|
|
 |
|
Reply
| | (1 recommendation so far) | Message 1 of 11 in Discussion |
|
Hiya everyone, From Sabbath To Sunday: How Did It Come About?
Endtime Issues No. 64
1 March 2001 Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.
Retired Professor of Theology, Andrews University According to the traditional view, which has been held by the Catholic Church and accepted by those Protestant denominations which follow the Lutheran tradition, the Sabbath was a temporary Mosaic institution given to the Jews, abrogated by Christ, and consequently no longer binding today. Christians adopted Sunday observance, not as the continuation of the biblical Sabbath, but as a new institution established by the church to celebrate Christ's resurrection by means of the Lord's Supper celebration. This traditional position has been held by the Catholic Church which has claimed the responsibility for changing the Sabbath to Sunday. For example, Thomas Aquinas (A. D. 1225-1274) who is regarded as the greatest Catholic theologian who ever lived, explicitly states: "The observance of the Lord‘s Day took the place of the observance of the Sabbath not by virtue of the [Biblical] precept but by the institution of the church." This view has been reiterated through the centuries in standard Catholic catechisms where a statement like this is usually found: "We observe Sunday rather than Saturday because the Catholic Church by virtue of her authority has transferred the solemnity of the Sabbath to Sunday." Recently, however, there have been both Catholic and Protestant scholars who have argued for an apostolic origin of Sunday observance. According to these scholars, the Apostles themselves chose the first day of the week as the new Christian Sabbath at the very beginning of Christianity in order to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The Conclusions of My Research. To find an answer to the questions of the time, place, causes, and consequences of the change from Sabbath to Sunday in early Christianity, I spent five years at the Pontitical University in Rome, examining for my doctoral dissertation the earliest Christian documents. The results of my investigation have been published in my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. The dissertation was published in 1997 by the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Italy, with the official Catholic imprimatur—approval. Pope Paul VI awarded me a gold medal for earning the summa cum laude distinction in this research and school work. In this lecture I will attempt to share some of the highlights of this research. For the sake of clarity, let me state at the outset the conclusion of my investigation. Simply stated, my analysis of the biblical and historical texts indicate that the change from Sabbath to Sunday did not come about at the beginning of Christianity by the authority of Christ or the Apostles who allegedly chose the first day of the week as the new Christian Sabbath to celebrate Christ's resurrection. Rather the change began about a century after Christ's death during the reign of the Roman Emperor Hadrian (about A. D. 135), as a result of an interplay of political, social, pagan and religious factors to be mentioned shortly. Essentially, it was the necessity to avoid the repressive anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation promulgated in A. D. 135 by Emperor Hadrian that caused the Bishop of Rome to pioneer the change from Sabbath to Sunday and from Passover to Easter-Sunday. These changes were designed to show the Christian separation and differentiation from the Jews at a time when Jewish religious practiced were outlawed by the Roman government. The common view among Sundaykeeping Christians is that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the Apostolic Church in order to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. This is indeed the common explanation given for Sundaykeeping. The Pope himself appeals to the resurrection and appearance of Jesus on Sunday in his Pastoral Letter Dies Domini in order to argue for the apostolic origin of Sunday. Numerous Catholic and Protestant scholars have written in defence of the same view. In spite of its popularity, the claim that Christ's Resurrection on the first day of the week caused the change from Sabbath to Sunday worship, lacks both biblical and historical support. A careful study of all the references to the Resurrection reveals the incomparable importance of the event, but it does not provide any indication regarding a special day to commemorate it. The New Testament attributes no liturgical significance to the day of Christ's Resurrection simply because the Resurrection was seen as an existential reality experienced by living victoriously by the power of the Risen Savior, and not a liturgical practice associated with Sunday worship. To avoid the search of the Roman police, Christian changed regularly the time and place of the Lord's Supper celebration. Eventually, they moved the service from the evening to the morning. This explains why Paul is very specific on the manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper, but he is indefinite on the question of the time of the assembly. Note that four times he repeats the same phrase: "When you come together" (1 Cor 11:18, 20, 33, 34). The phrase implies indefinite time, most likely because there was no set day for the celebration of the Lord's Supper. If, as some scholars contend, the Lord's Supper was celebrated on Sunday evening, as part of the Lord's Day worship, Paul could hardly have failed to mention the sacredness of the time in which they gathered. This would have strengthened his plea for a more worshipful attitude during the partaking of the Lord's Supper. The failure of Paul to mention "Sunday" as the time of the gathering or to use the adjective "Lord's�?I>kuriake" to characterize the day as "the Lord's Day," (as he did it with reference to the Lord's Supper), shows that the apostle did not attach any religious significance to Sunday. Similarly, Passover, celebrated today by many Christians on Easter Sunday, was observed during apostolic times, not on Sunday to commemorate the Resurrection, but according to the biblical date of Nisan 14, primarily as a memorial of Christ’s suffering and death. Contrary to what many people believe, Easter-Sunday was unknown in the Apostolic Church. It was introduced and promoted by the Church of Rome in the second century in order to show separation and differentiation from the Jewish Passover. The result was the well-known Passover controversy which eventually led Bishop Victor of Rome to excommunicate the Asian Christians (about A. D. 191) for refusing to adopt Easter-Sunday. These indications show that Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week, did not influence the Apostolic Church to adopt the weekly Sunday and the annual Easter-Sunday to commemorate such an event. The earliest explicit references to Sundaykeeping are found in the writings of Barnabas (about A. D. 135 ) and Justin Martyr (about A.D. 150). Both writers do mention the Resurrection but only as the second of two reasons, important but not predominant. Barnabas�?first theological motivation for Sunday keeping is eschatological, namely, that Sunday as "the eight day" represents "the beginning of another world." The notion of Sunday as "the eighth day," was later abandoned because it is senseless to speak of "the eighth day" in a seven days week. Justin’s first reason for the Christians�?assembly on Dies Solis—the Day of the Sun, is the inauguration of creation: "Sunday is the first day on which God, transforming the darkness and prime matter, created the world." These reasons were eventually abandoned in favor of the Resurrection which became the primary reason for Sunday observance. In his book on The Lord's Day, Paul Jewett notes, for example, "If Paul had introduced Sunday worship among the Gentiles, it seems likely that Jewish opposition would have accused his temerity in setting aside the law of the Sabbath, as was the case with reference to the rite of circumcision (Acts 21:21)." The absence