Sabbath Day business

[JLB]

He's explaining how we are delivered from the authority of the law of Moses to arouse sin in us, and to condemn us when it succeeds at doing that.

My bible simply says... Delivered from the law.

Not delivered from the law's ability to arouse sin, or delivered from the authority of the law to condemn.

The scripture plainly says..,But now we have been delivered from the law,


JLB

 

[JLB]

Maybe some sects do, but the vast majority of MJ's that I've chatted with over the years do not believe or teach that.

Jacor doesn't believe Jesus is YHWH, the Lord God.

JLB

 

[JLB]

Wow! You guys sure were busy while I was away celebrating Yahweh's blessed Holy Sabbath Day. Upon reading the direction this thread is taking and the absurd arguments being posted, I choose to bow out. Thanks for sticking up for me Jethro in trying to help JLB understand my view of the law. I've been involved in several other law related threads with him, but his steadfastness in his position is, well ... Perhaps I'll rejoin the thread if others join in with new insights.

Maybe you could clarify for us from a Messianic perspective...

Do you believe Jesus is YHWH the Lord of the Old Testament?

What do Messianic's teach Jesus is?

YHWH, the Lord?

A man?

An angel?


JLB

 

[jocor]

It is a mistake to read the Sabbath into this verse. Nowhere is the Sabbath mentioned. Nor can we read any of Yahweh's annual sabbaths or feast days into this verse. There were many other "days" that the Jews highly esteemed besides the Sabbath and feasts. For example, most Jews at that time fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12 and Talmudic writings).

Thanks for pointing out the fact the Greek word for alike is not defined in this verse.Yet what other alternative would one suggest, KJV, NIV and NASB all use the word alike.Now the question posed is should a Christian work or make bucks on a Sabbath , God's Holy Day of rest .Robert Haldane agrees with you "It is proper, however, to remark that the Lord's Day ...be included in what is here said, as the Apostle is speaking of those meats and days that were peculiar to the Jewish dispensation..."(An Exposition of Romans 597)

However within the context of this verse others say "In the New Testament the early church continued to hold a special day of worship...The early Christians continued to worship at the Temple or in the synagogue on the sabbath until persecution drove them away.It seems logical that they would move their special day to the day on which they celebrated their Lord's resurrection.the first day (Ac.2 :46-47)...Diverse attitudes about holy days remained (Ro. 14:5-6), but Paul clearly forbid Christians to judge one another on the basis of the day or manner of their worship (Col 2:16-17)."(NIV Disciple's Study Bible 94) Therefore, it remains a matter of conscience for the Christian to choose whether he is respecting the Lord's Rest Day as understood under the New Covenant."I will put my law in their minds..." Jer.31:33

The first paragraph is quoting my words. Therefore, I will reply. The alternative translation of Romans 14:5 would be;

One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
​

The Jews knew full well that the Sabbath Day was far more important than any of the other six working days because they knew Yahweh Himself made it to be different and more important than the others. He did that by sanctifying the 7th day, putting His blessing only upon that day, and commanding men to keep it holy. Fast days, Purim, Chanukah, etc., do not come close to the importance of the 7th day Sabbath.

By reading the Sabbath into this verse, it leads us to believe that some believers in Paul's day considered the Sabbath no different from any other day. That, then, leads to the mistaken belief that there were some believers that didn't "regard" the Sabbath Day at all (verse 6). By not reading the Sabbath into this verse, it leads us to believe the more likely scenario that no one in that day would consider the Sabbath to be like a common workday. Especially after Yeshua taught us things like it being lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or pull an ox out of a ditch, or that the son of man is lord of the Sabbath; Or Paul's teaching that the law, including the Sabbath, has been firmly established; or Isaiah's prophecy that all flesh will worship Yahweh from one Sabbath to another in the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 66:22-23).

The early Christians continued to worship at the Temple or in the synagogue on the sabbath until persecution drove them away.It seems logical that they would move their special day to the day on which they celebrated their Lord's resurrection.the first day (Ac.2 :46-47).

