Bible Study Are the Sabbath Laws Binding on Christians Today?

[JM]

Quote: In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.


http://solagratia.org/Articles/Are_the_ ... Today.aspx

 

[wavy]

In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.

Exactly (except for the first sentence) and this is why we do all of it. Contrary to popular opinion, this passage actually is for pure Torah obedience not against it. I'll explain why if asked.

The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

It's apparently obvious that these people have no clue what the New Covenant is. Also, it was a sign to Israel specifically, that is true. Most use this as the basis for their arguments. However, the New Covenant was made with both houses of Jacob, Judah and Israel (in the context of the ten tribes; Jer 31:31), not "gentiles" so if you are not Israel, you are not part of the New Covenant. Also, the New Covenant writes the laws (which don't change, there is no mention of "new laws" here...) inside of Israel's heart (northern ten tribes as opposed to Judah) because they were divorced for Torah breaking (Jer. 3:8 and basically the entire book of Hosea). Therefore they need Torah on their heart so they can DO IT (Ez. 36:27). Also, Is. 66:23 makes it clear that the sabbath will be observed in the new heavens and earth. And Yahweh said that this was a covenant between him and Israel FOREVER. It was a sign FOREVER, not a sign until the New Covenant came.

The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.

The New Testament never commands that Christians abstain from bestiality either. However, we see that they did observe it throughout the rest of the New Testament even after Messiah's death. And history shows us that the first followers of Messiah were Torah obedient.

In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

This is one of the worst points I have ever heard. The Greek reads mia ton sabbaton, or "one of the sabbaths". The words "first" and "day" are not in the Greek. As we can see, this was midnight and they were observing the feast of Unleavened Bread (verse 6). They were breaking bread because they were celebrating the feast. It was midnight so it had to be the closing service after sabbaths (called "havdalah"). It was upon one of the sabbaths of the feast of Unleavened Bread (which were on the first day of the feast and on the seventh day of the feast). So either it means one of these sabbaths, or one of the sabbaths of the counting of omer to Penetcost. You cannot translate "mia ton sabbaton" to "first day of the week". This was not deis solis (day of the sun, hence Sun Day) or protos hemera (which would be "first day"). Completely distorted translation in favor of "Sun Day", the worship day of many pagans in the Roman Empire.

Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so.

That's because the gentiles were not Yahweh's people and they are still not his people (only those who join Israel through Messiah are). So, no if you are a gentile you do not observe the sabbath. If consider yourself a gentile and not Israel, you are also not the elect. Therefore the New Covenant, that people so love to boast in, is not for you and therefore you cannot be saved.

That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.

Morality is not an issue. Obedience is the issue for believers. The bible makes no mention of a "moral law". The best one could come up with is Rom 2:14-15. That only deals with those who do not have Torah though.

There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.

Yes, there is. Exodus 16 is a perfect example. He tested them on whether or not they would keep it before he brought them to Mt. Sinai to make a covenant with them.

When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.

They did not impose it, correct. Not for salvation as the heretics preached. But they did not impose anything upon anyone of the believing nations because they (the nations) were in the synagogues on the sabbaths learning to come to Torah obedience (Acts 15:21), and not having it all thrown upon them at once and the burden of saying they were not equal heirs in Israel or saved if they weren't immediately commanded to do it.

The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.

Well, he did. In a way one may not reaize. The word "godliness" in the NT is always the Greek word eusebia, meaning "piety". In Hebraic understanding, one is not considered pietous unless he keeps the sabbath. Also, there are several commandments he never warned them of, bestiality being an example again.

In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).

That passage is usually misintepreted. As we can see from verses 8 and 9, the context was when they did not know Yahweh. The weak and beggarly elements that they were returning to couldn't be the commandments as defined in Torah for the simple fact that if they had no knowledge of Yahweh, they would not be doing them. Rather, this is speaking of pagan institutions and extrabiblical laws given by legalistic Jews that they were returning to. Most likely pagan celebrations and observances based on the context of verse 8. "Law", the Greek word being nomos most of the time, is not always referring to the Torah of Moses. We cannot superimpose that into the context.

In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).

Wrong, and this is explained in part 2 of why we should keep Torah in this forum (one of my threads). There is a certain context to this scripture and the sabbath has nothing to do with it. The word sabbath does not even appear.

The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).

This is why the church fathers are the true heretics and the ones in error. The first followers of Messiah kept the Torah, as the church fathers themselves testify of.

Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord\'s Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week.

His resurrection did not occur on the first day of the week. It occured on Aviv 16th, mia ton sabbaton (as the Greek reads). He rose on the first sabbath of the counting of omer. And he never commanded anything to commemorate his resurrection. And the apostles still observed the sabbath as can be noted dozens of times after his death. And, btw, "the Lord's day" or "Yom YHWH" refers to the time period where Yahweh pours out his wrath on humanity. Nothing to do with any specific day of the week.

Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).

This principle of "every day is a sabbath" is nowhere in scripture. Hebrews just speaks of another time, in another day, (during the Millenium, imo) when we will rest from our labors here on earth. We have not ceased from rest. Hebrews doesn't say that. Hebrews actually tells us that we should LABOR to enter into the rest (Heb 4:11) by not taking after the same example of disobedience and unbelief of the fathers in the wilderness, as is the context of this passage.

Selah.

 

[Solo]

Wavy,
You sound like a Herbert Armstrong follower. What is your understanding of the trinity? What is your belief on Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God? Is Jesus Christ God? Why was the veil rent into two at the point of Jesus' death at his crucifixion?

 

[wavy]

Wavy,
You sound like a Herbert Armstrong follower. What is your understanding of the trinity? What is your belief on Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God? Is Jesus Christ God? Why was the veil rent into two at the point of Jesus' death at his crucifixion?

Herbert Armstrong? Oh, definately not. How do I sound anything like a follower of him? As far as the trinity, I do not believe in it. It is not founded in scripture, imho, and the arguments used to support are, as far as I can tell, weak. Also, there is no mention anywhere in the bible, even it it is true, that we need to believe in it or be considered "cultic" and "heretical". Yahshua didn't teach trinity. Read Jn. 17:3 to see what he taught.

And Yahshua is the only begotten Son of Yahweh (not the middleman in tri-theism). Yes, he is God. One in Elohim with the Father, although he is subservient to the Father. Both equal in nature, but not in role. Yahweh the Father is greater than Yahshua, as many scriptures testify of. Yahshua comes from within the Father and as such cannot be considered equal to him. He is sent from the Father and is obedient to him.

As far as the veil in the temple? It was torn into two equal peices symbolizing both access for both houses of Israel into the greater glory of the New Covenant.

 

[Solo]

Wavy,
You sound like a Herbert Armstrong follower. What is your understanding of the trinity? What is your belief on Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God? Is Jesus Christ God? Why was the veil rent into two at the point of Jesus' death at his crucifixion?

Herbert Armstrong? Oh, definately not. How do I sound anything like a follower of him? As far as the trinity, I do not believe in it. It is not founded in scripture, imho, and the arguments used to support are, as far as I can tell, weak. Also, there is no mention anywhere in the bible, even it it is true, that we need to believe in it or be considered "cultic" and "heretical". Yahshua didn't teach trinity. Read Jn. 17:3 to see what he taught.

And Yahshua is the only begotten Son of Yahweh (not the middleman in tri-theism). Yes, he is God. One in Elohim with the Father, although he is subservient to the Father. Both equal in nature, but not in role. Yahweh the Father is greater than Yahshua, as many scriptures testify of. Yahshua comes from within the Father and as such cannot be considered equal to him. He is sent from the Father and is obedient to him.

As far as the veil in the temple? It was torn into two equal peices symbolizing both access for both houses of Israel into the greater glory of the New Covenant.

Many of your doctrines match those of Herbert Armstrong, who in my opinion was a false teacher.

Who is the Holy Spirit?

Why don't Israel continue with the sacrifices as the Torah deems necessary?

Why do Judaizers twist the new testament scripture to fall into line with the same error of the gospel that Paul rebuked Peter for doing?

 

[wavy]

Many of your doctrines match those of Herbert Armstrong, who in my opinion was a false teacher.

How? Because he believed in the Decalogue as binding? I do too, but his mistake was that only the Decalogue was binding. How else? Because he believed that the two houses of Israel have not been fully united yet? I do too, but his mistake was British Israelism as opposed to Israelite seed filling all nations, not the favor of a singular race, which is nothing but Anglo-Saxonism. Also, he didn't acknowledge or use, as most don't, the set-apart name of YHWH.

Who is the Holy Spirit?

Yahweh's living presence, that proceeds from the Father (as directly stated in scripture; Jn. 15:26), not a co-equal, co-existent partner in a trinity. But a manifestation of Yahweh's power, nature and person upon humanity. His living nature in us so that we can be more like him in the Son (through whom he sends the Spirit). Nowhere in scripture does it say the Spirit is a distinct, co-equal person apart from the Father. Nowhere is the Spirit worshipped. He is not even on the throne at the end of Revelation. Instead, the Spirit comes from Yahweh.

Why don't Israel continue with the sacrifices as the Torah deems necessary?