of such opposition is interpreted by Jewett as indicating that Paul accepted and promoted Sunday observance as taught him by the Jewish brethren. This assumption is correct in maintaining that Paul could not have pioneered Sunday observance without stirring up the opposition of the Jewish brethren, but it is incorrect in assuming that the Jewish Brethren taught Paul Sunday observance. The truth is that Jewish Christians, as we shall now see, were deeply committed to the observance of the law in general and of the Sabbath in particular. The absence of any controversy between Paul and the Jewish brethren rather indicates that the Sabbath never became an issue in the Apostolic Church because it was faithfully observed by all Christians. Further insight is provided by Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem. The Apostle was informed by James and the elders that thousand of converted Jews were "all zealous for the Law" (Acts 21:20). The same leaders then pressured Paul to prove to the people that he also "lived in observance of the law" (Acts 21-24), by undergoing a rite of purification at the Temple. In the light of this deep commitment to the observance of the Law, it is hardly conceivable that the Jerusalem Church would have abrogated one of its chief precepts–Sabbath keeping–and pioneered Sunday worship instead. The continuity in the observance of the Sabbath among Palestinian Christians, known as Nazarenes, is evidenced by the testimony of a fourth century Palestinian historian, Epiphanius. He tells us that the Nazarenes, who were "the very direct descendants of the primitive community" of Jerusalem, insisted and persisted in the observance of seventh-day Sabbath keeping until his own time, that is, about A. D. 350. I vividly remember the joy I felt when I found Epiphanius�?testimony. Eagerly I showed this document to my Jesuit Prof. Vincenzo Monachino, who read it attentively and then exclaimed: "This is the death-blow to the theory that makes Jerusalem the birthplace of Sundaykeeping." My professor immediately understood that if the direct descendants of the Jerusalem Church persisted in the observance of the Sabbath until at least the fourth century, then the Jerusalem Church could hardly have pioneered the abandonment of the Sabbath and adoption of Sunday during the Apostolic time. Of all the Christian Churches, the Jerusalem Church was both ethnically and theologically the closest and most loyal to Jewish religious traditions, and thus the least likely to change the day of the Sabbath. More important still for our investigation is the role of the Bishop of Rome in pioneering and promoting the change from Sabbath feasting to Sabbath fasting, as well as the change from Passover to Easter Sunday. To this point we shall return shortly. At this juncture it suffices to note that the Bishop of Rome emerged to the leadership position after the A. D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. He was the only one who commanded sufficient authority to influence the majority of Christians to adopt new religious observances, such as weekly Sunday and annual Easter Sunday. To appreciate why the Bishop of Rome would pioneer the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday, it is important to consider a fourth important factor, namely, the fiscal, military, political and religious repressive measures imposed by the Romans upon the Jews, beginning with the First Jewish Revolt against Rome in A. D. 66 and culminating with the Second Jewish Revolt in A. D. 135. These measures, which were introduced by the Roman government to punish the Jews on account of their violent uprisings in various places of the Empire, were especially felt in the city of Rome, which had a large Jewish population. A fifth significant factor is the anti-Jewish propaganda by a host of Roman authors who began reviling the Jews racially and culturally, deriding especially Sabbathkeeping and circumcision as examples of Judaism’s degrading superstitions. These authors especially derided Sabbathkeeping as an example of Jewish laziness. Contemptuous anti-Jewish literary comments can be found in the writings of Seneca (d. A.D. 65 ), Persius (A.D. 34-62), Petronius (ca. A.D. 66), Quintillian (ca. A.D. 35-100), Martial (ca. A.D. 40-104), Plutarch (ca. A.D. 46-119), Juvenal ( A. D. 125) and Tacitus (ca. A.D. 55-120), all of whom lived in Rome most of their professional lives. The sixth and most decisive factor which influenced the change of the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday, is the anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation promulgated by the Emperor Hadrian in A. D. 135. Hadrian went as far as outlawing the practice of Jewish religion in general and of Sabbathkeeping in particular in A. D. 135. This repressive anti-Jewish legislation was promulgated by Hadrian after three years of bloody fighting (A. D. 132-135) to crush the Jewish revolt. His Roman legions suffered many casualties. When the Emperor finally captured Jerusalem, he decided to deal with the Jewish problem in a radical way. He slaughtered thousands of Jews, and took thousand of them as slaves to Rome. He made Jerusalem into a Roman colony, calling it Aelia Capitolina. He forbade Jews and Jewish Christians from ever entering the city. More important still for our investigation, Hadrian outlawed the practice of the Jewish religion in general and of Sabbathkeeping in particular throughout the empire. When I learned about the Hadrianic anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation, I asked myself: How did the Christians, especially those living in Rome under the immediate attention of the Emperor, react to such legislation? Did they choose to remain faithful in their Sabbath observance, even if it means being punished as Jews, or did abandon Sabbathkeeping in order to clarify to the Roman authorities their separation and differentiation from the Jews? The answer is simple. Many Christians change the time and manner of observance of two institutions associated with Judaism, namely the Sabbath and Passover. Shortly we shall see that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday and Passover to Easter Sunday in order to avoid even the semblance of Judaism. To understand what contributed to these historical changes, we need to mention a seventh important factor, namely, the development of a Christian theology of contempt for the Jews. This is what happened. When the Jewish religion in general and the Sabbath in particular were outlawed by Roman government and derided by Roman writers, a whole body of Adversus Judaeos ("Against all Jews") Christian literature began to appear. Following the lead of Roman writers, Christians authors developed a "Christian" theology of separation from and contempt toward the Jews. Characteristic Jewish customs such as circumcision and Sabbathkeeping were proclaimed to be signs of Jewish depravity. The condemnation of Sabbathkeeping as a sign of Jewish wickedness, contributed to the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday observance, in order to clarify to the Roman authorities the Christian separation from Judaism and identification with Roman paganism. This historical change from Sabbath to Sunday observance was pioneered by the Church of Rome–a predominantly Gentile Church which, as noted earlier, that took over the leadership of Christian communities after the A. D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. The sad lesson of history is that the desire to be politically correct by supporting popular immoral policies such as the extermination of Jews, Moslems and heretics, or the perpetration of slavery, has caused some church leaders and Bible scholars to become biblically incorrect. They fabricated unbiblical theologies which would sanction popular immoral practices. It is impossible to estimate the damage done by these theologies of expediency to our society and Christianity at large. Socially, the negative reinterpretation of the Sabbath as a sign of Jewish wickedness led the Church of Rome to transform Sabbath observance from a day of feasting and joy into a day