You are correct that early Christians were worshiping on the Sabbath until they started being persecuted and that "THEY" moved the special day to the first day (although your reference to Acts 2:46-47 says no such thing). Neither the Father, nor the Son, nor any Apostle gave a command to move the day. It was the choice of people trying to save their lives. Eventually, the practice became a deeply ingrained tradition, so much so that now it is those who desire to restore the true Sabbath Day that are being persecuted by supposed believers. We are treated like lepers and called all sorts of names like "legalist", "old wine skins", "Pharisees", "fallen from grace". We are kicked out of churches and treated like pond scum. Why? Because we would rather obey Yahweh than man.

Diverse attitudes about holy days remained (Ro. 14:5-6), but Paul clearly forbid Christians to judge one another on the basis of the day or manner of their worship (Col 2:16-17).

Paul did no such thing. He was admonishing believers to not allow anyone outside of the Body of Messiah to judge us. When he wrote, "Let no man judge you," he was referring to the deceivers of verses 4, 8, and 18 that were judging the Colossians regarding the things mentioned in verse 16. They had been imposing their man-made commandments and traditions upon the Colossians. Paul told them not to allow anyone to judge them concerning those matters. An important addition was made in the KJV that does not appear in any Greek manuscript. The word "is" in verse 17 was added, which changes the meaning of Paul's statement. That is why it is written in italics. Retaining the word "is" implies the thought of shadow vs. reality. In other words, Messiah fulfilled the shadow of the things mentioned in verse 16. However, if you remove the added word "is", it implies that we should not let any man outside the body of Messiah judge us in respect to these things.

Let no man therefore judge you ... but the body of Messiah.​

Indeed that is in line with the context of Paul's previous statements. Notice Col.1:18 & 24 and Col.2:19, all of which teach us that the body of Messiah is the church or all true believers.

Verse 17 states that these things "are" a shadow of things "to come" not that they "were" a shadow that was now fulfilled. Paul wrote this epistle approximately 30 years after Messiah's death and resurrection and yet he still spoke of them as unfulfilled shadows of something in the future.

Therefore, it remains a matter of conscience for the Christian to choose whether he is respecting the Lord's Rest Day as understood under the New Covenant."I will put my law in their minds..." Jer.31:33

According to Jeremiah 31:33, it was the "Torah" (not some new law that includes a Sunday sabbath) that would be written on the hearts of New Covenant believers. All Israel understood what "Torah" was. They knew the already existing Torah of Yahweh would be written on their hearts.

 

[jocor]

Maybe you could clarify for us from a Messianic perspective...

Do you believe Jesus is YHWH the Lord of the Old Testament?

What do Messianic's teach Jesus is?

YHWH, the Lord?

A man?

An angel?


JLB

Of course I do not believe "Jesus is YHWH". That has no bearing on a law discussion. And you know full well that this forum forbids me from discussing my belief that the Son is not Father YHWH. Yet you persist in trying to drag me into such a discussion. Why? Is it so I can get thrown off the forum?

It also does not matter what Messianic Jews believe. I am not a Messianic Jew. Also, they, like Christians, are not immune to false doctrine.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jacor doesn't believe Jesus is YHWH, the Lord God.

JLB

How does this make his choice to keep the literal Mosaic worship cycle for purposes other than justification incorrect?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

My bible simply says... Delivered from the law.

Not delivered from the law's ability to arouse sin, or delivered from the authority of the law to condemn.

The scripture plainly says..,But now we have been delivered from the law,


JLB

Well of course that's all it says when you isolate the words all by themselves.

The Bible also says, "for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. " (Romans 2:13 NASB). Does that mean isolating these words all by themselves means that Paul was saying a man is justified by keeping the law? Of course not. Even you are going to argue that one must examine the context to know the actual argument he is making.

 

[Tony Hyman]

The first paragraph is quoting my words. Therefore, I will reply. The alternative translation of Romans 14:5 would be;

One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
​

The Jews knew full well that the Sabbath Day was far more important than any of the other six working days because they knew Yahweh Himself made it to be different and more important than the others. He did that by sanctifying the 7th day, putting His blessing only upon that day, and commanding men to keep it holy. Fast days, Purim, Chanukah, etc., do not come close to the importance of the 7th day Sabbath.

