obedient to? Not obeying God is bad.
Ronen: Not at all. For me to do that will end up in death, just as with any other mitzvah, including love.
Amen to that. :iagree:
yea--were not the ones doing it--it is Yahshua within us that does it
under the law we were trying to do it of none avail
it has been made clear that the new testament church did all those Sabbaths--yet not them doing it but Yahshua in them --He is the Hope of Glory !!!
:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: also :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
That would necessarily mean that if ANY Christian does not observe Sabbath day as a literal day, then either Christ has decided not to influence them to do it, OR that he is influencing them, but they are not hearing his voice, and are therefore not obeying. So your clarification doesn't change the underlying argument that Christ is causing us to obey God by observing a literal Sabbath.
Again, the Sabbath is not a commandment for Christians to obey.
Whether or not the early Church continued a CUSTOM of it is debatable but wholly irrelevant here. The question is OBEDIENCE.
The literal Sabbath day is not a matter of obedience.
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 01:26:27 AM
Quote from: FreeAtLast on August 29, 2014, 01:22:37 AM
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 01:17:26 AM
Just to harken back:
Me: RONEN, do you believe that observing a literal Sabbath is a matter of obedience to a God which all Christians should remain obedient to? Not obeying God is bad.
Ronen: Not at all. For me to do that will end up in death, just as with any other mitzvah, including love.
Amen to that. :iagree:
yea--were not the ones doing it--it is Yahshua within us that does it
under the law we were trying to do it of none avail
it has been made clear that the new testament church did all those Sabbaths--yet not them doing it but Yahshua in them --He is the Hope of Glory !!!
:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: also :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
That would necessarily mean that if ANY Christian does not observe Sabbath day as a literal day, then either Christ has decided not to influence them to do it, OR that he is influencing them, but they are not hearing his voice, and are therefore not obeying. So your clarification doesn't change the underlying argument that Christ is causing us to obey God by observing a literal Sabbath.
Again, the Sabbath is not a commandment for Christians to obey.
Whether or not the early Church continued a CUSTOM of it is debatable but wholly irrelevant here. The question is OBEDIENCE.
The literal Sabbath day is not a matter of obedience.
I believe the new testament church was led by the Spirit to do what they done--that which is good that is.
either that or they just followed after traditions and were of no hope.
Yahshua did those things while in the flesh--he told his disciples to do those things--he gave the Spirit after his departure--the spirit led them the same as Yahshua did in the flesh----this is the reason why they done what they did
Yahshua in us---the Hope of Glory :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
QuoteI believe the new testament church was led by the Spirit to do what they done--that which is good that is.
either that or they just followed after traditions and were of no hope.
Yahshua did those things while in the flesh--he told his disciples to do those things--he gave the Spirit after his departure--the spirit led them the same as Yahshua did in the flesh----this is the reason why they done what they did
Yahshua in us---the Hope of Glory :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
"He told his disciples to do those things."
That would make not doing it a matter of disobedience to commandments.
What you are saying would have the dark and logically necessary implication that if Christians are not observing Sabbath as a literal day then they are NOT going where the Spirit leads, and are NOT obedient to the Lord, and are NOT hearing his voice.
I feel sorry for the poor woman who has to work on Sabbath day, who feels she might have to quit her job due to your doctrines.
Quote from: Seth on August 29, 2014, 01:36:10 AM
QuoteI believe the new testament church was led by the Spirit to do what they done--that which is good that is.
either that or they just followed after traditions and were of no hope.
Yahshua did those things while in the flesh--he told his disciples to do those things--he gave the Spirit after his departure--the spirit led them the same as Yahshua did in the flesh----this is the reason why they done what they did
Yahshua in us---the Hope of Glory :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
"He told his disciples to do those things."
That would make not doing it a matter of disobedience to commandments.
What you are saying would have the dark and logically necessary implication that if Christians are not observing Sabbath as a literal day then they are NOT going where the Spirit leads, and are NOT obedient to the Lord, and are NOT hearing his voice.
I feel sorry for the poor woman who has to work on Sabbath day, who feels she might have to quit her job due to your doctrines.
Yahshua told them that if they love him to keep his commandments--they did have commandments they were told to keep
they that are of the world--loves the ways of the world
they that are of Yah love the Ways of Yah
the Spirit leads into the ways of Yah---not the world
they are his doctrines not mine--tell that to the new testament church and see their reaction--if they were alive here now :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Yes the commandments were laid out by John "Believe in Jesus, and love your neighbor." Not "Believe in Jesus and love your neighbor, and observe sabbath literally, and be physically circumcised, and tithe, and wash your hands, and do the festivals etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
-----------
See, at least the Israelites all lived under the Law as a matter of theocracy. So their society supported literal Sabbath observance. I feel sorry for the Christians who have to struggle under laws that are not for them in a society that does not support them.
This is really very simple. Paul made it clear here.
Col 2:16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Paul understood Jesus clearly- having received the gospel from Him by direct revelation, which Paul declared, to the elders at Ephesus gathered at Mlietus in Acts 20, to have been the whole counsel of God.
In accordance with that scripture I am going to lock this thread for a day or maybe two, for a sabbath rest :o)