The Sabbath day was made for man, not man for the Sabbath

[Humblepie]

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. Genesis 9:3

Could be because everything was dead after the flood. Food would've been scarce.

I'll ask God when I see him. ; )

 

[JLB]

You don't do your "customary work" on Sabbath, which simply means taking a day off from whatever you do on a regular weekday, usually your paid job. Obviously this varies from person to person, one's "customary work" might be a hobby for another, you can't pin it down on specific activities. What's important is to worship God through some meaningful activities that lift your spirit and connect you with him, usually a church or synagogue gathering.

Thank you for your response.

 

[Humblepie]

Is circumcision still necessary too ?

Necessary for what? For salvation? No.

Necessary for righteousness? No


Necessary for obedience? Did the Holy spirt convict your circumcised heart to show your external obedience?
If not, I would say it isn't necessary, but I'm not the judge of man's heart.

 

[JLB]

More study from you would actually profit you.

In Romans 14:14, the Greek word koinos is used to refer to food being common, not the Greek word akathartos which means unclean. Koinos is used to refer to Jewish cultural traditions regarding food. Paul's message is that people are not required to follow Jewish cultural food requirements. However, Paul is not teaching that God's laws about unclean foods are no longer applicable.

• I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself;

14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Romans 14:14-17


Do you believe it's a sin to eat pork or shrimp?



JLB

 

[JLB]

Could be because everything was dead after the flood. Food would've been scarce.

I'll ask God when I see him. ; )

So the Noahide law did not forbid eating anything that moved on the earth.


How about the Abrahamic Covenant?

Did the Lord give Abraham any instructions about eating certain foods?

I only find the law of Moses forbidding the children of Israel to eat certain foods.

As we see, Jesus nor Paul forbid the followers of Christ to eat certain foods.

Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods.


When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” Mark 7:17-23


I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Romans 14:14

 

[Humblepie]

14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Romans 14:14-17

In Romans 14:14, the Greek word koinos is used to refer to food being common, not the Greek word akathartos which means unclean. Koinos is used to refer to Jewish cultural traditions regarding food. Paul's message is that people are not required to follow Jewish cultural food requirements. However, Paul is not teaching that God's laws about unclean foods are no longer applicable.

 

[Humblepie]

As we see, Jesus nor Paul forbid the followers of Christ to eat certain foods.

Dig deeper,

you don't read what I post anyway.

 

[JLB]

In Romans 14:14, the Greek word koinos is used to refer to food being common, not the Greek word akathartos which means unclean. Koinos is used to refer to Jewish cultural traditions regarding food. Paul's message is that people are not required to follow Jewish cultural food requirements. However, Paul is not teaching that God's laws about unclean foods are no longer applicable.

Paul plainly and clearly states these unmistakable words -

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Romans 14:14


Here is where he got this from -

Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods.

 

[Humblepie]

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Romans 14:14

Yes but they are talking about food that is koinos. Beef, deer etc. But common. Or ritually unclean.

So a clean animal sold in the market that may have been sacrificed to idols. This would be an unclean koinos animal, but a Biblically clean animal.
Also called common like in peters vision.
Or clean animals prepared by Gentiles.
These would also be koinos, but considered common or unclean and the jews wouldn't eat it.
He also says don't ask so your conscience is clear.

He is not talking about animals that were Biblically unclean. That word is
akathartos. Pigs and shrimp are akathartos. Beef and deer are koinos.

In the Greek it is undeniable what they are talking about.

 

[Humblepie]

thus purifying all foods

It is what Paul called food as a jew and a Pharisee.

Not what you call food as a Gentile.


Koinos is food.

Dog feces is not food

Deer is food. Koinos

Pig is not food. akathartos

Beef is food. koinos

Rat is not food. akathartos

 

[Humblepie]

Paul plainly and clearly states these unmistakable words -

Did he state that in the English language, or is it written in Greek?

I know you can use that computer and test it but you are comfortable in your belief and won't fact check me, but I do urge you to do just that.
It's undeniable.

