Saturday Sabbath??

[MattyJames]

Hello all,

Was discussing with my father the roots of Anabaptists and we were stumped as to whether you's observed the Saturday Sabbath or Sunday Sabbath.

I browsed through your list of doctrines but I didn't see any definate in this area.

Would appreciate any comments.

Many Thanks,

Matt James

[Behe's Boy]

Hi Matt -

I'm not Anabaptist - but I live in an area that is very populated with Ammish and Mennonite folks - and I can wholeheartedly tell you they observe the Christian Sabbath on Sunday.

[Tenken07]

Actually, Sabbath was originally on Saturday. The bible mentions it to be kept on the seventh day on the week. Sunday is the first day, which makes saturday the last day.

The reason we hold it on sunday, is because it is the Lords Day, the day Christ rose from the dead.

[HypoTypoSis]

I'm not much on custom and tradition though I do prefer to take my cues from Jesus and He made it ever so plain and Paul further affirms that I am to have dominion over the earth, that the sabbath was made for ME, and that that may be any day or every day whichever and whenever as I may so see fit.

[arunma]

The Bible identifies Sunday as the Lord's Day, which isn't precisely the same thing as the Sabbath. However, the early church (possibly even in the Apostles' times) began observing the Sabbath on Sunday. Personally I think that we ought to regard Sunday as the Sabbath.

Of course, putting aside legalisms, the important issue is that we take one day out of the week to rest. I think that Sunday is ideal, but any day will suffice. Some people are busy on Sunday, and maybe another day would be better for them.

[HypoTypoSis]

Jesus superceded and threw all that out the window the day He decided to shuck an ear in the field and chow down.

[RED that's ME]

I know some disagree on what is/isn't the day we should observe at the Sabbath. Mainstream Baptist hold to Sunday as the Sabbath Biblically.

Here's a good explanation on why mainstream Baptists hold to Sunday as the Sabbath.

http://experts.about.com/q/Baptists-954/sabbath-issue.htm (http://experts.about.com/q/Baptists-954/sabbath-issue.htm)

We believe that the change in day for the sabbath to Sunday was Divinely Authorized. When Jesus declared that “the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath,” He wanted them to understand that He had the power to change the day on which the holy rest should be obversed and the way it which it should be observed. Scriptures clearly indicate that the Sabbath was celebrated on different days.
1. Orginally, as seen in Genesis 2:3, the Sabbath was to be observed after the six days of work by God. Here, in the institution of the Sabbath, it is distinclty declared to be a day of Holy rest after 6 days of labor, and it was to be a memorial of creation.
2. The next mention of the Sabbath is in connection with the gving of the manna (Ex 16:14-31). Here the manna is stated to have fallen for 6 days, that is from the 16th to the 21st day of the second month; and that the day following, or the twenty-second, was the frirst 7th day Sabbath celebrated in the Wilderness of Sin. “See for the Lord has given you the sabbath, so He has given you on the 6th day the bread of life for 2 days. So the people rested on the 7th day.” The Sabbath as a holy rest was re-established at this time. There is controversy over what day was actually observed. If the 22 day was a Sabbath day, then the 15th should have been also, but it was not because they marched that day. Dr. W. H. Rogers holds that “the only change of the Sabbath by God's authority is for the Jeews between the giving of the manna and the resurrrection of Christ. The first day of the week, but always the 7th after 6 working days was the day of the holy rest from Adam to Moses. The Sabbatism was separated from idolatry by changing it from Sunday to Saturday among the chosen people ‘throughout their generations,' 1500 years (Ex 31:13-14; Ezek. 20:12). At Christ's resurrrection expired by statue limitation this peculiarity of excpetional change, leaving the divine rule for all mankind, requiring 1st day Sabbath keeping, as had been the case for the 1st 2500 years of human history.”
3. The Christian Sabbath or “Lord's Day” has been tradition since apostolic times. It came early to be known as the “Lord's Day” to distinguish it from the Jewish Sabbath. That this change was divienly authorized is show (1) by the example of Jesus, (2) by the authority of the apostles, (3) by the practices of the early church, and (4) by the testimony of the early apostolic fathers.
1. Jesus placed approval upon the 1st day of the week, by meeting with His disciples on this day. The resurrection took place on the morning of the 1st day of the week. The four accounts of the gosples agree that the Saviour arose early “the first day of the week.” His first meeting with the body of His diciples was on the evening of the resurrection day (John 20:19); and the second on the eveing of the 8th day, which would of course, be the foolowing first day of the next week. There were 3 more “first days” before the ascension, but it is not said whetehr Jesus met with His disciples on any or all of them. However, there were 3 more appearances: to the 500, to James, and to the apostles (1 Cor.15:1-4).
2. The Apolstles authorized the change, doubtless due to the unrecorded instrutions of Jesus during the 40 days (Acts 1:2). Thwenty five years later St. Paul worshiped, shared communion, and preached at Troas on Sunday (1 Cor 16:1-2). This clearly indicates that the apostle sanctioned the 1st day as the Christian Sabbath.
3. The practices of the early churches are further proof of wirship on Sunday. This is shown by the passages just cited, and also by St. John's reference to the Sabbath as the “Lord's day” (Rev 1:10). Since he uses the prhase without any refrecne to the first day, it is eveindece that when the Apocalypse was written, the 1st day was gnerally know as the “Lord's Day” in contradiction to the Jewish 7th day.
4. Since some of the early apostolic fathers were associated with the apostles, their writings from the historical standpoint, furnish conclusive eveicnec as to the current thgouht of that time. For example, Ignatius, plycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theodoret, Eusebius, Origen, the Didache or Teaches of the Twelve all mention the sabbath observence being on the Lord's Day.


