|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/17/2008 2:45:29 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 950
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
That's fine. I understand that we have six days in which to work. We can always discuss these things on Shabbat, as Adonai commands.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/17/2008 9:05:45 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2025
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Paul is telling us that we should not cast judgement on others over the details of the Covenant, "old" and/or "new". That is we should not cut off fellowship over disagreements like these, because that is not our place. It is Adonai who judges the details. Now expressing ones opinion is not judging. In fact, if we cut off fellowship over disagreements or fail to discuss these matters out of fear of judging, we can never come to a shared understanding. Also, if one keeps Ha Torah simply because he is coerced into it, he is not really keeping Ha Torah at all. Whatever one does, one should do it because he at least believes it is important to do so, even if he doesn't know why.
Somehow you seem to think that one is judging only when one is cutting off fellowship with someone. Frankly, I don't buy that. Who knows? But I don't have a lexical definition handy and I don't have a scripture to support or to deny your POV.
But if you are right, then I suggest you take a look at what the Law says:
Read Exodus 31:14--"Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people."
Somehow you want your cake and to eat it too. On one hand, you are obligated to stone people who break the Sabbath. That involves more than merely leaving it to God. You are commanded to take an action. On the other hand (and I agree), you are interpreting Romans 14 as saying that we should not judge.
I don't insist that you declare your view that I am committing sin and that you act on the command to stone me. CW would certainly take a dim view of stoning other posters. But, there appears to me to be a contradiction. You cannot refrain from judging someone and obey the command to stone them at the same time. And don't tell me "There's no contradiction." Such a statement would demonstrate the intrinsic cognitive dissonance of your position.
quote:
Now, the fact that we are not to judge others on these matters and are to be convinced in our own minds regarding their observance does not mean that there is no right way. Adonai will still judge our actions and bless or curse us accordingly.
Now, if you want to leave the judging to God, take a look at this: "13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"-- 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. " (Gal. 3:13-14, NASB)
Do you get that? No curse for me! The curse has been lifted.
quote:
Paul may be giving some permission to continue keeping the feasts, but one could also be saying that Paul is saying we should let others not keep the feasts until they become convinced that keeping them is the right thing to do.
Surely, you can't be serious! Advancing such a view as a possibility is called eisegesis. On the one hand, you take issue with the permissibility to eat pork (because, presumably, you would insist on restricting any interpretation to what prompted Paul to pen those words), BUT THEN, on the other hand, you make such an interpretation based upon no words of the text.
Do we wait upon understanding before we receive baptism? If we are to obey them, then we should obey them without delay; when such is possible.
quote:
First you appear to have misquoted the verse, the NIV translates it as; "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean."
First, I did not misquote the verses. I cut and pasted them directly from Bible Gateway. I referenced my version as the NASB. And my question was rhetorical. I was responding to LBolt who seemed to insist that the term "Sabbaths" involved seasonal Sabbaths and feasting times. My reply is that the context is not so restrictive as he seems to indicate. And, basically, you confirmed my opinion that the context is broad.
Paul's point as you say, was that it involved the eating of foods offered to idols. If that is so, then Paul's context could not be so narrow so as to exclude weekly Sabbaths. Any Gentile reading that would not likely have differentiated between weekly Sabbaths from seasonal ones. Was God's rebuke of Israel from breaking the Sabbath restricted to His problem with merely the seasonal ones, or was He also referring to their breaking of the weekly ones?
quote:
Ha Torah tells us it is not pork.
Anyway, I am not under the Torah. If indeed one must insist that Romans 14 does not give permission to eat pork, Acts 14 certainly does. When lifting the obligation to receive circumcision, James said that Gentiles should not eat things strangled nor to eat blood as food. But I suppose that's another discussion.
quote:
That said, let's try to stay on the issue of Shabbat and discuss other issues regarding Ha Torah in other threads set up for those purposes.