Torah didn't deem them necessary. Hebrews reveals to us they were a shadow of glory to come through the new covenant. They were a reminder of sins, not a taking away of sins or the cleansing of a person's heart. Sacrifices began to be used as an excuse to sin over time in Israel. However, according to scriptures such as Zech. 14:21, Ez. 46, Jer. 33:18, and Mal. 3:3, I believe that these things will be reinstituted in a new manner or for a new purpose. What exactly? I don't know.

Why do Judaizers twist the new testament scripture to fall into line with the same error of the gospel that Paul rebuked Peter for doing?

When you have explained to me how I've twisted the scriptures, I will answer this question. Also, teaching Torah does not make a one a "Judaizer" or "legalist". Making works salvation and boasting your works over another's is being those things, something I do not do. And, for the record, what exactly did Paul rebuke Peter for doing (of course, I am ready to give my answer, I just want to hear yours first)?

 

[Solo]

Many of your doctrines match those of Herbert Armstrong, who in my opinion was a false teacher.

How? Because he believed in the Decalogue as binding? I do too, but his mistake was that only the Decalogue was binding. How else? Because he believed that the two houses of Israel have not been fully united yet? I do too, but his mistake was British Israelism as opposed to Israelite seed filling all nations, not the favor of a singular race, which is nothing but Anglo-Saxonism. Also, he didn't acknowledge or use, as most don't, the set-apart name of YHWH.

Who is the Holy Spirit?

Yahweh's living presence, that proceeds from the Father (as directly stated in scripture; Jn. 15:26), not a co-equal, co-existent partner in a trinity. But a manifestation of Yahweh's power, nature and person upon humanity. His living nature in us so that we can be more like him in the Son (through whom he sends the Spirit). Nowhere in scripture does it say the Spirit is a distinct, co-equal person apart from the Father. Nowhere is the Spirit worshipped. He is not even on the throne at the end of Revelation. Instead, the Spirit comes from Yahweh.

Why don't Israel continue with the sacrifices as the Torah deems necessary?

Torah didn't deem them necessary. Hebrews reveals to us they were a shadow of glory to come through the new covenant. They were a reminder of sins, not a taking away of sins or the cleansing of a person's heart. Sacrifices began to be used as an excuse to sin over time in Israel. However, according to scriptures such as Zech. 14:21, Ez. 46, Jer. 33:18, and Mal. 3:3, I believe that these things will be reinstituted in a new manner or for a new purpose. What exactly? I don't know.

Why do Judaizers twist the new testament scripture to fall into line with the same error of the gospel that Paul rebuked Peter for doing?

When you have explained to me how I've twisted the scriptures, I will answer this question. Also, teaching Torah does not make a one a "Judaizer" or "legalist". Making works salvation and boasting your works over another's is being those things, something I do not do. And, for the record, what exactly did Paul rebuke Peter for doing (of course, I am ready to give my answer, I just want to hear yours first)?

Many cultists of the modern era have adopted a link to God via the various tribes of Israel for a claim to eternal salvation. These cultic organizations describe an allegience to God through the Messiah; however they, like the Pharisees of Jesus day, did not know God, because they did not know Jesus. The gnostics of yesteryear are as alive today as they were back in the days of the Essenes. The Word of God that Paul was given to write in Colossians rejects the false doctrines that the gnostics held to, so the gnostics in respons must twist the Word of God to fit their interpretation. It is no wonder why people like Herbert Armstrong do not worship the Holy Spirit as God because it is His interpretation of scripture that refutes and corrects the false teachings of those like Herbert.
I am so glad that the born again process is one apart from the covetousness of mankind, and is only given to those whom God draws. The Word of God proclaims that the Holy Spirit is God as declared in 2 Corinthians 6.

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18

I am also glad that John fought the doctrine of gnostics with his understanding of the Word of God being Jesus Christ, and that Word of God being God.
The Alpha and Omega is God almighty, who is he who will return with his rewards to those who have been born of God.

8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 1:8

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. Revelation 22:12-21

Judaizers and gnostics still teach false doctrines today, and they are blinded by the enemy who lies and decieves by appealing to the lusts of the flesh of those he can destroy.

Peter was guilty of the same thing that you are practicing, walking "not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" compelling "Gentiles to live as do the Jews".

Those that are walking rightly according to the truth of the gospel is that "we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law".

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:14-16

 

[yesha]

Col 2:13-17
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
(NIV)

Contrary to popular opinion, this passage actually is for pure Torah obedience not against it. I'll explain why if asked.

I think I have heard it once before from someone, but it's such an obsure reading of this passage I can't figure out how the argument went that these passages support only a pure Torah obedience.

So one should ignore any criticisms from people about thier strick observance of food, religious festivals, new moon celebrations and sabbath days because the written code has been cancelled is a correct understanding. But it is incorrect to believe that one should ignore any criticisms from people about thier non observance even though the written code has been cancelled?