 

[Humblepie]

but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Clean (koinos) animals sold in a Gentile market.
To one jew it was unclean, (common) but still koinos.
to another, it was clean. Koinos.

But not akathartos

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

We may not think Sabbath should be a controversial topic, but historically it has been. Consider the SDA conflicts with Establishment Christianity.

Great, and you'd rather perpetuate this controversy than to settle it? Fanning the flame rather than putting it out?

You are here using "Sabbath" as a synonym for "rest." But the word "Sabbath," as I've been using the word, refers to one of the 613 requirements of the Law of Moses comprising the Old Covenant. That was much more than taking Leave time.

No, we rest first and foremost because God himself rested on the seventh day, Gen. 2:1-3. The word "sabbath" itself originally means "seven", and it was made for man to rest and to commemorate God, it was not meant to be a "law" and no other law existed by then. The Pharisees turned it into a law that created an unnecessary burden.

I don't know you--you may be a fine Christian, and not either a Legalist or a Judaizer. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression, because I really don't know the whole picture of what you believe.

What I do wish to say, however, is that any position that argues that we are still under the Law, including Sabbath Law, is by definition Legalism and Judaizing. This is the historic position of the Ebionites in the Early Church, so I'm not making this up.

I believe Sabbath is a blessing first and foremost. If you insist to call it a "law", then I also believe it was the inspiration of civil laws that normalized 40 hour work week within the weekdays, employers can't force workers to work all week long like the Egyptian taskmasters to Israel slaves, is that a blessing or a curse? I see this issue from a common sense perspective, not a stringent religious perspective, that's all.

And it's not just about rest, but also a regular, weekly work-rest cycle. Some seasonal or occasional job may be insanely labor intensive and stressful, it may require you to burn the midnight oil everyday in order to get it done on schedule, but after that, for several weeks to several months, you get nothing else to do, you can rest in any way you want. That is not a healthy way to live, it'll throw you off kilter.

If we have a misunderstanding we need to rephrase things. My point was and is that "Keeping the Sabbath Day holy" required more than "customary work" coming to an end for one whole day. If we wish to "keep the Law," as the Ebionites did, then we don't just take leave time from our jobs. We don't just stop working at our jobs--we stop working at home too. "Customary work" was defined as stopping *all work* of the kind that it was any kind of job--not just our job at work.

Furthermore, the Sabbath Law also required a "holy convocation," which is by definition a gathering of like-mined "holy" individuals who believe in the same laws. That is why I mentioned that a NT equivalent would be a gathering of people who were doctrinally orthodox and were not liberals.

Do you go to church and gather with "like minded holy individuals" or not? If you do you're already participating in a "holy convocation", it just seems silly to me when you make up all these fancy theologies to fuss about it. Christians keep Sunday holy in commemoration of Jesus's resurrection on Sunday, first day of the week, that's all; and originally, that day is the feast of the firstfruits, Jesus fulfilled it in his resurrection.

“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. He shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted on your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it. (Lev. 23:10-11)

 

[Humblepie]

Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods.

KJV
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?


NIV
19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)


Notice the parentheses?
It's because in the original translation it isn't there.
It isn't in the Greek scripture, or the oldest Greek to English Bible.

It was added to scripture.

It was added to push a narrative. Jesus declared nothing of the sort.


John wycliffe translation
They are the earliest known literal translations of the entire Bible into English (Middle English).[1] They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395.[2]


WYC version
19 for it hath not entered into his heart, but into the womb, and beneath it goeth out, purging all meats.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Finally, Sabbath Law required an animal sacrifice. To create a NT equivalency to this would be "arbitrary," as I argued. But I'm not saying that we cannot find general principles in the NT that is in the same spirit as OT Law.

I think the bible has told us what a NT equivalency looks like, in this case, the feast of firstfruits in particular. In Lev. 23 an animal sacrifice was demanded, but in Rev. 14 the 144,000 presented themselves as living sacrifice before the Lamb, they simply gathered at a holy site and worshipped with their singing.

Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps. They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth. These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God. (Rev. 14:1-5)

If you want to discuss this further, I'm game. But I'm disinterested in carrying on if it appears to get too personal. Thank you.

Unlike you I don't make a "OT vs NT" false dischotomy out of this, I'd like to discuss the meaning, origin and purpose of Sabbath, but I do NOT wanna any debate over it by picking a side. I side with Paul who promoted unity and rebuked sectarianism.

 

[RandyK]

No, we rest first and foremost because God himself rested on the seventh day, Gen. 2:1-3. The word "sabbath" itself originally means "seven", and it was made for man to rest and to commemorate God, it was not meant to be a "law" and no other law existed by then. The Pharisees turned it into a law that created an unnecessary burden.

Nevertheless, that is how I was using the term "Sabbath," as one of the 613 requirements of the Law of Moses.

I believe Sabbath is a blessing first and foremost. If you insist to call it a "law", then I also believe it was the inspiration of civil laws that normalized 40 hour work week within the weekdays, employers can't force workers to work all week long like the Egyptian taskmasters to Israel slaves, is that a blessing or a curse? I see this issue from a common sense perspective, not a stringent religious perspective, that's all.

I don't use the word "Sabbath" as a Labor issue, though it may have inspired it. For me, it was one of the 613 requirements of the Law of Moses. It is not, for me, "taking Leave" in a job.

You may argue the benefits of taking Leave during your employmet in a particular job. I agree--it is beneficial, and it may even be inspired by Sabbath Law for some. But for me, "Leave" is not "Sabbath observance."

And it's not just about rest, but also a regular, weekly work-rest cycle. Some seasonal or occasional job may be insanely labor intensive and stressful, it may require you to burn the midnight oil everyday in order to get it done on schedule, but after that, for several weeks to several months, you get nothing else to do, you can rest in any way you want. That is not a healthy way to live, it'll throw you off kilter.

Undoubtedly there is some science to how much rest a person needs, and how much of a regular cycle it ideally is. But we have no Christian law determining what we must do to please God other than the need to be reasonably good to our bodies, which carry the presence and witness of the Lord.

Do you go to church and gather with "like minded holy individuals" or not? If you do you're already participating in a "holy convocation", it just seems silly to me when you make up all these fancy theologies to fuss about it. Christians keep Sunday holy in commemoration of Jesus's resurrection on Sunday, first day of the week, that's all; and originally, that day is the feast of the firstfruits, Jesus fulfilled it in his resurrection.

I've not been arguing against meeting together with other like-minded Christians. It is a place where we can give and get input from others, which we need for balance and socializing. I was arguing what Sabbath as a law meant to be, and what would be required if we try to live out a modern-day equivalent.

I agree that meeting together can be viewed as a modern day equivalent of a Sabbath "convocation." My point is that it is not actual "Sabbath observance" if we want to express it as accomodating a literal adherance to the Law of Moses. A NT gathering is not a Sabbath convocation. And we are not under OT Law.

You seem to want to find an OT precedent in order to justify that what we do in the NT is in accord with OT practices. I can't find anything wrong with that. All I'm saying is that nothing we do in the NT era is in any way "observing Sabbath Law" as I define it.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Almost all of what is recorded of Jesus' statements in the Gospels applied while the Old Covenant of Law was still in effect. So of course Jesus would not promote anything but the Covenant that was currently in effect.

But Jesus also predicted that he was soon to die, changing everything. The NT letters explain this in detail.

It is not wrong, of course, to preach OT truth because it was fulfilled in Christ's death and resurrection. We are not, however, preaching that we are still under the Old Covenant of Law.

Rather, we are preaching that it has been fulfilled in Christ's death and resurrection. Morality does not go away. But it is redirected or channeled through a new and different Covenant, ie the New Covenant.