Putting all of this aside, I believe that God is more worried about the heart of the worshipper than the day of the worship. At my church, we worship on Sunday , Saturday, and Wednesday. Since God “lives in the praises of His people,” does it really matter what day we observe the Sabbath. If we become to legalistic and think that only Sunday or any day of the week is the only day to observe the Sabbath, then we are no better than the Pharasees who condemned Jesus for working on the Sabbath.


Colossians 2:8-17
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

[MattyJames]

Thanks for clearing up. Although as you may fully be aware, I observe the Saturday Sabbath and therefor totally dissagree on all points made. :-D lol

Unfortunatly, I am bound by the rules, so a debate on the subject, though throughly anticipated, won't be acceptable.

Once again, thanks all for your posts. May God continue to guide you all.

Matt James

[Andyman_1970]

Jesus superceded and threw all that out the window the day He decided to shuck an ear in the field and chow down.

If Jesus had violated Torah He would have been a false Messiah.

They did not violate the Oral Torah ( which is what the Pharisee's were worked up about) by rubbing the grain and eating it, they would have if they had kept some of it rather than eating the grain.

[Andyman_1970]

Saturday is the Sabbath at our house. We don't answer the phone if we don't want to, we don't schedule things for Saturday, we try to not be a "slave" to the things our culture gets all wrapped up in. Our family uses it as a day to enjoy each other and God's creation. We use that day to rest and relax after a long stressful week.

We do however worship on Sunday, it is not however a "Sabbath" for us.

I would also argue that for the fisrt 20 years (until the Jerusalem council) of the early church they observed the Sabbath on Saturday as Christianity was understood to be a sect of Judaism at that time.

[mlqurgw]

No one here actually keeps a Sabbath. It has never been changed to Sunday anywhere in the NT. The Lord's Day is never said to be the Sabbath. Christ is the Sabbath for the believer, see Heb. 4

[ZiSunka]

I try to take Saturday as a sabbath and worship on sundays, but it works better for us to take sabbath and worship on the same day.

I have a friend who is a nurse and her husband is a fireman, and they do sabbath on tuesdays because that is the day they both have off.

[MattyJames]

No one here actually keeps a Sabbath. It has never been changed to Sunday anywhere in the NT. The Lord's Day is never said to be the Sabbath. Christ is the Sabbath for the believer, see Heb. 4

Hello mlqurgw,

As I see it, Hebrews 4 speaks "of the Seventh Day" 4:4. Furthermore I believe that 4:9-10 states clearly that the Sabbath still requires one to cease from physical work, "as God did from His".

Like many scriptures, the interpretation of the Text depends on motive/ understanding of the reader.

I hope I haven't missunderstood your post.

Reguards,

Matt James

[mlqurgw]

Hello mlqurgw,

As I see it, Hebrews 4 speaks "of the Seventh Day" 4:4. Furthermore I believe that 4:9-10 states clearly that the Sabbath still requires one to cease from physical work, "as God did from His".

Like many scriptures, the interpretation of the Text depends on motive/ understanding of the reader.

I hope I haven't missunderstood your post.

