What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Colossians 2:14-17: Let's get the facts, shall we?

Col. 2:14-17

Sputnik Boy: I think it's a shame that Christians would let the day of the week that believers worship together, be such a problem.

Paul in Rom. 13:5-7 said it so clearly: "One doth judge one day above another, and another doth judge every day [alike]; let each in his own mind be fully assured. He who is regarding the day, to the Lord he doth regard [it], and he who is not regarding the day, to the Lord he is not regarding [it]. He who is eating, to the Lord he doth eat, for he doth give thanks to God; and he who is not eating, to the Lord he doth not eat, and doth give thanks to God. For none of us to himself doth live, and none to himself doth die."

Paul is appealing for unity, for we are the Lord's.

Personally, I believe everyday should be set aside to the Lord.
 
Regarding worshipping together on the Sabbath.

Sputnik Boy: I'm curious about your worshipping on the Sabbath. First of all I looked up the meaning and found in the Hebrew it means
"cessation" ( Young's Concordance). And, of course, the Israelites were to cease from all work. Food was prepared tha day before, they could walk only a short distance, etc. It was so serious that if a person were convicted of breaking the Sabbath (by witnesses) he would be stoned to death.

So, today, how many of these strict laws is a SDA required to keep? And, if he doesn't, what are the consequences?

I'm only asking this because I really would like to know.

God bless, Bick
 
Re: Regarding worshipping together on the Sabbath.

Bick said:
Sputnik Boy: I'm curious about your worshipping on the Sabbath. First of all I looked up the meaning and found in the Hebrew it means
"cessation" ( Young's Concordance). And, of course, the Israelites were to cease from all work. Food was prepared tha day before, they could walk only a short distance, etc. It was so serious that if a person were convicted of breaking the Sabbath (by witnesses) he would be stoned to death.

So, today, how many of these strict laws is a SDA required to keep? And, if he doesn't, what are the consequences?

I'm only asking this because I really would like to know.

God bless, Bick
Click to expand...

Sputnik: Thanks for your post/s, Bick. Your above question is so often asked, though not usually for the sincere reason that you ask. The question is more often asked by those who want to pin us down as to how well we keep to the 'legalism' of Sabbath worship. In the minds of some, the Sabbath needs to be kept as rigidly as you mention above or not at all.

Actually, we don’t hear of any such severe consequences for those who profane the Sabbath in the New Testament, although we do find that the Pharisees were somewhat put out when Jesus appeared to be doing so. They also believed (or chose to believe anyway) that Jesus was being blasphemous …a very serious charge. All of which culminated in His being put to death.

Nowadays, there are no hard and fast ‘rules’ as to how one ‘should’ keep the Sabbath …it’s an individual thing. Fortunately, we are not living in the days of several thousand years ago and obviously our practices today are very different. Again, we ARE individuals and each person would have his/her own idea as to how the Sabbath might be kept. It isn’t a matter of ‘requirements’ since there ARE no ‘legalities’ connected to it.

Adventists have the freedom to observe the day as they choose, just as it should be. The actual Sabbath, however, begins at sunset Friday and ends sunset Saturday. The individual may spend much of that 24-hour period with family, friends, or alone. It may be expected or assumed that one’s particular time would be spent participating in ‘Jesus-related’ activities, whatever that might mean to the individual. Friday evening programs are generally available for those who wish to attend. These programs might involve Christian videos/DVDs, Bible-study, Prayer Groups, general 'get-togethers', etc.

One would normally attend church service (much the same as ‘Sunday worshippers’ do) on Saturday morning. These church services would be, generally speaking, similar to those of a ‘Sunday-keeping’ church in as much as the preaching is ‘Jesus and Him only’. Contrary to popular opinion within non-SDA circles, Ellen G. White is NOT preached to the congregation. That this might be the case would not only be totally inappropriate but the suggestion itself is also very SILLY! The service, generally speaking, would be pretty well ‘mainstream Christian’.

The worship style may vary from church-to-church. I’m the music coordinator for my particular church – The Adventist Christian Community Church here in Townsville (may as well give it a plug) – and the music style I organize is generally contemporary Christian/gospel/traditional …a mix of various styles. My particular church is less conservative in worship style than the other two SDA churches in this Australian (Queensland) city.
To each their own.

We haven't done this just lately, but in the past we've taken our music program to local nursing homes and hostels on Saturday afternoons. We also have a monthly Saturday afternoon Kids Club where children from the local community are invited to attend. We provide music, games, and other 'Jesus-related' activities for them. So, generally, the Sabbath isn't a time to idle one's time away. Then again, one can be idle if they wish to. It's totally up to the individual. The Sabbath, however, is intended to be 'a delight (Isaiah 58:13-14)', not a day for keeping rigid rules and outdated regulations.

Adventists are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't. They are expected to go along with mainstream Christianity and make traditional Sunday their Sabbath. Or, as long as they choose not to do so and they instead choose to honor the seventh-day as their Sabbath (as in the 4th-commandment), they are expected to keep it according to the strict rules of the OT. This entire argument is all really a lot of nonsense when it comes down to the nitty gritty. SDAs are just 'folks' whose intention is to (hopefully) make Jesus the object of their lives.
 
Nicely put SB. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Sabbath is a delight. It is time to spend quality time with God and other believers, however you choose to do this is up to the individual.