Generally speaking, Sabbatarians base their views of the Sabbath from the Mosaic Law. It's not so much that I insist that I am freed from the Old Covenant as it is that there is considerable overlap in the two threads. Keep in mind that CW insists on the two subjects being separate. If the moderators feel that they should be distinct, I'll discuss it privately with them. Right now, I don't see any way.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 7/17/2008 11:00:40 AM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/17/2008 11:04:11 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2025
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Read also Colossians 2:16. I quote from the NET Bible.
"Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days-"
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/17/2008 6:02:57 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 950
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Somehow you seem to think that one is judging only when one is cutting off fellowship with someone. Frankly, I don't buy that. Who knows? But I don't have a lexical definition handy and I don't have a scripture to support or to deny your POV.
But if you are right, then I suggest you take a look at what the Law says:
Read Exodus 31:14--"Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people."
Somehow you want your cake and to eat it too. On one hand, you are obligated to stone people who break the Sabbath. That involves more than merely leaving it to God. You are commanded to take an action. On the other hand (and I agree), you are interpreting Romans 14 as saying that we should not judge.
I don't insist that you declare your view that I am committing sin and that you act on the command to stone me. CW would certainly take a dim view of stoning other posters. But, there appears to me to be a contradiction. You cannot refrain from judging someone and obey the command to stone them at the same time. And don't tell me "There's no contradiction." Such a statement would demonstrate the intrinsic cognitive dissonance of your position.
Just as nowhere in the Scripture is an individual given the right to judge another individuals relationship with Adonai, one may not stone ones neighbor on their own initiative either. Now, one is commanded to bear a true witness to the actions of another, but judgements are the paragotive of Adonai and in the case of society, the community as a whole. So, if the community as a whole under the direction of the authorities of CW determine that one is guilty of breaking the Sabbath, then let the witnesses cast the first stones, if the government of the USA will permit. Though "church" history shows many cases of similar exectutions in spite of Rom 14, I believe, the standard set out in Ha Torah for execution is much higher than that used by "the church". Rabbinic history bears this out, since, if I am not mistaken, executions of any kind were rare let alone those for not keeping Shabbat.
quote:
Do you get that? No curse for me! The curse has been lifted.
Then there are not consequences for you if you choose the murder your neighbor? I submit that the curse of treats from the near kinsman is still in effect, even for you.
quote:
quote:
Paul may be giving some permission to continue keeping the feasts, but one could also be saying that Paul is saying we should let others not keep the feasts until they become convinced that keeping them is the right thing to do.
Surely, you can't be serious! Advancing such a view as a possibility is called eisegesis. On the one hand, you take issue with the permissibility to eat pork (because, presumably, you would insist on restricting any interpretation to what prompted Paul to pen those words), BUT THEN, on the other hand, you make such an interpretation based upon no words of the text.
Do we wait upon understanding before we receive baptism? If we are to obey them, then we should obey them without delay; when such is possible .
Again we are talking about interpersonal relations, not judicial proceedings. One can witness to what the Scriptures say without bearing a grudge as Lev 19 tells us, :17 "'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. 18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."
Yes, we should do what Adonai clearly commands as soon as we become aware of it. However, pork is clearly listed as not being food. I am sorry I misunderstood your argument. I agree one should keep all of the appointed times one can possibly keep. I will address the question about pork shortly. To keep to this current point. I do not think Paul is telling us that agressively avoiding the appointed times is a righteous act, but that the person that does not observe them does so because he has not been convinced that they are what Adonai wishes, just as the person who keeps the appointed times does so because he is convinced. Now, one should be baptised, but, I do not think we should forcably baptise anyone.
quote:
quote:
Ha Torah tells us it is not pork.
Anyway, I am not under the Torah. If indeed one must insist that Romans 14 does not give permission to eat pork, Acts 14 certainly does. When lifting the obligation to receive circumcision, James said that Gentiles should not eat things strangled nor to eat blood as food. But I suppose that's another discussion.