Reguards,

Matt JamesWhat is required to keep a Sabbath? The Law requires more than just not working. We read nowhere that any of the Patriarchs kept a Sabbath. It isn't even mentioned again until Mt. Sinai. To keep a Sabbath it must be done on Saturday; you can do no work except works of mercy, nothing that is for yourself; you must have a double sacrifice and you must put to death all Sabbath breakers. I don't have my notes in front of me but I will get back to you with the references.
This is why I said that no one here actually keeps a Sabbath. To keep it you must do all that the Law requires concerning it. If you want a day to rest by all means take it but don't call it keeping a Sabbath.

You may notice that the word translated rest in verse 9 of Heb. 4 is a different word than what is used in the previous verses. I do realize that many do interpret Heb. 4 differently but it makes no sense to me if it isn't teaching that Christ is our Sabbath. He did say in Matt. 11:28,29 that He would give all who come to Him rest.

[HypoTypoSis]

Since the OT command to observe the Sabbath was given to the Jews for the Jews the obvious questions arise:

1) Which is the more proper approach:
To use the Jewish or the Gregorian calendar?

2) Since the Sabbath is a Jewish holiday should not those that observe it also observe all Jewish holidays?

It would seem that if one point of the law is to be kept then all points must be kept. It also seems doubtful God is going to approve any who decide to keep only some of what God says to observe and to refuse to observe other holidays that God said to observe. Telling God we like this this and that but all that other stuff we're gonna toss out sounds like a dangerous business to be involved in. It is reminiscent of the passage where Jesus says,

"I know thy works,
that thou art neither cold nor hot:
I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm,
and neither cold nor hot,
I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Dangerous, indeed!

HypoTypoSis

[arunma]

Since the OT command to observe the Sabbath was given to the Jews for the Jews the obvious questions arise:

1) Which is the more proper approach:
To use the Jewish or the Gregorian calendar?

While the Hebrew calendar cycles according to the lunar cycle, days are still measured by the Sun. As such, I'm not sure the Sabbath would depend on what calendar is used. Modern day Jews and Muslims use lunar calendars, and yet their Sabbaths correspond to specific days on our modern calendars. So either calendar would likely yield the same computation of the Sabbath. Unless of course there's something I don't know about the Hebrew lunar calendar (which may very well be the case).

[HypoTypoSis]

about the Hebrew lunar calendar

It's worth it just to check out its extreme complexity. Of course, different sects have different rules, too. So, actually, any thinking it should be observed should be careful which way to go.

What about the 2nd question?

HypoTypoSis

[53Isaiah]

Romans 14
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

[A Brother In Christ]

Hello all,

Was discussing with my father the roots of Anabaptists and we were stumped as to whether you's observed the Saturday Sabbath or Sunday Sabbath.

I browsed through your list of doctrines but I didn't see any definate in this area.

Would appreciate any comments.

Many Thanks,

Matt James

roman 14:5-6
col 2:16-20
acts 15:24-29
heb 4
matt 12:2-8

1 thes 5:17 worship without ceasing.... every day and every hour!!

[JPPT1974]

Romans 14
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

We need to really give that day
To the Lord as well as do things
Like the Lord does!

[MattyJames]

Thanks all for your replies. I spose I have a rather definate answer...ana-baptists don't observe the Saturday Sabbath.

mlqurgw, I understand your reasoning, although I feel that it lackes biblical sence. The Sabbath was from the begining. Since Noah observed the Food Laws (ie: Clean and unclean) it can only be assume that there were other "Laws/ Statutes" that were known either orally or in written code. Yes the Sabbath isn't mentioned untill Moses time, but it is the first statute given to man.
I don't mean to sound derogatory or condesending in anyway, but your line of thought dissmissed much of scripture, and does not take into account the terms of the New Covenant Heb 8:8/ Jer 31:31..." I will write my laws on their hearts and minds...and I will be their God." Notice the context of Jerimiah, OT, Law = Torah. In other words, the New Covenant is also based on the Torah.

I must also add, I am Penticostle in my roots. All opinions put forward here are very familiar to me. Alas, I held these view myself once. Its not like I'm being choosy.

Once again, thanks all for the responses, cleared things up.

Shalom,

Matt James

[A Brother In Christ]

romans 14:14
titus 1:15

[MattyJames]

romans 14:14
titus 1:15

Grettings ABIC, question. Would you consider Moses to be a pure man?