In this Covenant the 613 requirements and its Jewish exclusivity have gone away. Now we have a universal Covenant that is focused not on Jewish ritual, but rather, on the need to spiritually abide in Christ, who has all the moral virtue we need. We simply need to abide in him and continue to be "like God" as Man was created to be.

You do know that the "greatest commandments" are also from the Torah, Jesus didn't invent them, right? Here a lawyer asked Jesus the same question, and in this case the lawyer himself recited the "greatest commandments" from the written LAW, i.e. your so called "613 requirements", so of course the Old Covenant of Law is still in effect. NT is a new set of law, but more like RENEWED covenant - which Israel broke at Mount Sinai. "Fulfill" means perfect demonstration, not completion.

And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ”(Lk. 10:25-27)

 

[RandyK]

I think the bible has told us what a NT equivalency looks like, in this case, the feast of firstfruits in particular. In Lev. 23 an animal sacrifice was demanded, but in Rev. 14 the 144,000 presented themselves as living sacrifice before the Lamb, they simply gathered at a holy site and worshipped with their singing.

Yes, I think Revelation utilizes a number of OT symbols to express a NT equivalency. Great point! I would only point out that the NT equivalency is not "keeping the Law of Moses."

Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps. They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth. These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God. (Rev. 14:1-5)

Unlike you I don't make a "OT vs NT" false dischotomy out of this, I'd like to discuss the meaning, origin and purpose of Sabbath, but I do NOT wanna any debate over it by picking a side. I side with Paul who promoted unity and rebuked sectarianism.

Well, I suppose you have to do things the way you see best. I don't see differences of opinions and separations into camps as being unbiblical.

The NT Scriptures were written precisely to point out what the difference is between orthodox teachings and heterodox teachings. There was no hesitation to divide into camps, as for example, the camp of Christians and the camp of Judaizers, the camp of those who claimed false apostleship and the camp who had true apostleship, the camp of those who proclaimed themselves the "Coming of Christ's Kingdom" and the camp of those who patiently waited for Christ's Kingdom.

Sometimes there must be differences so that God can show who He favors.

1 Cor 11.19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

But generally, I agree that among Christians who believe the Bible and who practice righteousness there should be an extra effort to bridge differences. The NT Scriptures are a great way to find commonality. Thanks.

 

[Hopeful 2]

That would be wrong, and
I do not claim that on my authority, that's exactly what scripture says.
Read it for yourself.

Remember what Jesus said in
Matthew 15:24

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Ephesians 2:11,12 &19
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the.

covenants*

of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
*(covenants plural)

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;


<<<<The lost sheep of Israel were scattered amongst the nations for their adultery. God divorced them. They became Gentiles, they lived with them, they worshiped with them, they lost their Heritage. God sent them packing.
He promised to bring them back into covenant though and make them a unified nation again.>>>>

The only way God could Lawfully remarry Israel is by death, releasing Israel from the Law.

When Christ died on the cross, he bore the curse of the guilty wife.



Many fine details happened during the
Crucifixion.

His stomach swelled, he was mocked, his thighs wasted away, he was given bitter drink.
These are directly related to the law of the jealous husband.
Numbers 5:29-30

Christ died for The lost tribe of Israel dying in place of the guilty wife so God could bring them back into covenant again.

This scripture has a duel meaning.

Colossians 2:14
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Blotting out the oral law written by men that made void Gods law, and the written offense against Israel for their adultery.

Now we are citizens of Israel, all that enter the faith, the lost sheep, (the Israelites) and Greeks.

Yet, here they are !
Just as free of the Law as Gentiles are.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Necessary for what? For salvation? No.

Necessary for righteousness? No

Then there is no use in being circumcised.
Is sabbath keeping necessary for salvation ?
How about feast keeping, or tithing, or a priesthood ?

Necessary for obedience? Did the Holy spirt convict your circumcised heart to show your external obedience?

Why would my circumcized heart be convicted for obeying ?

If not, I would say it isn't necessary, but I'm not the judge of man's heart.

None of the Law but 9 of the original 10 are any longer in force.