of fasting and sadness. The purpose of the Sabbath fast was not to enhance the spiritual observance of the Sabbath. Rather, as emphatically stated in the papal decretal of Pope Sylvester (A. D. 314-335), the Sabbath fasting was designed to show "contempt for the Jews" (exsecratione Judaeorum) and for their Sabbath "feasting" (destructione ciborum). The sadness and hunger resulting from the fast would enable Christians to avoid "appearing to observe the Sabbath with the Jews" and would encourage them to enter more eagerly and joyfully into the observance of Sunday. It should be noted that the Pope's attempt to kill the festive gleam of the Sabbath by making the day a time of rigorous fasting, was not favorably received by all the churches. The Eastern Churches, for example, resisted the adoption of Sabbath fasting as well as Easter Sunday. In fact, their resistance to these practices eventually contributed to the historical break in A. D. 1054 between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church. Liturgically, the Church of Rome decreed that no religious assemblies and eucharistic celebrations were to be held on Saturday. For example, Pope Innocent I ( A. D. 402-417) declared that "as the tradition of the Church maintains, in these two days [Friday and Saturday] one should not absolutely celebrate the sacraments." Two contemporary church historians, Socrates and Sozomen, confirm Innocent I's decretal. For example, Sozomen (about A. D. 440) tells us that while "the people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, such custom is never observed at Rome and Alexandria." Summing up, the historical evidences alluded above indicate that the Church of Rome used theological, social, and liturgical measures to empty the Sabbath of any religious significance, and to promote Sunday observance instead. God bless everyone, Seek. |
|
 First
Previous
2-11 of 11
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
The reason I added the few lines from the 'Catechism of Catholic Doctrine', is that it teaches that the RCC believes it has the "authority" to change Gods Laws, and that in our furture the RCC in coelition with secular powers will again attempt to enforce Sunday Law. Again this is an ASSUMTPTION when there are other “prospects�?to be pointing a finger at, especially when LITERAL Babylon still exists, without all the extra ‘over-spiritualization�?of certain texts. And again, the point should be considered objectively, “just because one ‘claims an authority�?does not mean they ‘have such authority�?�?We would not agree on the “authority�?that the Mormons claim on their ‘extra-biblical authority,�?nor or the Muslims with their ‘claimed authority�?from the Koran, so the point should be conceded that just because one “claims to have such authority does not mean they have that authority.�? You can recite RCC doctrine of their ‘authority�? and decrees, and orders, but if the “authority itself�?is not there, but is only proclaimed, the ‘orders, statutes, and decrees�?mean nothing. My question is why concern yourself with an ‘authority�?that (1) does not bound you, and (2) is not a real authority anyways? You do not consider Mormon/ Islamic doctrines, but concern yourself with the RCC concerning a day that ‘supposedly changed.�?The “Sabbath day�?was/still is Saturday, but the issue is “just because the RCC say “they changed it, to Sunday�?does not mean “they can change the Sabbath day to Sunday.�? Does the RCC have influence, you better believe it, but so does anyone else if they tell a lie long enough, people are bound to believe it, also. *(Examples above, along with many others not listed.) When the time comes i will show you clearly that the Bible references you have been given in an attempt to show that the Apostles started Sunday worship, are taken out of context and the only connection is that those particular events just happened to occur on the 1st day of the week, it could have been any day of the week. I will do this in the thread "Sabbath to Sunday". LOL. I love you seek, I really do. �?U>you have been given in an attempt to show that the Apostles started Sunday worship.�?I never suggested that the apostles “started anything�?but rather this is “what happened,�?in the early Church. But if you can show me from the NT writings that the apostles rebuked or corrected the “gathering of the saints on the first day of the week�?or “when�?everyone was doing the collections, prayer, fellowshipping and breaking bread together, for not holding the Sabbath day, please show me. Also the �?FONT color=#0000ff>those particular events just happened to occur on the 1st day of the week,�? It “just so happened�?that the resurrection was on the first day of the week. It "just so happened" the disciples were gather together, on the same first day of the week. It "just so happened" that Pentecost (the giving of the Holy Spirit) was on the first day of the week. It "just so happened" that the gathering of those who received the Word were together on the first day of the week It "just so happened" that they also broke bread together, on the first day of the week. It "just so happened" while they were gather they prayed corporately on the first day of the week. It “just so happened�?that Paul was doing expository teaching on the first day of the week. It "just so happened" that the command to at least 2 sets of churches, that collections were to be taken on the first day of the week. And it "just so happened" that John received the “book of revelation�?on the Lord’s Day. *(Either was transported through time to the second coming, or was on the first day of the week) And the apostles say “the day itself does not matter, and is not an issue�?(peter confirms ALL of Paul’s letters) and the Sabbath day was a shadow foretelling of Christ who was to come, NOT the reality itself, and that there remains a Sabbath REST (not day) from our works, just as God rested from His. If you want to observe the Sabbath day, more power to you guys. But I have entered into the Lord of the Sabbath, not just a day. And He did not seem to have a problem “upsetting those�?who got mad who saw a lame man walking carrying his bed, by ‘working�?on the Sabbath. Since the command for collections to be taken on the first day of the week, was issued to at least 2 churches, can I ask does the SDA “gather together on the Sabbath day, and take collections on the first day,�?per biblical command? That would be a good question, may I ask? That wasn’t a “just so happened�?thing, but a command. Again as far as ‘dates for documentation,�?the biblical documents were ‘well before�?the 300’s when Constantine was around. so the 'authority' for the RCC is the same self proclaimed authority as the LDS, Islam, and JW, or any 'latter day peophet" that claims 'extra blibical revelation' that does not line up with the bible 100%, 100% of the time. (true prophets still have 100% truth/prophecy ratio) otherwise they are self-proclaimed/ false prophets, and the authority is as such, respectfuly. |
|
Reply
| |