If so...then would you consider that Moses viewed Pork as unclean?

IMHO your use of both scriptures is out of context. But since I am already pushing the boundries of the rules, I will not go into an exposition on the subject.

Never forget, it was God that esteemed Sabbath, not man. Therefore there is only one person that can "un-esteem" Sabbath. That is God. Since he has not, I choose to "esteem" Sabbath in direct obediance to God.

Matt James

[A Brother In Christ]

Grettings ABIC, question. Would you consider Moses to be a pure man?

If so...then would you consider that Moses viewed Pork as unclean?

IMHO your use of both scriptures is out of context. But since I am already pushing the boundries of the rules, I will not go into an exposition on the subject.

Never forget, it was God that esteemed Sabbath, not man. Therefore there is only one person that can "un-esteem" Sabbath. That is God. Since he has not, I choose to "esteem" Sabbath in direct obediance to God.

Matt James

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law... no reason to follow it any more

Now those verse are for the church, the body, the bride...

To Moses it was unclean because God said... since God says it is clean now .... its clean

[MattyJames]

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law... no reason to follow it any more

Now those verse are for the church, the body, the bride...

To Moses it was unclean because God said... since God says it is clean now .... its clean

If the law defines sin (1 John 3:4), and our job is to turn sinners away from sin. Then the Law is needed for conversion. Also read Matt 5:17-19 - Note...all is not yet fulfilled.

If God is unchanging, then why had he suddenly changed on his stance with clean and unclean meats??

Once again, I find your thinking swayed by modern theories and thinking. Doesn't line up with scripture as I see it.

Matt James

[A Brother In Christ]

If the law defines sin (1 John 3:4), and our job is to turn sinners away from sin. Then the Law is needed for conversion. Also read Matt 5:17-19 - Note...all is not yet fulfilled.

If God is unchanging, then why had he suddenly changed on his stance with clean and unclean meats??

Once again, I find your thinking swayed by modern theories and thinking. Doesn't line up with scripture as I see it.

Matt James

romans 14:14
titus 1:15

gal 2:21

scripture

[Andyman_1970]

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law... no reason to follow it any more



Keep in mind when a Jewish rabbi (which Jesus was) uses the term "fulfill" with reference to Torah it has a specific meaning..........it doesn't mean do a way with, it means to correctly interprete and live out.

[JPPT1974]

Keep in mind when a Jewish rabbi (which Jesus was) uses the term "fulfill" with reference to Torah it has a specific meaning..........it doesn't mean do a way with, it means to correctly interprete and live out.

Thanks for explaing my friend
Now I know better!:thumbsup:

[MattyJames]

romans 14:14
titus 1:15

gal 2:21

scripture

Matt 5:17-20
Romans 2:13
Romans 3:31
Romans 7:12/14 (Note: that which is spiritual cannot be done away with.)
Romans 8:7 (Note: What then? To be spiritually Minded is to be subject to Torah?? I would think so.)
James 1:25
James 2:17
James 2:21,26 (Note: Justification by works.)
1 John 2:3-5 ("His word" - In the begining was the "Word" - ie Torah.)
1 John 3:4
1 John 5:2,3
Rev 12:17 (Note: Commandments of God)
Rev 14:12 (Note: Commandments of God)
Rev 22:15 (Note: Do His Commandments)

Also, the only writer in ALL of scripture that brings any doubt to the validity of the Torah is Paul. One writer. And even then, its still doubt.This should be enough for us to take notice.


Matt James

[RichardT]

Sabbath was for the jews. There is no sabbath now.

[A Brother In Christ]

Matt 5:17-20... IS OLD testament... before the church started

Romans 2:13
romans 3:20 for by the law is the knowledge of sin
Romans 3:31
romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifeth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness

romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promiose made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no trangression

Romans 7:12/14 (Note: that which is spiritual cannot be done away with.)

Law of God goes to John 13:34-35 then 1john 3:16-18,5:3, ect

Romans 8:7 (Note: What then? To be spiritually Minded is to be subject to Torah?? I would think so.)

how to be spiritual ..in Christ truth

col 3:1 Since ye then been risen with Christ seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2 set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Since we are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God...

James 1:25
James 2:17
James 2:21,26 (Note: Justification by works.)
titus 3:5, 2 tim 1:9, eph 2:8-9, romans 4:2-8

1 John 2:3-5 ("His word" - In the begining was the "Word" - ie Torah.)
1 John 3:4
1 John 5:2,3
Rev 12:17 (Note: Commandments of God) dealing with Jews herenot church we are raptured
Rev 14:12 (Note: Commandments of God)
Rev 22:15 (Note: Do His Commandments)

Gal 2:21....