Shouldn't we expect Peter to live like a Jew, with pure Torah observance?

Gal 2:14
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
(NIV)

It's apparently obvious that these people have no clue what the New Covenant is. Also, it was a sign to Israel specifically, that is true. Most use this as the basis for their arguments. However, the New Covenant was made with both houses of Jacob, Judah and Israel (in the context of the ten tribes; Jer 31:31), not "gentiles" so if you are not Israel, you are not part of the New Covenant.

So are gentiles under the New Covenant or not? Are gentiles under the Mosaic Covenent or not? Are gentiles required to observe the Sabbath or not?

Also, the New Covenant writes the laws (which don't change, there is no mention of "new laws" here...) inside of Israel's heart (northern ten tribes as opposed to Judah) because they were divorced for Torah breaking (Jer. 3:8 and basically the entire book of Hosea).

The laws don't change? My reading of Heb 7:12 indicates that they do.

Heb 7:12
12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
(NIV)

Therefore they need Torah on their heart so they can DO IT (Ez. 36:27). Also, Is. 66:23 makes it clear that the sabbath will be observed in the new heavens and earth. And Yahweh said that this was a covenant between him and Israel FOREVER. It was a sign FOREVER, not a sign until the New Covenant came.

Again, are gentiles required to observe Israels mosaic covenant forever?

Also how do you explain the first covenent being called obsolete?

Heb 8:13
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
(NIV)

And how do you explain this verse:

Heb 9:10
10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings-- external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
(NIV)

This is one of the worst points I have ever heard. The Greek reads mia ton sabbaton, or "one of the sabbaths". The words "first" and "day" are not in the Greek.

It seems that many scholars consider "first day of the week" a valid translation.
Why can't "mia" mean first here?

This was not deis solis (day of the sun, hence Sun Day) or protos hemera (which would be "first day"). Completely distorted translation in favor of "Sun Day", the worship day of many pagans in the Roman Empire.

There are scholars (most? almost all?) who are unbelievers and have no agenda in translation who consider the translation "first day of the week" valid. Do you consider yourself more qualified to translatate this? How do you account for their translation? What version of bible do you use?

That's because the gentiles were not Yahweh's people and they are still not his people (only those who join Israel through Messiah are). So, no if you are a gentile you do not observe the sabbath. If consider yourself a gentile and not Israel, you are also not the elect. Therefore the New Covenant, that people so love to boast in, is not for you and therefore you cannot be saved.

Could you comment on these verses for me?

Rom 10:12-13
12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-- the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
(NIV)

Rom 11:11
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.
(NIV)

 

[wavy]

Many cultists of the modern era have adopted a link to God via the various tribes of Israel for a claim to eternal salvation. These cultic organizations describe an allegience to God through the Messiah; however they, like the Pharisees of Jesus day, did not know God, because they did not know Jesus. The gnostics of yesteryear are as alive today as they were back in the days of the Essenes. The Word of God that Paul was given to write in Colossians rejects the false doctrines that the gnostics held to, so the gnostics in respons must twist the Word of God to fit their interpretation. It is no wonder why people like Herbert Armstrong do not worship the Holy Spirit as God because it is His interpretation of scripture that refutes and corrects the false teachings of those like Herbert.

And so when did I ever say because one had links to the twelve tribes (which many do, as promised to the patriarchs) that they were saved automatically? Never. You must be born again. Circumcised in the heart. The flesh isn't a free pass. And when you can show me why we must worship the Spirit or believe in the trintiy in order to be saved or at least in order not to be false then I will concede you as correct and reform my interpretations of scripture because I am not all-knowing. Before you dismiss me as false, prove it from scripture, not the dogmas of Christian teachers and certain churches.

I am so glad that the born again process is one apart from the covetousness of mankind, and is only given to those whom God draws. The Word of God proclaims that the Holy Spirit is God as declared in 2 Corinthians 6.

The Father's omnipresent nature in you if you believe. The Spirit does not come apart from the Father. The bible says there is one Spirit (Eph. 4:4). Now if Yahweh is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24; in context, the Father) and there is only one Spirit, then the Holy Spirit cannot be some distinct Spirit apart from the Father. He proceeds from him, as a living manifestation of his nature. Therefore the Spirit is indeed Yahweh (2Cor. 3:17). So please do not argue against points that I do not make. And I am also not a Gnostic, if that is what you were thinking. The first followers were called "Nazarenes" and Paul was one of them (Acts 24:5).

I am also glad that John fought the doctrine of gnostics with his understanding of the Word of God being Jesus Christ, and that Word of God being God.