I presume you meant Acts 15. However, let's look at the quote and take the context into consideration.
Acts 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
Nowhere do we see the eating of pork meantioned at the Jerusalem council. The primary issue was whether one was required to be circumcised in order to be saved and be allowed to discuss the Scriptures. There were also several hot button issues at the time. The prevailing argument was that salvation is by grace and one can not know Ha Torah if one is not allowed to discuss it freely. Given this context,it appears to me, the council decided that one need not be Bar Mitzvah(rabbinically familiar with the Scriptures) in order to interact with those that were more familiar with the Scriptures. Thus, attending convocation on Shabbat appears to trump the other commandments, as verse 21 points out. Therefore, I would say the lesson here is that as long as a person is not hitting any hot button issues, we should allow them to join us in Torah study on Shabbat and they will pick up the rest, including the "dietary laws", as we go along.
quote:
Generally speaking, Sabbatarians base their views of the Sabbath from the Mosaic Law. It's not so much that I insist that I am freed from the Old Covenant as it is that there is considerable overlap in the two threads. Keep in mind that CW insists on the two subjects being separate. If the moderators feel that they should be distinct, I'll discuss it privately with them. Right now, I don't see any way.
All I was saying is that we should clearly relate our comments to the point of the thread, lest we lose our way on endless rabbit trails.
Regarding Col 2:16, this quote begins with a therefore. So, what is it there for. The context is in part the same as what I had said above. The keeping of the appointed times are not necessary for salvation and we are not to make that kind of judgement. Also Ha Torah gives minimal instructions on how one should keep these appointed times. Therefore, we should observe the appointed times and all of the commandments for that matter, in light of salvation by grace and other clarifications(reminders) provided by Yeshua(Jesus).
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 7/17/2008 6:27:40 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/17/2008 9:36:39 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
.
Is this thread still about the Sabbath?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 3:17:43 PM
|
|
|
McFatty
Posts: 1084
Joined: 12/8/2007
From: Augusta, GA
Status: offline
|
The "Keep the Law" discussion has implications on the "Sabbath" one, right? In which thread would one talk about both at once?
_____________________________
“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” – Philippians 4:8
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 4:34:09 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11604
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
Re: Sabbath thread v. Keep the Law thread
This is my understanding of the two threads (which may be overruled by Admin, but they can serve for the time being:
One does not necesarily have to believe in keeping the Law in order to believe in keeping the Sabbath. There are a few denominations that leap to mind that beolieve in Sabbath-keeping that do not believe that they are bound to any other part of the Mosaic Law. There are also people who believe in keeping the Sabbath (ie, keeping the day holy, not working, etc), but they consider Sunday to be the "new" Sabbath.
Those issues are what I read the OP as being for this thread.
quote:
Discuss the issues surrounding the Sabbath... from everything to the "right" day to worship corporately to how to honor the Sabbath to what Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man.
Discuss it all here.
Now the Keep the Law thread would include keeping the 7th-day Sabbath, but would also include the more all-encompassing issue of whether the Mosaic Law is applicable to Christians. But, unless one is discussing *all* the Law--including the Sabbath--the Sabbath discussion should be done in the Sabbath thread.
What is happening here is that rather than the Law-including-the Sabbath discussion taking place in the Law thread, this thread is turning into a Sabbath-including-the-rest-of-the-Law thread.
We would not need both threads if that was the intent of this thread. That would make them identical.
That is my interpretation. Look upon it as a District Court ruling that may be reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal. (Appeal has been filed, so just be patient.)
Do not reply to this message within the Community, or send me pms or emails about it.
If you have a question or concern, contact community@salemwebnetwork.com
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 4:41:12 PM
|
|
|
McFatty
Posts: 1084
Joined: 12/8/2007
From: Augusta, GA
Status: offline
|
That answered my question. Thanks.