By reading the Sabbath into this verse, it leads us to believe that some believers in Paul's day considered the Sabbath no different from any other day. That, then, leads to the mistaken belief that there were some believers that didn't "regard" the Sabbath Day at all (verse 6). By not reading the Sabbath into this verse, it leads us to believe the more likely scenario that no one in that day would consider the Sabbath to be like a common workday. Especially after Yeshua taught us things like it being lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or pull an ox out of a ditch, or that the son of man is lord of the Sabbath; Or Paul's teaching that the law, including the Sabbath, has been firmly established; or Isaiah's prophecy that all flesh will worship Yahweh from one Sabbath to another in the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 66:22-23).


You are correct that early Christians were worshiping on the Sabbath until they started being persecuted and that "THEY" moved the special day to the first day (although your reference to Acts 2:46-47 says no such thing). Neither the Father, nor the Son, nor any Apostle gave a command to move the day. It was the choice of people trying to save their lives. Eventually, the practice became a deeply ingrained tradition, so much so that now it is those who desire to restore the true Sabbath Day that are being persecuted by supposed believers. We are treated like lepers and called all sorts of names like "legalist", "old wine skins", "Pharisees", "fallen from grace". We are kicked out of churches and treated like pond scum. Why? Because we would rather obey Yahweh than man.


Paul did no such thing. He was admonishing believers to not allow anyone outside of the Body of Messiah to judge us. When he wrote, "Let no man judge you," he was referring to the deceivers of verses 4, 8, and 18 that were judging the Colossians regarding the things mentioned in verse 16. They had been imposing their man-made commandments and traditions upon the Colossians. Paul told them not to allow anyone to judge them concerning those matters. An important addition was made in the KJV that does not appear in any Greek manuscript. The word "is" in verse 17 was added, which changes the meaning of Paul's statement. That is why it is written in italics. Retaining the word "is" implies the thought of shadow vs. reality. In other words, Messiah fulfilled the shadow of the things mentioned in verse 16. However, if you remove the added word "is", it implies that we should not let any man outside the body of Messiah judge us in respect to these things.

Let no man therefore judge you ... but the body of Messiah.​

Indeed that is in line with the context of Paul's previous statements. Notice Col.1:18 & 24 and Col.2:19, all of which teach us that the body of Messiah is the church or all true believers.

Verse 17 states that these things "are" a shadow of things "to come" not that they "were" a shadow that was now fulfilled. Paul wrote this epistle approximately 30 years after Messiah's death and resurrection and yet he still spoke of them as unfulfilled shadows of something in the future.



According to Jeremiah 31:33, it was the "Torah" (not some new law that includes a Sunday sabbath) that would be written on the hearts of New Covenant believers. All Israel understood what "Torah" was. They knew the already existing Torah of Yahweh would be written on their hearts.

Well quite obviously we can't agree and never will I suppose.So I will "wipe the dust off your(my) feet" and move on" as Chris suggests Mt. 10:14

 

[Jethro Bodine]

30 years, that's pretty impressive there Jethro.

I didn't share that to impress. I shared it to show I've diligently read the scriptures over and over and can see how a lot of church doctrine simply does not match what the scriptures teach. If more people read the scriptures, and did that with honest open hearts they'd wonder where the Protestant church got many of the golden calf doctrines they dance around.

Why if you can hold on for at least 10 more, you just might see the PROMISED land after all!

I've already seen it and tasted it's goodness. The struggle is staying there and possessing more of it.

I know. It's veiled. But none the less, it is very telling of your doctrine.

You do know what I mean by veiled, right?
It's right there in black and white, yet because of the condition of the church she can't see it. Someone else has repeatedly told her something else is written there to the point that when they do look for themselves they can only see what they've been told it says.