Did I ever dispute that Messiah was God?

Judaizers and gnostics still teach false doctrines today, and they are blinded by the enemy who lies and decieves by appealing to the lusts of the flesh of those he can destroy.

Indeed.

Peter was guilty of the same thing that you are practicing, walking "not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" compelling "Gentiles to live as do the Jews".

Those that are walking rightly according to the truth of the gospel is that "we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law".

We must first know what the "truth of the gospel" is. It is the message of the coming kingdom, the deliverance of the exiles of Israel from the nations, being brought back into the sheep fold by the blood atonement of Messiah. Two-house reconciliation between Judah and Ephraim Israel (we can get into this later; there is overwhelming evidence to support two-house truth).

But anyway, Galations is an apologetic that exposes the errors of heretics that preach salvation by first circumcision and Torah obedience. That is totally wrong. True faith in Messiah justifies one immediately upon acceptance (which does eventually merit full Torah obedience and circumcision as you grow, but not before; Gal. 5:3).

And these heretics were not preaching true Torah. They were teaching "works of law", man's legalistic oppression and boasting of the flesh over some one else's so as to enslave them and lord over them. This "works of law" group did not keep Torah (Gal. 3:10-12, Gal 6:13), but put preconditions upon these nations (Ephraimites) and by this rejected them as equal heirs in Israel. This violates Torah principles of equality and this one violation was enough to put them under a curse, not only because they ignored Torah principles of equality, but changed the Word to meaning you must do works, Torah or otherwise, to be saved. This singular violation, according to James 2:10, put them under a curse.

Peter was eating with his brothers (the Ephraimites, considered gentiles) before the "circumcision first" club came. This showed that you were one. However, when the club came from James, he separated himself or became a Prushim/Pharisee (prush in Hebrew means "separated") appearing as a hypocrite, denying his brothers. Paul rebuked this, calling it sinful, gentile behavior (Gal. 2:14-15). Because these redeemed Jews walked in the light (Est. 8:16; Is. 9:2) and were supposed to be the leaders in restoration (Zech. 8:23) and in teaching exiles in the ways of Yahweh, Peter tossed this away like and instead became a sinful gentile walking in darkness, causing separation again.

Paul said:

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all, If you being a Jew, live heathen-like, and not as the Jews, why do you compel the nations to Judaize?

Meaning, how can he try to preach to the nations to come back and be as Jews in the light and of whom salvation is (Jn. 4:22), and yet at the same time walk like a sinning, gentil hypocrite? Paul had to correct him by saying:

Gal 2:15 We, Jews by nature, and not sinners of the nations,

He was supposed to be a Jew in the light, not a sinning, gentile hypocrite, knowing that no one is justified by "works of law", whether Torah or the distorted version of those from James or any other law. Only Messiah justifies, not first being circumcised and have the burden of full Torah obedience pressed upon you by legalistic Jews. You first had to come to understanding and faith before Torah compliance and circumcision, as Abraham was. He first had faith and was justififed. Then he was circumcised. That is the order of the gospel according to the Torah ways of the Fathers. And as we see, Abraham was revealed Torah little by little and obeyed and learned as he went along, long after justification (Gen 26:5).

 

[Solo]

The Holy Spirit is God who dwells within those born of God.

16 And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God, even as God said, "I will" dwell in them and "walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
2 Corinthians 6:16
(NOTE: From the translation by Jay P. Green Sr. "Literal Translation of the HOLY BIBLE" that was used but not referenced in previous Wavy post.)

The Holy Spirit is God, just as Jesus is God, and the Father is God. Looks like three are one to me.

 

[wavy]

2:13-17
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
(NIV)

Col. 2:14 has nothing to do with nailing Torah to the cross. I have part 3 of my next thread coming up to explain exactly what that is. And trust me, you'll see it. As far as verse 17, that verse is ridiculously mistranslated. But, as I said, this will all be explained.

I think I have heard it once before from someone, but it's such an obsure reading of this passage I can't figure out how the argument went that these passages support only a pure Torah obedience.

It isn't "obscure". You'll be able to see it if you let go of anti-Torah biases that you already have. The only way you can make this passage against Torah is if you wanted it to be or haven't been taught a little about Torah.

So one should ignore any criticisms from people about thier strick observance of food, religious festivals, new moon celebrations and sabbath days because the written code has been cancelled is a correct understanding. But it is incorrect to believe that one should ignore any criticisms from people about thier non observance even though the written code has been cancelled?

One should ignore criticism about how to worship regarding these festivals from anyone outside of the body of Messiah (verse 17). These observances ARE, not 'were' (the Greek being in the present tense) shadows of things to come. So at least until those things that are to come come, we observe the shadow (although Is. 66:23 reveals these things will be kept even in the new heavens and earth). But, as I said, the thread I will make will explain all this.