Also the "those particular events just happened to occur on the 1st day of the week,". It "just so happened" that the resurrection was on the first day of the week. Yes, after the disciples kept the Sabbath according to the commandment; which by the way Jesus also kept while resting in the tomb. Lu 23:56 -And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. It "just so happened" the disciples were gather together, on the same first day of the week. Joh 20:19 - Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. Yes I see, they were indeed gathered: for fear of the Jews. It "just so happened" that Pentecost (the giving of the Holy Spirit) was on the first day of the week. Should we think that it happened because it was the first day of the week or because it was a perfect oppotunity because, "there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.", because of the holy day. It "just so happened" that the gathering of those who received the Word were together on the first day of the week. See answer for the last comment. It "just so happened" that they also broke bread together, on the first day of the week. Ac 20:7 - And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Just a technicallity: For midnight to be later on the first day of the week on which this meeting to occured, the meeting had to occur at night to begin with. You see, at that time, days were measure from evening to evening. The first day of the week began at sundown on what we call Saturday. The morrow refers to the daylight portion of the first day of the week that would conicide wtih Sunday morning. The meeting was a Saturday night meeting. Paul was traveling on Sunday. It "just so happened" while they were gather they prayed corporately on the first day of the week. Do a search for the word daily in Acts. You will find that all the things that they did on the first day of the week they also did daily. It "just so happened" that Paul was doing expository teaching on the first day of the week. Do the daily study for this too. It "just so happened" that the command to at least 2 sets of churches, that collections were to be taken on the first day of the week. 1Co 16:2 - Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. "Lay by him in store" is suggesting the each one set aside what would be collected in his own home in preparation of Paul's visit. And it "just so happened" that John received the "book of revelation" on the Lord’s Day. *(Either was transported through time to the second coming, or was on the first day of the week) It may either be the Day of the Lord, or it could be the Sabbath. The desigantion of the phrase "the Lord's day" was not in use for Sunday until the 2nd century. And the apostles say "the day itself does not matter, and is not an issue" (peter confirms ALL of Paul’s letters) and the Sabbath day was a shadow foretelling of Christ who was to come, NOT the reality itself, and that there remains a Sabbath REST (not day) from our works, just as God rested from His. Col 2:16 - ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: In the Greek, it is clear that Paul was using the plural when mentioning the sabbaths. This is not a common refernce used when refering to the seventh day Sabbath. which would be refered to as simply "the Sabbath". It is reasonable to infer that what Paul was referening to were the various ceremonial Sabbaths associated with the various yearly feasts. These would best be ascribed as shadows, whereas the seventh day Sabbath is rather commemorative. This is not to say that we need to get judgy about it but there is a separation between the sabbaths and the Sabbath as the is from circumcision and the commandmenta if God as mentioned in 1 Cor 7:19 If you want to observe the Sabbath day, more power to you guys. But I have entered into the Lord of the Sabbath, not just a day. And He did not seem to have a problem "upsetting those" who got mad who saw a lame man walking carrying his bed, by ‘working�?on the Sabbath. Hmmm, Jesus clearly indicated that the Sabbath was so much more beneficial than what the Pharisees thought. Even though he told the man to pick up His bed, the disciple didn't seem to think that this was a signal to do common labor as evidenced by their keeping the Sabbath after taking Christ's body to the tomb. Since the command for collections to be taken on the first day of the week, was issued to at least 2 churches, I think we already covered this one but I'm not aware about a second cammand for collections on the first day of the week. Could you please provide the one I didn't paste above? |
|
Reply
| |
Lu 23:56 -And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. again these guys were still operating under the OT Covenant, *(heb 8-9). remember if we're going to be operating under the OT *(per the commandments) we HAVE to be duing offerings, circumisms, have a temple, ect... *(per the commandments) *see luke 1:8-10, 2:22-24, 2:39, ('law of the Lord', not law of Moses.) 2:41, 5:14, Matt 8:4, ect.. just a few, OTHERWISE this is still the OT *(heb8-9). and since you asked a question.. I think we already covered this one but I'm not aware about a second cammand for collections on the first day of the week. Could you please provide the one I didn't paste above? 1corth 16:1 "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also:" Paul instructed to the Galatia churches and the Corth. church to "do collections" on the 1st day. 2 witnesses. Unless paul was lying, and just tring to cause 'trouble' with the sabbath day keepers, and since they gathered the 'day before' his instructions were to do collections the next day, for some reason. while you suggest to do 'word search' in the book of acts, do a word search for the word 'sabbath' and show me where believers were gathered on the sabbath, please. I did not find it, but i did find in every case the "unbelieving Jews" were still gathering together, and it was a good time for paul to go to them to (work) preach, the gospel. (whatever it happens to be.) but the "believeing church" gathering on the sabbath day, references is nmissing, unless you can show me otherwise. again in the end, its its NOT the day, it IS the 'reality' ('body' KJV) of Christ, that the shaddows *(the rest) pointed to. |
|
Reply
| |
Hiya everyone, I would like to suggest that before we continue, that we read the dissertation or at least the exracts i have provided of it by Prof. Bacchiocci, who i believe makes some very good points. God bless everyone, Seek. |
|
Reply
| |
"1corth 16:1 "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also:" "
Thank you Desi. I guess I just overlooked that.
"Paul instructed to the Galatia churches and the Corth. church to "do collections" on the 1st day. 2 witnesses. Unless paul was lying, and just tring to cause 'trouble' with the sabbath day keepers, and since they gathered the 'day before' his instructions were to do collections the next day, for some reason."
Well I doubt that He was trying to make trouble, but the laying aside by himself was done at home on what was probably the typical payday of the time.
again these guys were still operating under the OT Covenant, *(heb 8-9). remember if we're going to be operating under the OT *(per the commandments) we HAVE to be duing offerings, circumisms, have a temple, ect... *(per the commandments)
*see luke 1:8-10, 2:22-24, 2:39, ('law of the Lord', not law of Moses.) 2:41, 5:14, Matt 8:4, ect.. just a few, OTHERWISE this is still the OT *(heb8-9).
Actually, they were operating under the instructions of Christ in Matthew 5:17-onward.
It seems that you believe that what Jesus taught was the tail end of the OT. Do you believe then that His teaching were only good for the 3 1/2 years of His ministry?
Please try to understand that in 1 Corinthians 7:19 Paul makes the distinction between circumcision (the law of moses) and the commandments of God.
"while you suggest to do 'word search' in the book of acts, do a word search for the word 'sabbath' and show me where believers were gathered on the sabbath, please. I did not find it, but i did find in every case the "unbelieving Jews" were still gathering together, and it was a good time for paul to go to them to (work) preach, the gospel. (whatever it happens to be.) but the "believeing church" gathering on the sabbath day, references is nmissing, unless you can show me otherwise."
OK, I did the study on the sabbath. Did you do it on "daily"?
What I found is that although you may be right that Paul took opportunity of the early gentile believers observing sabbath before hearing about Christ to preach to them, he never told them to change the day they kept but kept meeting with them on subsequent Sabbaths.
Ac 13:42 - And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be
preached to them the next sabbath.
"again in the end, its its NOT the day, it IS the 'reality' ('body' KJV) of Christ, that the shaddows *(the rest) pointed to."
Well, you still want to lump things together even though they are not. The seventh day Sabbath is commemorative rather than a shadow as the other ceremonial sabbaths. Jesus taught the the Sabbath, being one of the least of the commendments in you opinion, was to be in effect till heaven and earth pass.