 

[jocor]

Well quite obviously we can't agree and never will I suppose.So I will "wipe the dust off your(my) feet" and move on" as Chris suggests Mt. 10:14

Thanks for verifying my words Tony. You treat me even worse than the Christians I mentioned. You apply a verse to me that refers to unbelievers who don't accept the Gospel and will be judged worse than Sodom and Gomorrha. Why? I believe the answer is fear. Christians are so indoctrinated into believing that if you obey the Sabbath command, you are fallen from grace and in bondage to the law. How sad. Obeying our Creator's law maintains the freedom from sin that our Savior died for. If you believe it is OK to continue in the same sins your Savior died to deliver you from, then so be it. I, however, will not "wipe the dust off my feet and move on." I am here for you whenever the Almighty chooses to open your eyes.

 

[ezrider]

Ya know, there is just something about X-ians who call themselves Christian. That they take the words of the scripture and set it high on a pedestal and make innumerable boasts about how it is God's personal letter to them. For to them all the words that they need to live be can be found in their precious book. When they touch its leather bindings, you can almost see them reaching for the golden calf.

But for all of their boast about the scriptures, there is a funny thing that happens with those X-ians, you see, for suddenly when they find themselves confronted with a word from the scripture, there love letter from God to them, why suddenly those words become meant for the unbelievers and not for them. For in this they would justify themselves by rejecting the word as it was given unto them.






Oh yes, all his words are meant for me, it is the love letter of my Lord directed unto me.




No, No, Why, not those words! Why those words were meant only for those who don't believe| They don't apply to me, God only put them words there so to I might go and warn others of their unbelief. Because in his letter directed personally to me, those words weren't meant for me, but God in his omniscience gave those words to me so that I might accuse others of their unbelief.

 

[ezrider]

I didn't share that to impress. I shared it to show I've diligently read the scriptures over and over and can see how a lot of church doctrine simply does not match what the scriptures teach. If more people read the scriptures, and did that with honest open hearts they'd wonder where the Protestant church got many of the golden calf doctrines they dance around.


I've already seen it and tasted it's goodness. The struggle is staying there and possessing more of it.


You do know what I mean by veiled, right?
It's right there in black and white, yet because of the condition of the church she can't see it. Someone else has repeatedly told her something else is written there to the point that when they do look for themselves they can only see what they've been told it says.

Yes Jethro. I do know now what is meant by veiled. The question to you is did you even try to lift the veil from the answer I gave? For it truly was a hidden answer, yet given in plain sight if you would but...........(well, I can't quite say it here do the rules and all) before the Lord, then you might begin to understand, but my guess is you have not one clue as to the veiled answer that I have said unto you. So I will ask a couple more. These are real questions, truly they are. Why they are even question that your Bible calls me to ask of you.


Why do you still wander around in the wilderness? Why have you not come into the promised land?

The doctrine that you teach, it is the dog's vomit. it truly is, and yes, if you look up the word vomit you will find it in your scripture?

Why do you always return unto Egypt in your heart? Yes, that too is in the scriptures.You might do well if you sought to understand it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Why do you still wander around in the wilderness? Why have you not come into the promised land?

The doctrine that you teach, it is the dog's vomit. it truly is, and yes, if you look up the word vomit you will find it in your scripture?

Why do you always return unto Egypt in your heart? Yes, that too is in the scriptures.You might do well if you sought to understand it.

If only you knew how misguided and uninformed you are about what I believe. That is the funny, but also frustrating thing about what has happened to the Protestant church. You'll only get it if you listen. But when you repeatedly blow off scripture in favor of what you've heard from God I know it's probably going to be a futile attempt to explain anything to you. It can only start in baby steps. If you fail at those, as most do, you won't ever understand the error of your 'the law is evil' doctrines.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You see, ezrider, indoctrinations work both ways. They not only lock a person into a set doctrine, they also lock the person into only being able to hear their opponents argument according to what they have been told it is. I struggle with the latter problem more than the former with people who defend erroneous, non-Biblical doctrines. They simply will not listen carefully enough to even understand what their opponent is actually saying.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Oh, wait. I missed something there. You added a qualifier to your statement. Yup, you did. It is right there in print before my very eyes.
for you said. "It is not required to FIRST keep the Law of Moses".

Those are some mighty big words I hear you saying there. Care to splain your yourself. For what I hear you saying as it rings crystal clear in my ears. Because if By FIRST, then you certain must know that you then imply the AFTERWARDS then it is required of you to keep the Law of Moses, only you will not be justified by it.