Shouldn't we expect Peter to live like a Jew, with pure Torah observance?

I explained that passage above. It has nothing to do with anything about Peter should be acting like a Gentile and quit telling Gentiles to live like Jews. That doesn't even fit the context because as Paul said, "We are Jews by nature, NOT sinners of the gentiles..."

So are gentiles under the New Covenant or not? Are gentiles under the Mosaic Covenent or not? Are gentiles required to observe the Sabbath or not?

The point was that gentiles join the commonwealth of Israel and become Israel physically and spiritually (Is. 56:3-8; Gal. 3:29; Eph. 2:11-22). The same as in the days of old. There are only twelve gates into the New Yahrushalayhim (Rev. 21:12-14) and twelve fruits for the healing of all nations (Rev. 22:2) meaning all who are here are Israel. There is no gate or foundation for gentiles. There are not healing fruits for pagans.

The laws don't change? My reading of Heb 7:12 indicates that they do.

Heb 7:12
12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
(NIV)

Yes, this is true. However this concerns only the priesthood and sacrificial system. The Greek words are metatithemi and metathesis, meaning to "transfer" or "shift". The Torah didn't change, but the laws concerning atonement were shifted from one place to another. The priesthood to Messiah. The sacrifices to Messiah's blood sacrifice. However, this was the way it was planned from the beginning (Ps. 110:4). So, no, the laws actually do remain the same. Just not in the same place (and again the case can only be made for the priesthood ordinances, not the rest of Torah commandments).

Again, are gentiles required to observe Israels mosaic covenant forever?

Those who consider themselves gentiles do not, no. They remain outside the covenant. But those who realize their heritage or place in Israel do. There is one Torah for the native and the stranger (Ex. 12:49). But a new believer who has not grown up in Torah and has been living like a gentile all their life SHOULD NOT rush to be circumcised or be obligated to keep Torah in order to be justfied or to save them from perishing. That comes after faith and understanding. The Galation "works of law" group reveresed this order.

Also how do you explain the first covenent being called obsolete?

Heb 8:13
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
(NIV)

The word "covenant" does not appear. This is talking about the priesthood. In making a new covenant, he has made the first (priesthood) obsolete. Hebrews 8:7 says that something that was first was faulty and a second of something was sought after instead. But in order to understand what it is, we must read Heb. 10:9 and the surrounding verses. The contents of the first covenant, the terms and conditions and commandments, were not the problem. Heb. 8:8 reveals that he found fault with them, that is, the people. So in order to restore and make amends with his people (Israel) and to reconcile them to eachother (both houses), he had to make a new covenant with him.

And how do you explain this verse:

Heb 9:10
10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings-- external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
(NIV)

The priesthood services. Food/drink offerings along with washings and different tabernacle and temple regulations. All were a shadow of what the High Priest of the new covenant was going to do with his very own body in atonement. The "new order" or a "setting of things straight" (Strongs #1357, diorthosis) was the priesthood, not a dismiss from Torah.

It seems that many scholars consider "first day of the week" a valid translation.
Why can't "mia" mean first here?

It can. Could be "first of the sabbaths", such as the LITV translates it. But man is corrupt (biased Christian translators, I mean). They favor "first day of the week" based off of tradition. But anyway "first of the sabbaths" would then be talking about the first sabbath of the omer count.

There are scholars (most? almost all?) who are unbelievers and have no agenda in translation who consider the translation "first day of the week" valid.

Based on original interpretation and tradition of this passage. It literally reads (since the word "day", hemera, does not appear here) "one of the week" or "one of the sabbaths". The word for week is sabbaton, the period between two sabbaths. So no, honestly, I do not believe "first day of the week" is a valid translation.

Do you consider yourself more qualified to translatate this? How do you account for their translation? What version of bible do you use?

Me? No. I realized this after a scholar pointed it out to me. And now I can clearly see it for myself. What's mainstream does not always constitute accuracy or truth. As far as what version I use? Many.

Could you comment on these verses for me?

Rom 10:12-13
12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-- the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
(NIV)

Rom 11:11
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.
(NIV)

Certainly. No difference between Jew and Gentile because all are Israel. Most people ignore this verse when they say crap like, "gentiles don't have to keep the law" (based on horrible interpretation of Acts 15 and Acts 21). Then, all of a sudden, this scripture becomes untrue or ignored.