John says in his first Epistle, that if we love God, we will keep His Commandments and they are not hard to keep. This would also be the case for the fourth. The reason all those strict rules were put on the Sabbath by God to begin with was to make it a habit.

The Pharisees put a thousand rules on it because they had seen what happened in the past and didn't want it to happen in the future so they made it even stricter than God had.

Jesus came down and showed everyone how the Sabbath was meant to be kept. He gave it its full meaning as He did with all the Law. He did this very well and we try to follow that example, not that of the Pharisees (which would be legalistic).

Anyway, this was my two cents.

Rad.
 
Nicely put SB. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Sabbath is a delight. It is time to spend quality time with God and other believers, however you choose to do this is up to the individual.

John says in his first Epistle, that if we love God, we will keep His Commandments and they are not hard to keep. This would also be the case for the fourth. The reason all those strict rules were put on the Sabbath by God to begin with was to make it a habit.

The Pharisees put a thousand rules on it because they had seen what happened in the past and didn't want it to happen in the future so they made it even stricter than God had.

Jesus came down and showed everyone how the Sabbath was meant to be kept. He gave it its full meaning as He did with all the Law. He did this very well and we try to follow that example, not that of the Pharisees (which would be legalistic).

Anyway, this was my two cents.

Rad.
 
Nicely put SB. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Sabbath is a delight. It is time to spend quality time with God and other believers, however you choose to do this is up to the individual.

John says in his first Epistle, that if we love God, we will keep His Commandments and they are not hard to keep. This would also be the case for the fourth. The reason all those strict rules were put on the Sabbath by God to begin with was to make it a habit.

The Pharisees put a thousand rules on it because they had seen what happened in the past and didn't want it to happen in the future so they made it even stricter than God had.

Jesus came down and showed everyone how the Sabbath was meant to be kept. He gave it its full meaning as He did with all the Law. He did this very well and we try to follow that example, not that of the Pharisees (which would be legalistic).

Anyway, this was my two cents.

Rad.
 
Thanks Rad. Thanks Rad. Thanks Rad. :smt024

Submitting one's post a couple or more times is easy to do. Often, it seems to take longer than it should to 'submit' the post to the thread ...seems as if it isn't working. Therefore, we sometimes have a tendency to hit the submit button one or two times more ...hence the repeats.
 
Though I appreciate all your 'sabbath comments' and agree with them, I want to keep this thread focused specifically on interpretation of Colossians 2:14-17 and not have another general 'sabbath thread'.

what about you Sabbath keepers? What do you think of my original post. The reason I ask is that most sabbatarians interpret what was 'nailed' to the cross as the Mosaic law of ordinances and not the Moral law of the 10 commandments.

This interpretation is equally as false as those who use it to show the Sabbath was nailed to the cross.
 
guibox said:
Though I appreciate all your 'sabbath comments' and agree with them, I want to keep this thread focused specifically on interpretation of Colossians 2:14-17 and not have another general 'sabbath thread'.

what about you Sabbath keepers? What do you think of my original post. The reason I ask is that most sabbatarians interpret what was 'nailed' to the cross as the Mosaic law of ordinances and not the Moral law of the 10 commandments.

This interpretation is equally as false as those who use it to show the Sabbath was nailed to the cross.
Click to expand...

Sputnik: You're correct about some of us getting a tad 'off topic', guibox. I was, however, initially responding to Bick's question: "So, today, how many of those strict laws is a SDA required to keep? And, if he doesn't, what are the consequences?"

Your initial thread indicated your diligence to homework in regard to this topic, guibox. I would think that the majority of those on 'both sides' of this issue would not have previously considered Colossians 2:14-17 as you presented it. As you imply, we're usually too caught up in making the pieces of that text fit our specific beliefs in regard to the Sabbath or Sunday-keeping. We seem to ignore or be totally oblivious to everything else about that scripture.

Your particular take on Colossians 2:14-17 certainly makes sense to me. And, while I haven't recently gone through all of the previous responses to your initial post on this thread, I can't recall anyone having seriously refuted your definition of this particular scripture. It's almost amusing the way we scurry through our Bibles to search for a text that appears to support a cherished doctrine ...or, alternatively, the way we search for a text that appears to refute a cherished doctrine of someone else. And, while we so enthusiastically search the Bible to prove the other guy wrong, we also tend to lose sight as to what the particular scripture in its entirety is all about.

I think, in the case of Colossians 2:14-17, if it wasn't for the Sabbath command being the issue, this scripture would not be so hotly debated. In fact, I doubt that it would be debated at all. I mean, NO ONE (!) has an issue with one's not killing, not stealing, not committing adultery, not dishonoring their parents, not being disobedient to God, etc. In fact, ALL of the commands are not problematic at all to present-day Christians and no one would be criticised for keeping them ...'cept for the Sabbath command, of course. And, it's for this very reason that I believe Paul would NOT have seen obedience to God as requiring any kind of a 'reprimand'. Hence my additional support of your already scripturally convincing 'take' on Colossians 2:14-17.

So, without going on and on, I certainly agree with your original post in regard to WHO Paul was addressing and the ISSUES to which he was referring. And, yes ...Adventists should do more study of Colossians 2:14-17. This would be a good topic for our next Bible Study Group. I would suggest that other Christian denominations do the same. Any more responses on this issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top