Trust me, you are adding the implication that I want to make some point about having to obey the law of Moses after being born again. I was directly challenging JLB's argument about Romans 10:10 NASB, nothing more. But that does not mean I don't believe that faith upholds the righteousness of the law of Moses. But to think I'm trying to secretly push that argument in my quote above is to be terribly mistaken.

If you keep deciding for me that I'm thinking this way, or another, you're not going to understand what I believe about the law of Moses. That's part of that power of indoctrinations thing I've been talking about. You have to stop assuming what my argument is and actually listen to what I'm saying. I know, it's going to be a tall order for you, not because I know more than you about what's inside of you, but because you've already demonstrated that to me.

 

[ezrider]

If only you knew how misguided and uninformed you are about what I believe. That is the funny, but also frustrating thing about what has happened to the Protestant church. You'll only get it if you listen. But when you repeatedly blow off scripture in favor of what you've heard from God I know it's probably going to be a futile attempt to explain anything to you. It can only start in baby steps. If you fail at those, as most do, you won't ever understand the error of your 'the law is evil' doctrines.

You see Jethro, you see this as an affront to you doctrine, so any speak against it must be evil in your mind. I have not have not said it was evil.Not once. Those are your blinders to must come off.

But the doctrine that you teach, let me see if I can paraphrase it correctly. "By Faith We establish the LAW OF MOSES"
Them there are your words (I'm paraphrasing), am I correct. Is that not your doctrine? I'm sure I cam go back and find the direct quote, but you and I both know what you have said. You try to fulfill a law given to those who wandered in the wilderness trying to prove their worthiness before they could enter the promised land. Why even your lawgiver Moses was not permitted to enter into the promised land.

We are to fulfill the Law of Christ, and in so doing we establish the law of God. But you see Jethro, the Law of Christ was not given in the wilderness. No, the Law of Christ was given not in the wilderness, the law of Christ came from within the promised land, and they came from within the Kingdom of God.

By the thoughts and expression of your words, you seek to fulfill a law meant for the wilderness, but we seek to fulfill the law of His Kingdom. They are two different sets of laws given from two different mountains. One for the wilderness, and one for his kingdom, if only you would have the faith of a mustard seed, why you could say to that mountain, be though removed, and it shall be removed. But you say not so, for you would rather glory in the shadow of that mountain as you return once again into Egypt.

 

[ezrider]

They simply will not listen carefully enough to even understand what their opponent is actually saying.

Why do you call yourself my OPPONENT? Are you not my brother? Are you not my neighbor? But you would call yourself my opponent. Have you declared yourself to be my adversary? And if you be my adversary, then my words are hidden from you, even though they be before your very eyes. Now back to your vomit!

 

[Douglas Summers]

Should a Christian for whatever reason decide to do business (monetary) on Sundays or on the Sabbath days?

Hi Classik, Back in the 50's and 60's there was what was called a "blue law" in Ohio and some others states. You could not sell any item that had to do with physical work on Sunday (dish soap, laundry soap, window cleaner, etc. and I think cigarettes and beer) Food items were available and most stores closed by noon or so. Actually you could not find hardly any stores open at all . it was actually a day of rest or visiting and family meals together. Oh, the bars were open, but they could only sell 3.2 beer. (low alcohol content). I don't know when that changed, but that is the way it used to be.
In Christ
Douglas Summers

 

[JLB]

Even after being told to Rise and Eat ---> in vision, no less, Peter refused. "No so, Lord(!),"

Peter obeyed what the Lord told Him to do, as Jesus clearly said to Peter - don't call unclean what I have said is clean....

So much for your "not so Lord" doctrine.

Paul learned the same exact thing from the Lord Jesus... As he wrote...

I am convinced by the Lord Jesus, There is nothing unclean of itself...
Romans 14:14


JLB

 

[JLB]

Isaiah's prophecy that all flesh will worship Yahweh from one Sabbath to another in the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 66:22-23).

Yes since the 1000 years are the 7th Sabbath rest, so it is a continual Sabbath Day of rest.


JLB