As far as Rom. 11:11, the word "Israel" does not appear in the text. The context of this passage is Jewish Israel's blindness (there is a difference between being an Israelite and a Jew; a Jew is an Israelite but being an Israelite does not make you a Jew; what makes you a Jew is being a descendant of the tribe of Judah or Benjamin). The olive tree is not a "Jewish" olive tree with gentiles taking the Jews' place and becoming the "new Israel". Paul rebukes this dispensationalist, abominable falsehood in verses 18 and 19. The olive tree is an Israelite olive tree, from the patriarchs to all their seed, with the Root being Messiah. According to Jer. 11:16-17, the olive tree is not a "Jewish" olive tree but an Israelite olive tree with branches from both houses being cut off when they are in unbelief to make room for others (not both houses as a whole being cut off, but only unbelieving branches). The nations, in whom the seed of Israel is scattered and filling (Rom. 11:25; Gen 48:19) by believing is coming back into the olive tree from being a wild olive tree. Notice how the wild olive tree is still an olive tree and not any different type of tree to represent gentiles. But these nations in Romans, who are actually Ephraim Israel, a.k.a the ten northern tribes (this can be proven easily) are being graffed back into their own olive tree, reclaiming their place as Israel. And anyone one else who is a believer, regardless of heritage takes a place in Israel.

That is how I see the true interpretation of the olive tree parable. Not a "Jewish" olive tree, with Judah being cut off so gentiles can become the "new Israel" and then Judah comes back in as an afterthought.

 

[wavy]

The Holy Spirit is God who dwells within those born of God.

I agree.

The Holy Spirit is God, just as Jesus is God, and the Father is God. Looks like three are one to me.

All things come from the Father (1Cor. 8:6). Three, distinct, "co-equal", co-existent", "co-eternal persons" in a "Godhead" (which means nothing but "divine nature") is what I don't see in the bible. We see perhaps a tri-fold ministry of the one Yahweh in different forms of the power of his person, but not the trinity I described above. All glory goes back to the greatest of all, which is the Father, not focus on a three-headed God. The Spirit is a living manifestation of his power, not a "distinct person" that requires worship. Nowhere is this to be found in scripture. And nowhere is trinity required or necessary to attain salvation, even if, I'll say for the moment, it was true.

 

[Solo]

The Holy Spirit is God who dwells within those born of God.

I agree.

The Holy Spirit is God, just as Jesus is God, and the Father is God. Looks like three are one to me.

All things come from the Father (1Cor. 8:6). Three, distinct, "co-equal", co-existent", "co-eternal persons" in a "Godhead" (which means nothing but "divine nature") is what I don't see in the bible. We see perhaps a tri-fold ministry of the one Yahweh in different forms of the power of his person, but not the trinity I described above. All glory goes back to the greatest of all, which is the Father, not focus on a three-headed God. The Spirit is a living manifestation of his power, not a "distinct person" that requires worship. Nowhere is this to be found in scripture. And nowhere is trinity required or necessary to attain salvation, even if, I'll say for the moment, it was true.

Who created heaven and earth? Does the scripture not say that the Word is God, and that he created the heaven and the earth. Does Isaiah say that a child would be born and we would call him, God with us, and he would be called The Mighty God, and The Everlasting Father.

6 For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah records God almighty as saying that there is one God and savior and "there is no God else beside me".

21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. 25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. Isaiah 45:21-25

Besides God there is no Savior.

8 Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. 9 Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth. 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. 12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. 13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it? Isaiah 43:8-13

Jesus is God and Saviour.

Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: Acts 13:23

 

[wavy]

Who created heaven and earth? Does the scripture not say that the Word is God, and that he created the heaven and the earth. Does Isaiah say that a child would be born and we would call him, God with us, and he would be called The Mighty God, and The Everlasting Father.

Yes, it does. Yahweh the Father created heaven and earth through Yahshua (Heb. 1:2). Also, read Prov. 30:4

Isaiah records God almighty as saying that there is one God and savior and "there is no God else beside me". Besides God there is no Savior.

Besides Yahweh, there is no Savior, correct ("God" is too generic a term and can refer to any god. We do have a God, but he has a name, and that name is Yahweh, but anyway...)

And Father and Son form Yahweh Elohim-echad, or one Elohim:

Isa 44:6 So says Yahweh, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, Yahweh of Hosts: I am the First, and I am the Last; and there is no God except Me.

The Hebrew reads for "Yahweh King of Israel and His Redeemer, Yahweh of Hosts", "YHWH Melech-Yisrael Ve goaloh YHWH Tzevaot".

The King of Israel is called Yahweh and the tool by which he redeems Israel is also called Yahweh. They say, "I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no Elohim".

Father and Son; Yahweh Elohim-echad. Also, when ever you see Yahweh say "I even I" in scripture, it is a dual reference to Father and Son. "I even I" is "Ani, Ani" in the Hebrew meaning "I and I" or "I and also I". So I do not doubt that Yahshua is both Yahweh, the highest Name in heaven and on earth, and our Elohim.