No one here is suggesting that Sabbath keeping saves. But we love God and it's not a burden for us to do what Jesus said. It the love factor that makes the difference. |
|
Reply
| |
Well I doubt that He was trying to make trouble, but the laying aside by himself was done at home on what was probably the typical payday of the time. or "probably" while they were assembeling together, it would have been a good time to "take collections" ('pass the plate' as we say today) while everyone was gathered together already. Other wise there would not be 'any temptation' for using what was set aside at home waiting until the next saturday came, for if a need came up that week and needed a bit more money. "no tempation there", im sure. Actually, they were operating under the instructions of Christ in Matthew 5:17-onward would this include matt 8:4 (mat 5:7-onward)? "And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." this was animal sacerfice. Hebrews 8-9 tells us WHEN the OT ended, and WHEN the NT started, not what the tradational page before matt1:1 says. It seems that you believe that what Jesus taught was the tail end of the OT. Do you believe then that His teaching were only good for the 3 1/2 years of His ministry? Christ taught to the Jew under the Law. Again is the Law 'holy and good' absolutly but the problem is not the Law, its sinful man.(rom 7) but the point has been in the NT "we're not under the Law," *(GASP, i know) [rom 7:6] No one here is suggesting that Sabbath keeping saves. But we love God and it's not a burden for us to do what Jesus said. It the love factor that makes the difference. Matt 5:48 "Therefore (conclusion/ summary) you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. that easy enough, other than we CANT be. But its commanded. rom 2:12, 3:20-21, gal 2:16, 3:2, 3:11-12, 3:18 Good luck for those who actually think they can "make that standard." Please try to understand that in 1 Corinthians 7:19 Paul makes the distinction between circumcision (the law of moses) and the commandments of God. So are you suggesting that 603 of the 613 Laws from Mt Saini were of human origin? I would suggest that everythiong that moses took to the children of Israel, was from God Himself, and not of moses' suggestion of 'how to live.' rom 2:12-14 gentiles were never given the law, we just 'stole it' from the Jew. lol. OK, I did the study on the sabbath. Did you do it on "daily"? yes i did, good suggestion. Oh, and word searches are differant from studies also. (just a side note) but with no references to the believers gathering on the sabbath day, for whatever reason, but rather believers constantly preaching to the unbelievers, or gathering together, was at times a daily thing. never a command, and relates to the point where paul wrote in romans *(one of the last letters he wrote) ch.14 "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. (and believe me i try) For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. ('moses' dietary laws) Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? [this works both ways] For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: "As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way. 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. [pork is 'ok', but if you dont, great.] {KEY-->} 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. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. . Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. And ive been reluctant to paste the entire chapter but the whole point of this is the food/day issue, is a non-issue. but if your brother is offended or convicted when another borther in Christ eats a ham sandwich, or goes 'to church' on sunday then for the ofeended brother sake, dont do it in front of them. But to the brother who does not eat, or holds to a single day, your fine in your convictions, but the other brother who does the otherwise is STILL a brother in Christ none the less. we can gatrher on saturday, sunday, or everyday if we want to, we (the "C"hurch) are ALL Christ's. and stop bickering of seconadry issues, like meat, and days. "for whatever is NOT OF FAITH is SIN." |
|
Reply
| |
Well I doubt that He was trying to make trouble, but the laying aside by himself was done at home on what was probably the typical payday of the time. or "probably" while they were assembeling together, it would have been a good time to "take collections" ('pass the plate' as we say today) while everyone was gathered together already. Other wise there would not be 'any temptation' for using what was set aside at home waiting until the next saturday came, for if a need came up that week and needed a bit more money. "no tempation there", im sure. It's very interesting but we don't seem to have such overirding temptation to use for our own emergencies what we have dedicated to God when we get paid. God is faithful when one is faithful to Him. The emergencies don't ever seem to become overriding. I simpathize with those that are tempted but then when Sunday comes along and they put in the plate what is left over from the week, I can imagine that the offerings are probably not as abundant as they could be. Actually, they were operating under the instructions of Christ in Matthew 5:17-onward would this include matt 8:4 (mat 5:7-onward)? " And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." this was animal sacerfice. Hebrews 8-9 tells us WHEN the OT ended, and WHEN the NT started, not what the tradational page before matt1:1 says. Hmmm, I thought we were talking about the disciples. Jesus healed many and fed many but there were only 120 disciples at the time of Pentecost. The instructions to the lepper was not general instruction to the disciples, none of whom were leppers. It seems that you believe that what Jesus taught was the tail end of the OT. Do you believe then that His teaching were only good for the 3 1/2 years of His ministry? Christ taught to the Jew under the Law. Again is the Law 'holy and good' absolutly but the problem is not the Law, its sinful man.(rom 7) but the point has been in the NT "we're not under the Law," *(GASP, i know) [rom 7:6] Christ was putting new wine into new wineskins, preaching the gospel, preparing the disciple to receive the Spirit and preach that gospel, which in my book is the solution for the sinful man thing. [rom 8:4] No one here is suggesting that Sabbath keeping saves. But we love God and it's not a burden for us to do what Jesus said. It the love factor that makes the difference. Matt 5:48 "Therefore (conclusion/ summary) you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. that easy enough, other than we CANT be. But its commanded. rom 2:12, 3:20-21, gal 2:16, 3:2, 3:11-12, 3:18 Good luck for those who actually think they can "make that standard." That sounds pretty hopeless. If God can't make you any better that you could do on your own that would mean that your shortcomings are greater than God. I wonder what the NT is talking about then where it say, "ill we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Like Paul, I think it better to have a mind that says, Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. It is, I think countrary to God's design for you to be defeatest concerning your own sinfulness or to be comfortable with it. Please try to understand that in 1 Corinthians 7:19 Paul makes the distinction between circumcision (the law of moses) and the commandments of God. So are you suggesting that 603 of the 613 Laws from Mt Saini were of human origin? I would suggest that everythiong that moses took to the children of Israel, was from God Himself, and not of moses' suggestion of 'how to live.' rom 2:12-14 gentiles were never given the law, we just 'stole it' from the Jew. lol. Actually I answered that volutarily in another post when Hero made the suggestion. I do so dislike having to repeat myself. But no, I don't think they were of human origin. As for stealing the law from the Jews, that is an odd comment to make. Any honest student of scripture can see that sin and the law (especially the big 10) are indelibly at odds with each other. You can't do both at the same time. Even Paul tells you to make a choice. OK, I did the study on the sabbath. Did you do it on "daily"? yes i did, good suggestion. Oh, and word searches are differant from studies also. (just a side note) but with no references to the believers gathering on the sabbath day, for whatever reason, but rather believers constantly preaching to the unbelievers, or gathering together, was at times a daily thing. never a command, and relates to the point where paul wrote in romans *(one of the last letters he wrote) Right but there is also no command to meet on the first day of the week either. They seems as incidental as the Sabbath meetings. But the only difference is that there is a command for the Sabbath that Christ said would persist till heaven and earth should pass. It's a choice one makes, to obey God or not to obey God. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. ch.14 "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. (and believe me i try) For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. ('moses' dietary laws) Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? [this works both ways] For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: "As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way. 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. [pork is 'ok', but if you dont, great.] {KEY-->} 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. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. . Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. Hey I can live with that. If you prefer to see me as the weaker brother, that's OK. Just don't judge me for dedicating to God a day of His choosing or for taking Christ's teaching seriously and figuring that God probably has a good reason to exclude the ham sandwich from the diet of His chosen people. The chapter works both ways. But if we stumble into a discussion about a day and what we eat let's not get bent because we share the reasons for our choices. Even if I mention that there is a prophecy yet to be fulfilled that addresses diet in Isaiah 66:17 And ive been reluctant to paste the entire chapter but the whole point of this is the food/day issue, is a non-issue. but if your brother is offended or convicted when another borther in Christ eats a ham sandwich, or goes 'to church' on sunday then for the ofeended brother sake, dont do it in front of them. But to the brother who does not eat, or holds to a single day, your fine in your convictions, but the other brother who does the otherwise is STILL a brother in Christ none the less. we can gatrher on saturday, sunday, or everyday if we want to, we (the "C"hurch) are ALL Christ's. and stop bickering of seconadry issues, like meat, and days. "for whatever is NOT OF FAITH is SIN." I have never stopped considering you a younger brother, Desi. Nor do I consider our exchanges as bickering. We have only been sharing our perspectives. You give yours, and I give mine. I would hope that we could freely exchange our personal views on issues brought up in scripture, as in our study of Galatians and not get offended simply because our perspectives are slightly different. And I assure you that my relationship with God is all of faith. |
|
Reply
| |
| Oh by the way, as I remember, it was you who initiated the discussion on the day issue with your "Why on Saturday" string. You are the one that made it an issue. This discussion is only a follow up to that discussion. |
|
Reply
| |
It's very interesting but we don't seem to have such overirding temptation to use for our own emergencies what we have dedicated to God when we get paid. God is faithful when one is faithful to Him. The emergencies don't ever seem to become overriding. I simpathize with those that are tempted but then when Sunday comes along and they put in the plate what is left over from the week, I can imagine that the offerings are probably not as abundant as they could be. What are you trying to say? In the NT Paul only writes 2 ½ chapters of “how to give.�?To give without compulsion, cheerfully, accordingly to what you DO have, not what you DON’T have. I don’t know if the SDA preaches the tithe, (Law) but if we were to continue to tithe (as under the Law) Paul should have saved his ink and quill and just said, “Keep tithing.�?But I maybe am going off in a wrong direction of what you were tiring to mean. It is after all, unclear. If Paul made a COMMAND that the gathering were to be collected, (not stored up till the next Saturday meeting) even a legalist can see the “to be collected�?vs. �?U>to be stored till the next Saturday.�?But whatever. Hmmm, I thought we were talking about the disciples. Jesus healed many and fed many but there were only 120 disciples at the time of Pentecost. The instructions to the lepper was not general instruction to the disciples, none of whom were leppers. But it was a command, none the less. Correct? Go and offer a sacrifice according to the Law. And the point being if you suggest everything after ‘matt 5:7-onward�?(never-minding what heb 8-9 say concerning WHEN the OT and NT stop, and start) is NT, then matt 8:4 falls into that suggestion. Otherwise the NT started at Christ death, not Matt 1:1 as many traditional translations suggest with the heading page “The New Testament of Jesus Christ, translated out of the original tongues�? �?And then you read Matt 1:1�? Just a “little misleading.�?/FONT> Christ was putting new wine into new wineskins, preaching the gospel, preparing the disciple to receive the Spirit and preach that gospel, which in my book is the solution for the sinful man thing. [rom 8:4]<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> And what was that? John 6:28 �?SPAN>Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works (business, ministry) of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."<o:p></o:p> I can hear peter almost say “Lord maybe you did not understand what I asked.�?And Christ saying “No. I understood you, you understand Me, your job is to believe in Me.�?But we like to “work�?(earn) for varying reasons, but Rom.4:3-5 “For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now to him who works (earns), the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,�?SPAN> Big difference. what we tradationaly do is mix the 'new wine (grace) in 'old skins' (the Law). So it Law + Grace. Contary to rom 4. It is, I think countrary to God's design for you to be defeatest concerning your own sinfulness or to be comfortable with it. Not at all. I at least know that my sinful nature and the resulting deeds, is/are offensive to a holy God, and know that in of myself there is no hope, for an eternity to be reconciled for my sin debt I owe Him. But, that why Christ stepped in for me, and took my punishment for me, cause I could not pay for it even in an eternal lake of fire. And He rose again for me to give me His resurrected life, so that I can live with Him, certainly not by what I did, but for what He did for me. HE made the offer to me, and I accepted His resurrected Life, cause I realized I was dead. I’m not “comfortable�?with my sinfulness, but I am told that I have an advocate with the Father, who just so happens to be His Son. So the ‘accuser�?bring all the charges against me, and they are all true, BUT my righteousness is not my own, its Christ’s. Any honest student of scripture can see that sin and the law (especially the big 10) are indelibly at odds with each other. No, actually they go hand in hand. Rom 7:7-11 �?/SPAN>What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. <o:p></o:p> Gal 3:19-22 �?FONT color=#ff0000>What is the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were locked up under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.�?/FONT> (1) Right but there is also no command to meet on the first day of the week either. (2) They seems as incidental as the Sabbath meetings. But the only difference is (3) that there is a command for the Sabbath that Christ said would persist till heaven and earth should pass. It's a choice one makes, to obey God or not to obey God. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (1) correct, no command of WHEN to and not to gather. (rom 14:5-6) You can do 1 or everyday the same, and in either case - ->“more power to ya.�?Typically with the constant references of the apostles meeting, praying, baptizing, breaking bread, taking collections, and doing expository teaching on the first day of the week. One can presumably conclude that they did all that on the “first day of the week,�?as it is recorded. But you can do it everyday if you wanted to, also, and ‘more power to you also�? if you do.(rom 14:5-6) (2) please refer me to when the apostles in the NT continued to gather on the Sabbath day. I see many references to the Sabbath day in acts, but that’s when the unbelievers were gathering, and Paul would go to them (unbelievers) to work (‘convert.�? Being religious, does not make a person ‘saved�?even when the gentiles were going to the synagogues. HEY WAIT A MIN! IF those gatherings were ‘believers,�?then should we (as believers) should be in synagogues also!? What about that? interesting�?*(just a side note.) (3) �?U>Christ said would persist till heaven and earth should pass�? Hey be fair, you did not finish the though that Christ said. But I will assist�?Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law until all is fulfilled." There is a time word there. “Until�?so the Law can change (jots, tittles), even ‘pass away.�?Fast forward in the text, just a bit�? John 19:27-30 �?FONT color=#ff0000>Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" (paid in full) And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.�?Cross ref. Heb 8-9, and WHEN the OT ended, and the NT begins. Again in the NT where were the apostles gathering, teaching, breaking bread, baptizing, commanded to do collections, ect.. on the Sabbath day, I haven’t seen, if you could ref. them to me, please, I just did not see it. Again rom 14:5-6. Hey I can live with that. If you prefer to see me as the weaker brother, that's OK. (1) Just don't judge me for dedicating to God a day of His choosing or for taking Christ's teaching seriously and figuring that God probably has a good reason to exclude the ham sandwich from the diet of His chosen people. The chapter works both ways. But if we stumble into a discussion about a day and what we eat let's not get bent because we share the reasons for our choices. (2) Even if I mention that there is a prophecy yet to be fulfilled that addresses diet in Isaiah 66:17. (1) Agreed, and that street goes both ways (judge not concerning a ‘day�?, about the gathering on the first day either. Even, the ‘mark of the beast�?theory concerning non-Sabbath day keepers. (2) Again you didn’t actually take the context for the passage, blue. Be nice. I can ‘rip one liners�?also to make a theological doctrine that’s “off�?too. “Judas went out and hanged himself,…go and do likewise.�?But that’s a bit more on the obvious side. You failed to mention at least the beginning of the single verse �?/SPAN>Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together," says the Lord.�?SPAN> Being an idolater (non-believer) would happen to have “nothing to do�?about ‘being consumed�?as the text is referring to. But the focus you placed was on the food. I’m sure it was an oversight, but that would have a MAJOR bearing concerning the CONTEXT of the verse. |
|
Reply
| |
It's very interesting but we don't seem to have such overirding temptation to use for our own emergencies what we have dedicated to God when we get paid. God is faithful when one is faithful to Him. The emergencies don't ever seem to become overriding. I simpathize with those that are tempted but then when Sunday comes along and they put in the plate what is left over from the week, I can imagine that the offerings are probably not as abundant as they could be. What are you trying to say? In the NT Paul only writes 2 ½ chapters of “how to give.�?To give without compulsion, cheerfully, accordingly to what you DO have, not what you DON’T have. I don’t know if the SDA preaches the tithe, (Law) but if we were to continue to tithe (as under the Law) Paul should have saved his ink and quill and just said, “Keep tithing.�?But I maybe am going off in a wrong direction of what you were tiring to mean. It is after all, unclear. If Paul made a COMMAND that the gathering were to be collected, (not stored up till the next Saturday meeting) even a legalist can see the “to be collected�?vs. �?U>to be stored till the next Saturday.�?But whatever. It seems then that Paul's command is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, it seems that a collection be prepared prior to his arrival, but then there is that phrase “let every one of you lay by him in store,�?seems it was to be an individual preparation. I don't think we should get dogmatic either way. Hmmm, I thought we were talking about the disciples. Jesus healed many and fed many but there were only 120 disciples at the time of Pentecost. The instructions to the lepper was not general instruction to the disciples, none of whom were leppers. But it was a command, none the less. Correct? Go and offer a sacrifice according to the Law. And the point being if you suggest everything after ‘matt 5:7-onward�?(never-minding what heb 8-9 say concerning WHEN the OT and NT stop, and start) is NT, then matt 8:4 falls into that suggestion. Otherwise the NT started at Christ death, not Matt 1:1 as many traditional translations suggest with the heading page “The New Testament of Jesus Christ, translated out of the original tongues�? �?And then you read Matt 1:1�? Just a “little misleading.�?/FONT> I'm sorry that you feel that way. Irrespective of the change between the old and new testaments He said His words would not pass away, Mt 24:35. One would think, logically, that he meant His doctrines too or mainly. Christ was putting new wine into new wineskins, preaching the gospel, preparing the disciple to receive the Spirit and preach that gospel, which in my book is the solution for the sinful man thing. [rom 8:4]<o:p></o:p> And what was that? John 6:28 “Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works (business, ministry) of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."<o:p></o:p> I can hear peter almost say “Lord maybe you did not understand what I asked.�?And Christ saying “No. I understood you, you understand Me, your job is to believe in Me.�?But we like to “work�?(earn) for varying reasons, but Rom.4:3-5 “For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now to him who works (earns), the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,�?nbsp; Big difference. what we tradationaly do is mix the 'new wine (grace) in 'old skins' (the Law). So it Law + Grace. Contary to rom 4. Interesting that you should assume that the old wineskins meant the law. I always thought it was literal Israel where the church (spiritual Israel) was the new wineskins. You know, the one who has the law written in the heart rather than on stone. It is, I think countrary to God's design for you to be defeatest concerning your own sinfulness or to be comfortable with it. Not at all. I at least know that my sinful nature and the resulting deeds, is/are offensive to a holy God, and know that in of myself there is no hope, for an eternity to be reconciled for my sin debt I owe Him. But, that why Christ stepped in for me, and took my punishment for me, cause I could not pay for it even in an eternal lake of fire. And He rose again for me to give me His resurrected life, so that I can live with Him, certainly not by what I did, but for what He did for me. HE made the offer to me, and I accepted His resurrected Life, cause I realized I was dead. I’m not “comfortable�?with my sinfulness, but I am told that I have an advocate with the Father, who just so happens to be His Son. So the ‘accuser�?bring all the charges against me, and they are all true, BUT my righteousness is not my own, its Christ’s. Oh, it's not about reconciling oneself. Christ did that for all the branches. And righteousness is by faith. Abraham is the example the bible gives of that faith. But you already know what God said about his manner of life subsequent to being declared righteous because of his faith. Righteousness does not exist in a void. John wrote, “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.