_____________________________
“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” – Philippians 4:8
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 4:55:28 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2025
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103: One does not necesarily have to believe in keeping the Law in order to believe in keeping the Sabbath. There are a few denominations that leap to mind that beolieve in Sabbath-keeping that do not believe that they are bound to any other part of the Mosaic Law. There are also people who believe in keeping the Sabbath (ie, keeping the day holy, not working, etc), but they consider Sunday to be the "new" Sabbath.
Those denominations may believe that. But I don't believe it could be upheld biblically. I would be interested in seeing any explicit Scripture supporting the obligation to observe the Sabbath by refraining from work---that is not based upon a scripture that was written while the Law was in force.
Generally, while some would deny it, those who believe in our obligation to observe the Saturday Sabbath ALSO believe we should keep the Law. And many of those believe the obligation to observe the Sabbath is something apart from and distinct from the obligation to keep the Law.
Even those who believe we should observe the Sunday Sabbath by refraining from work rely upon things like the Ten Commandments. Alternatively, they believe the Church is permitted to somehow change the obligatory Sabbath Day, but they still quote from the OT while attempting to say that we are obligated.
quote:
What is happening here is that rather than the Law-including-the Sabbath discussion taking place in the Law thread, this thread is turning into a Sabbath-including-the-rest-of-the-Law thread.
In my POV, their inconsistency is glaring. That's why I keep pointing it out. I believe it is a strong weakness in their position. If I did not believe they were related, I would be a Saturday Sabbatarian.
I realize that the CW thread boundary rules are meant to keep arguments from running amok. But, with all due respect and due honor to the moderator's job, if they are enforced rigidly they undermine my ability to argue my views here.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 7/18/2008 5:11:48 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 5:57:17 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 950
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Those denominations may believe that. But I don't believe it could be upheld biblically. I would be interested in seeing any explicit Scripture supporting the obligation to observe the Sabbath by refraining from work---that is not based upon a scripture that was written while the Law was in force.
The problem with your challenge is that the premise dictates the conclusion. Any explicite obligation would be considered a commandment and your challege precludes the requirement to obey commandments. Also, everything in the Scriptures except the Acts and the letters of the Apostles. Finally, he letters of the Apostles generally do not give us commands, but comment on those in the Tanach(old testament.). In fact, the prohibition against incest does not pass this test.
However, here is my best effort.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles, there are plenty of examples of Paul gtoing to the Synogogue on Shabbat an dther are allusions to others doing the same.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 7/18/2008 6:23:25 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 6:45:43 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2025
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Any explicite obligation would be considered a commandment and your challege precludes the requirement to obey commandments.
It doesn't preclude the obligation to obey commandments, only the commandments of the OT. And there are certainly reasons for doing things that do not necessarily involve the obligation to obey the Law.
quote:
The problem with your challenge is that the premise dictates the conclusion.
It would if that were the whole of my argument. I do build on my premises. I have noted several times that either you or LBolt completely ignore some of those premises. Can I help it if you ignore them? For example, in one of the posts today, you asked if the curse of the Law on murderers was lifted. That completely ignores some things that I have attempted to establish earlier--as if there was no condemnation of murder in the New Covenant--or no penalties either.
There are premises that I use from Hebrews. The scriptures covering those things in the NT are not gathered in a single place. And I have already discussed my belief that we are under the New Covenant not the Old. Some passages do not use the terms Old Covenant and New Covenant, but if any consistency of my position can be maintained, the terms of the New Covenant are in the epistles.
quote:
Any explicite obligation would be considered a commandment and your challege precludes the requirement to obey commandments. Also, everything in the Scriptures except the Acts and the letters of the Apostles. Finally, he letters of the Apostles generally do not give us commands, but comment on those in the Tanach(old testament.).
You are suggesting, of course, that commandments from the Old Testament obligate us to be under the Law. I don't agree. For a while, I myself wondered about the quotations of the OT obligating us to be under the Law. Then I found this quote by Gordon Fee.