 

[Solo]

Who created heaven and earth? Does the scripture not say that the Word is God, and that he created the heaven and the earth. Does Isaiah say that a child would be born and we would call him, God with us, and he would be called The Mighty God, and The Everlasting Father.

Yes, it does. Yahweh the Father created heaven and earth through Yahshua (Heb. 1:2). Also, read Prov. 30:4

Isaiah records God almighty as saying that there is one God and savior and "there is no God else beside me". Besides God there is no Savior.

Besides Yahweh, there is no Savior, correct ("God" is too generic a term and can refer to any god. We do have a God, but he has a name, and that name is Yahweh, but anyway...)

And Father and Son form Yahweh Elohim-echad, or one Elohim:

Isa 44:6 So says Yahweh, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, Yahweh of Hosts: I am the First, and I am the Last; and there is no God except Me.

The Hebrew reads for "Yahweh King of Israel and His Redeemer, Yahweh of Hosts", "YHWH Melech-Yisrael Ve goaloh YHWH Tzevaot".

The King of Israel is called Yahweh and the tool by which he redeems Israel is also called Yahweh. They say, "I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no Elohim".

Father and Son; Yahweh Elohim-echad. Also, when ever you see Yahweh say "I even I" in scripture, it is a dual reference to Father and Son. "I even I" is "Ani, Ani" in the Hebrew meaning "I and I" or "I and also I". So I do not doubt that Yahshua is both Yahweh, the highest Name in heaven and on earth, and our Elohim.

Good, then we agree that Jesus is God, and that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is God, and since the scripture that I quoted earlier from your perferred translation, the Holy Spirit dwelling in believers is God. So you do believe in the three in one Godhead.

Now we can discuss how Jesus Christ, God himself fulfilled the Law by becoming the propitiation for our sins. The flesh and spirit of mankind is dead because of sin. The flesh of mankind is corrupt and mortal, while the spirit and soul of man is dead as well. Until God draws us by the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of the salvation that has been tendered to us by Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. Once this Word has been revealed and believed, believer is born of God to become a new creature. He is then ushered into what is metaphorically called the bride of the Lamb which is New Jerusalem, the elect of God; both those that keep the commandments, and those that have the testimony of Jesus Christ. The gospel is delivered to the Jew first, after which it is delivered to the Gentile. The state of salvation now abides with the Gentile and Jew where there is no difference between the two, until the time of the Gentile is finished. The 144,000 virgin males that are gathered from the twelve tribes of Israel will be redeemed with the multitude of those who hold the testimony of Jesus. What a glorious time that will be.

 

[wavy]

Now we can discuss how Jesus Christ, God himself fulfilled the Law by becoming the propitiation for our sins.

For more information on what exactly his fulfilling was, go here:
http://christianforums.net/viewtopic.ph ... d28752d9ab

The state of salvation now abides with the Gentile and Jew where there is no difference between the two, until the time of the Gentile is finished.

What do you mean by that last phrase? And are you referring to Lk. 21:24, or Rom. 11:25?

The 144,000 virgin males that are gathered from the twelve tribes of Israel will be redeemed with the multitude of those who hold the testimony of Jesus. What a glorious time that will be.

The 144,000 are called "virgins" metaphorically because they have not been defiled be sleeping with women, that is, tainted by false religious systems. I think the multitude are the martyrs who are killed during the Great Tribulation.

 

[Jay T]

Quote: In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

I agree !

But, let's not say that the 7th day sabbath is of the Mosaic covenant, either....because it is not !

Until one understands the difference between the Law of Moses, and the Law of God....one will have much TROUBLE....with God !

 

[Solo]

What sin that we commit as believers has not been paid for by Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection? What takes place at the rebirth of believers when they are born of God? Does the Bible say that the more sin that there is, the more grace is given?

Should believers continue in sin? NO. God forbid.

But if and when a believer sins, is he/she bound for hell? NO. Jesus paid the price of sin for all of those that are born of God.

Should believers live their lives walking in the Spirit or the Flesh? The Spirit.
Why? So that they do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

If believers sin, do they have one standing up for them before the Father? YES. Jesus Christ is a believers advocate and mediator.

 

[wavy]

But, let's not say that the 7th day sabbath is of the Mosaic covenant, either....because it is not !

Until one understands the difference between the Law of Moses, and the Law of God....one will have much TROUBLE....with God !

May I ask what are you talking about?

 

[JM]

Jay T and other Sabbath keepers...what do you think of Reformed theonomy?

Didn't Ellen White speak of this 100 years ago.