�? 1Jo 3:7. And it seems I haven't stressed enough what happens when one is actually walking in the spirit, so here it goes yet one more time. Ro 8:4 - That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. My question is, if Paul says this is what happens, why do you think it is impossible? It's good that you have faith in the atonement but it's not expedient that you make it a covering for continued sinfulness. Any honest student of scripture can see that sin and the law (especially the big 10) are indelibly at odds with each other. No, actually they go hand in hand. Rom 7:7-11 “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. <o:p></o:p> Gal 3:19-22 �?U>What is the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were locked up under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.�?/FONT> I was actually going to use the phrase �?FONT color=#ff3366>go hand in hand�? but I thought you might want argue against it because of you penchant for misunderstanding. I agree with you that they go hand in hand. One defines the other. The law defines what sin is, just as Paul mentions in Romans 7 and John affirms in 1 John 3. If one keep one, one is not doing the other and vise versa. Both phrases work here. (1) Right but there is also no command to meet on the first day of the week either. (2) They seems as incidental as the Sabbath meetings. But the only difference is (3) that there is a command for the Sabbath that Christ said would persist till heaven and earth should pass. It's a choice one makes, to obey God or not to obey God. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. correct, no command of WHEN to and not to gather. (rom 14:5-6) You can do 1 or everyday the same, and in either case - ->“more power to ya.�?Typically with the constant references of the apostles meeting, praying, baptizing, breaking bread, taking collections, and doing expository teaching on the first day of the week. One can presumably conclude that they did all that on the “first day of the week,�?as it is recorded. Well I would disagree. One will presumably conclude based on their predisposition. Again, the collections issue is not one neither of us can be dogmatic about. As for the first day meetings, there is only one mentioned in Acts directly, which was a Saturday night meeting, and of course traditionally Pentecost occurred on the first day of the week. Then we have the collections verse in 1 Cor 16: that is inconclusive. It's really a mystery how you could presumably conclude what you have concluded. Quite honestly, the evidence does not support such a presumptuous conclusion. But you can do it everyday if you wanted to, also, and ‘more power to you also�? if you do.(rom 14:5-6) (2) please refer me to when the apostles in the NT continued to gather on the Sabbath day. I see many references to the Sabbath day in acts, but that’s when the unbelievers were gathering, and Paul would go to them (unbelievers) to work (‘convert.�? Being religious, does not make a person ‘saved�?even when the gentiles were going to the synagogues. HEY WAIT A MIN! IF those gatherings were ‘believers,�?then should we (as believers) should be in synagogues also!? What about that? interesting�?*(just a side note.) (3) �?U>Christ said would persist till heaven and earth should pass�? Hey be fair, you did not finish the though that Christ said. But I will assist�?Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law until all is fulfilled." There is a time word there. “Until�?so the Law can change (jots, tittles), even ‘pass away.�?Fast forward in the text, just a bit�? John 19:27-30 “Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" (paid in full) And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.�?Cross ref. Heb 8-9, and WHEN the OT ended, and the NT begins. Again in the NT where were the apostles gathering, teaching, breaking bread, baptizing, commanded to do collections, ect.. on the Sabbath day, I haven’t seen, if you could ref. them to me, please, I just did not see it. Again rom 14:5-6. Well, there are quite a few items you include in this 'paragraph'. Let's see if we can decipher all of them. please refer me to when the apostles in the NT continued to gather on the Sabbath day. I can't. But that doesn't mean they didn't. We do have a record that the NT church continued to observe the Sabbath centuries after the institution of the NT. It is mentioned in message 1. You may have missed it. �?FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, Sans Serif">The continuity in the observance of the Sabbath among Palestinian Christians, known as Nazarenes, is evidenced by the testimony of a fourth century Palestinian historian, Epiphanius. He tells us that the Nazarenes, who were "the very direct descendants of the primitive community" of Jerusalem, insisted and persisted in the observance of seventh-day Sabbath keeping until his own time, that is, about A. D. 350. I vividly remember the joy I felt when I found Epiphanius�?testimony. Eagerly I showed this document to my Jesuit Prof. Vincenzo Monachino, who read it attentively and then exclaimed: "This is the death-blow to the theory that makes Jerusalem the birthplace of Sundaykeeping." Note: this is way into NT times. �?FONT face=Arial>that the Scripture might be fulfilled,�?You really like to use the Judas hanged himself comparison allot but don't seem to mind it when you use it. We've gone over this on several occasion but you still don't seem to get it. The comment Jesus made about all things being fulfilled fulfilled was in the context of heaven and earth passing as part of the things to be fulfilled. Don't you know that all the scriptures must be fulfilled, including Jesus coming back, the resurrection, New Jerusalem? It just seems odd to me that you inconveniently refuse to see these things in the context of the things require to be fulfilled for one jot to pass from the law. Heaven and earth have to pass before that happens. Or so, that is what Jesus said. Hey I can live with that. If you prefer to see me as the weaker brother, that's OK. (1) Just don't judge me for dedicating to God a day of His choosing or for taking Christ's teaching seriously and figuring that God probably has a good reason to exclude the ham sandwich from the diet of His chosen people. The chapter works both ways. But if we stumble into a discussion about a day and what we eat let's not get bent because we share the reasons for our choices. (2) Even if I mention that there is a prophecy yet to be fulfilled that addresses diet in Isaiah 66:17. Agreed, and that street goes both ways (judge not concerning a ‘day�?, about the gathering on the first day either. Even, the ‘mark of the beast�?theory concerning non-Sabbath day keepers. (2) Again you didn’t actually take the context for the passage, blue. Be nice. I can ‘rip one liners�?also to make a theological doctrine that’s “off�?too. “Judas went out and hanged himself,…go and do likewise.�?But that’s a bit more on the obvious side. You failed to mention at least the beginning of the single verse “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together," says the Lord.�?nbsp; Being an idolater (non-believer) would happen to have “nothing to do�?about ‘being consumed�?as the text is referring to. But the focus you placed was on the food. I’m sure it was an oversight, but that would have a MAJOR bearing concerning the CONTEXT of the verse. Obviously, one does not have to be an idolater to have a ham sandwich. Does the verse say that it is wrong to eat swine's flesh only if one is an idolater or are both things wrong individually? Paul does talk about those who's god is their belly. Wouldn't that qualify as a form of idolatry? The new testament does speak against idolatry. But i guess it is you prerogative to do what you want. I'm sure I probably overlooked one of the issues you bring up in you 'paragraph' but I'm also sure we already addressed it earlier.
|
|
|
First
Previous
2-11 of 11
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Bible Discussion