Keeping the law.
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, page 168.
QUOTE
There are many modern analogies to this sort of change of stipulations from covenant to covenant. In the case of labor contracts, for example, a new contract may specify changes in working conditions, different staffing structures, different pay scales, etc. Yet it may also retain certain features of the old contract--seniority, work breaks, provisions against arbitrary fire, etc. Now a labor contract is hardly on the level of the covenant between God and Israel, but it is a type of covenant and therefore helps illustrate in a familiar way the fact that a new covenant can be quite different from the old covenant, yet not necessarily totally different. This is the just the case with the biblical covenants.
UNQUOTE
In any event, as I review the scriptures pertaining to our obligations to Law, it is probably more accurate to say that we are freed from the Law than it is to say that the Law has been terminated.
quote:
However, here is my best effort.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Look closely at the above scripture. Is there a command to refrain from work by keeping the Sabbath? I noticed over a year ago that in the many pre-Law references to the Sabbath, I couldn't find an single one that obligated mankind to refrain from working on it. To be sure, God designated it as special and distinct. But it was The Law itself that added the obligation to refrain from work.
quote:
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles, there are plenty of examples of Paul gtoing to the Synogogue on Shabbat an dther are allusions to others doing the same.
I am aware of that. I have mentioned it myself before without even being pressed into such an admission. I don't believe that there was a distinct time that one could say, "Yesterday the Law was in force but today it isn't." I know of no fine chronological distinct time frame except that it would begin to happen in the time of Christ and its finality would have been completed when the Temple was destroyed.
Anyway, many Jews continued to keep the Saturday Sabbath apart from any commands in the NT epistles. We do not see Paul enforcing that obligation on the Gentiles nor do we see him reinforcing that obligation on the Jews. That understanding would come with time. In the meantime, I would suggest they continued to do things as they always did--whether out of habit or out of a continued belief that the Old Covenant was still binding on them and would continue to be.
But in seeing that the Old System was on its way out, the Jews could hardly avoid recognizing that a New Way was upon them. It did not come quickly. And it was not immediately obvious to all of them certainly.
It is my view that the term "The Last Days" referred to the last days of the Mosaic system.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 7/18/2008 9:16:38 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/23/2008 9:50:01 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fritzpw_Admin
Discuss the issues surrounding the Sabbath... from everything to the "right" day to worship corporately to how to honor the Sabbath to what Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man.
Discuss it all here.
In case anyone is interested in my Church's official teaching on this, here it is:
quote:
II. THE LORD'S DAY
This is the day which the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.103
The day of the Resurrection: the new creation
2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:
We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.106
Sunday- fulfillment of the sabbath
2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108
2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.
103 Ps 118:24.
104 Cf. Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1.
105 Cf. Mk 16:1; Mt 28:1.
106 St. Justin, I Apol. 67: PG 6, 429 and 432.
107 Cf. 1 Cor 10:11.
108 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Magn. 9, 1: SCh 10, 88.
109 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II 122, 4.
source link:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm
Catechism Of The Catholic Church
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/24/2008 11:44:33 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 1138
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
Thank you CatholicCrusader. Although I'm not Catholic and don't make a point of defending Catholic doctrines and beliefs, I can see and appreciate the meaning of Christ as the dawning of a new Day, a new creation, the first Day of a new time. They have much meaning for me. The parallels between the creation account and what He has accomplished in salvation are unmistakeable and edifying to think about.
I wholly respect the truths upon which early Catholics based their worship on in regard to the Sabbath and the Feasts. What it has developed into over the centuries, and how it has been handled/ mishandled by various leaders in and out of the Church is not the point. There's validity in what they believe fundamentally about these things.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2008 9:00:42 PM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 787
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
CatholicCrusader and all who read and contribute to this post, it is very important that we delve into our history books and begin to ask the 5 W's question. The most important being the "why." I great as your denominations explanation is, it doesn't support the truth reason why Sabbath was changed to Sunday or why we no longer regard the Sabbath as valid. The scriptures sure do not support the majority of Christiandom's rationale for why we do not regard honor the 4th commandment.
What I see, sadly, is that in a lot of cases we are not following the Word of God, we are following man-made tradition disguised as the Word of God. This has, unfortunately, made the word of God of none effect. We can have the most spiritual answers but it most line up. My rebuke is not with individual people but with institution or the system of "churchianity" that has introduced foreign doctrines, which has been in place for years, and when it is challenged with irrefutable evidence out of the word of God, it is dismissed with verses taken out of context. Or you are considered, SDA. It very important that we start asking the right questions and honestly search for those answers. I honestly do not believe that it's going to come from the pulpits of the average church...it'll come from opening the word of God, cracking open a Strong's and reading history books.
Not just from "Christian" sources but from non-Christian sources. Reading about the culture, politics, religion and significant events surrounding the area. I'll just read you all's posts, like I been doing with an occasional "cameo" blog here and there. I haven't had access or time to log on but I do from time to time just to see what the different responses are. Take care!!
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7,9
You mean there was grace in the Old Testament?!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2008 10:12:06 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2025
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Crusader,
Whatever disagreement I have with LBolt, I agree with him that there is no biblical justification for stating that Sunday is the Sabbath. Frankly, in no church I attended was it ever taught that Sunday is the Sabbath.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2008 10:20:52 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 874
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Whatever disagreement I have with LBolt, I agree with him that there is no biblical justification for stating that Sunday is the Sabbath.
I quite agree. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest such a shift. Some can argue that the proper day to meet for local church fellowship is Sunday, sure, but nothing suggests that Sunday therefore became the Sabbath.
_____________________________
Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.
-C. S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/26/2008 10:43:21 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 950
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles, there are plenty of examples of Paul gtoing to the Synogogue on Shabbat an dther are allusions to others doing the same.
I am aware of that. I have mentioned it myself before without even being pressed into such an admission. I don't believe that there was a distinct time that one could say, "Yesterday the Law was in force but today it isn't." I know of no fine chronological distinct time frame except that it would begin to happen in the time of Christ and its finality would have been completed when the Temple was destroyed.
Anyway, many Jews continued to keep the Saturday Sabbath apart from any commands in the NT epistles. We do not see Paul enforcing that obligation on the Gentiles nor do we see him reinforcing that obligation on the Jews. That understanding would come with time. In the meantime, I would suggest they continued to do things as they always did--whether out of habit or out of a continued belief that the Old Covenant was still binding on them and would continue to be.
But in seeing that the Old System was on its way out, the Jews could hardly avoid recognizing that a New Way was upon them. It did not come quickly. And it was not immediately obvious to all of them certainly.
It is my view that the term "The Last Days" referred to the last days of the Mosaic system.
You are entitiled to your view, but that does not make it correct. It is possible that the Temple and those laws related to it would pass away with its distruction. Though there are parts of some of the feasts do involve the Temple, there are other things involved in the feasts that can be done and are not dependant on the Temple. But, let's focus on the weekly Shabbat, since that appears to be the point of this thread. The fourth commandment is not tied to the Temple.
Now you have said that my view that Gentiles be permitted to not keep the feasts until they received proper instruction from Ha Torah at the Shabbat readings in the synogogues was make "such an interpretation based upon no words of the text." However, when you propose, the repeated examples of Yeshuas followers attending synogogue on Shabbat are just examples of Jews being allowed to follow prior habits until they became convinced otherwise, that is proper interpretation based on no words of the text?
Can we make inference or can't we?
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2008 5:22:12 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2025
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
G.C. said quote:
It is my view that the term "The Last Days" referred to the last days of the Mosaic system. Bluethread said
You are entitiled to your view, but that does not make it correct. It is possible that the Temple and those laws related to it would pass away with its distruction.
You didn't think I made it up out of whole cloth did you? Peter spoke of Joel's prophecy when Joel predicted the Spirit's coming at Pentecost when he said "In the last days I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh..." (Acts 2:17)
And the writer of Hebrews said "In these last days..." (Hebrews 1:2) If the last don't refer to the last days of the law, then they were at least concurrent with them because Peter and the the writer of Hebrews both regarded the times of the apostles as the last days--not some series of events 2,000 years in advance of their time.
quote:
It is possible that the Temple and those laws related to it would pass away with its distruction. Though there are parts of some of the feasts do involve the Temple, there are other things involved in the feasts that can be done and are not dependant on the Temple.
Well, if you think we are still obligated to keep the law, why don't you keep some of those things that aren't temple related? We could pursue that in the Keep the Law thread.
Speaking of which, I am going to be limited in how I can pursue my "keeping the Sabbath" argument because the administration thinks I should argue it in the Keep the Law thread. That's why I moved my comments over there--not out of any desire to do so myself. But since there were no comments addressed to me, I had to make myself visible. Unfortunately, no one was talking about the Sabbath much over there.
quote:
But, let's focus on the weekly Shabbat, since that appears to be the point of this thread. The fourth commandment is not tied to the Temple.
Indeed it is not but it IS tied to the Law.
quote:
However, when you propose, the repeated examples of Yeshuas followers attending synogogue on Shabbat are just examples of Jews being allowed to follow prior habits until they became convinced otherwise, that is proper interpretation based on no words of the text?
We know that Jesus' followers kept the Law prior to Jesus' resurrection. We are told outright that they did. What I said was that people did so out of habit. I know that people who have life-long habits usually continue to do so until they have some reason to change them. Since we are never told that they actually stopped, the inference I gather from that is that they continued. As I said in #2867: "NT habit or custom is not the same thing as a command or an obligation."
We are told that Paul in his missionary endeavors was in synagogue every sabbath, (Acts 13:42,44; 18:4). However, we are not told that he kept the Sabbath because he considered it obligatory to rest. I infer from that that he did it either from habit and/or because that was where he could reach Jews--since it says in Acts 15:21 that Jews worshiped every sabbath.
As I also said in #2867: " The Bible also tells us that Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), but the reason for doing so was not of command or biblical obligation. So the practice of something in and of itself does make it a biblical command." That means that when Paul did something, it does not mean that he believed there was some obligation by God to do so. He condemned circumcision in Romans and Galatians but he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3. His reason was not religious obligation. Likewise, any time we are told that someone was in synagogue or practiced some tenent of the law, we ought not automatically presume that they felt God obligated them to do that.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 7/27/2008 9:19:02 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 7/27/2008 5:24:30 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2025
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, when you propose, the repeated examples of Yeshuas followers attending synogogue on Shabbat are just examples of Jews being allowed to follow prior habits until they became convinced otherwise, that is proper interpretation based on no words of the text?
It happens so that the text of Romans 14 leads me to inevitable conclusion that Jewish Christians ceased from that obligation once they realized they no longer had to do it.
"Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions (Rom 14:1 NASB)...(v 5) one regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind."
Permission is granted here to keep it or not to keep it. Nothing is hinted that upon more instruction that they would have to start keeping it. There is no sense of obligation toward God to keep it except with regard to his own sincerity toward God--
"He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord,...for if we live, we live for the Lord or if we die..." (v 8).
If you and I both agree that many Christians continued to keep the sabbath long after Pentecost, we agree basically on that one thing even if we conclude it for different reasons. But if a person is granted permission to not keep it, what am I to conclude but that there would be some who formerly felt that they should but then later conclude that they don't have to do so?
Likewise, some might feel that they have freedom not to keep it and then change their minds because they later feel they have an obligation to keep it. However, | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
he is harmless! 