Gal 5:18 Since we are led of the Spirit, ye are not under law.

[RichardT]

Matt 5:17-20... IS OLD testament... before the church started

Romans 2:13
romans 3:20 for by the law is the knowledge of sin
Romans 3:31
romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifeth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness

romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promiose made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no trangression

Romans 7:12/14 (Note: that which is spiritual cannot be done away with.)

Law of God goes to John 13:34-35 then 1john 3:16-18,5:3, ect

Romans 8:7 (Note: What then? To be spiritually Minded is to be subject to Torah?? I would think so.)

how to be spiritual ..in Christ truth

col 3:1 Since ye then been risen with Christ seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2 set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Since we are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God...

James 1:25
James 2:17
James 2:21,26 (Note: Justification by works.)
titus 3:5, 2 tim 1:9, eph 2:8-9, romans 4:2-8

1 John 2:3-5 ("His word" - In the begining was the "Word" - ie Torah.)
1 John 3:4
1 John 5:2,3
Rev 12:17 (Note: Commandments of God) dealing with Jews herenot church we are raptured
Rev 14:12 (Note: Commandments of God)
Rev 22:15 (Note: Do His Commandments)

Gal 2:21....

Gal 5:18 Since we are led of the Spirit, ye are not under law.

uh, what?

[A Brother In Christ]

the bold text is me responding to you

[MattyJames]

Matt 5:17-20... IS OLD testament... before the church started

Romans 2:13
romans 3:20 for by the law is the knowledge of sin
Romans 3:31
romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifeth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness

romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promiose made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no trangression

Romans 7:12/14 (Note: that which is spiritual cannot be done away with.)

Law of God goes to John 13:34-35 then 1john 3:16-18,5:3, ect

Romans 8:7 (Note: What then? To be spiritually Minded is to be subject to Torah?? I would think so.)

how to be spiritual ..in Christ truth

col 3:1 Since ye then been risen with Christ seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2 set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Since we are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God...

James 1:25
James 2:17
James 2:21,26 (Note: Justification by works.)
titus 3:5, 2 tim 1:9, eph 2:8-9, romans 4:2-8

1 John 2:3-5 ("His word" - In the begining was the "Word" - ie Torah.)
1 John 3:4
1 John 5:2,3
Rev 12:17 (Note: Commandments of God) dealing with Jews herenot church we are raptured
Rev 14:12 (Note: Commandments of God)
Rev 22:15 (Note: Do His Commandments)

Gal 2:21....

Gal 5:18 Since we are led of the Spirit, ye are not under law.

Greetings ABITC,

I understand your point, and your views. Like I've posted earlier, I too once held the same beliefs.
However, I still feel that your theology is "smoked screened" by years of "Christian Theology" and twisted scripture, to suit ones own self.

I accept that this debate is probably of no profit, for you are not prepared to understand my position (Not just me, but also thousands of others out there with this same understanding). You are falling into the mainstream interpretation of Pauline scriptures that totally contradicts every other biblical writer.(All the prophets and Apostles) As I have said to others before "Prove the nullifying of the Law without Paulene scriptures". It is impossible. Without Paul, there are no other "absolute" sriptures that "supposedly" support the nullifying of the Law.

I thankyou for your time in posting. However, I am convicted that "...Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Deut 8:3) Notice this verse is out of the Torah (Law). And note Paul states that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." 2 Tim 3:16. (Note Paul is talking only about Old Testiment scripture for the NT was not in place at that time.)

Furthermore, your statment,
"Matt 5:17-20... IS OLD testament... before the church started."
is highly unintelegent. In one clean sweep you have just annulled the whole of Christs teachings and that somehow what He was teaching was only of use for 3 1/2 years. I am astounded that you would even contemplate such thinking.

I do hope that you will look more deeply into the Hebrew/ Israel/ Judeo/ Messianic Faith and its perfect alignment of all scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. Not the Greco/ Roman/ European faith and its replacement theologies, absolutely founded upon the Traditions and Doctrines of men. (Matt 15:9)

I do hope that one day you will reconsider your position. As for me, I am not interested in debating this further.

Reguards.

Matt James

[JPPT1974]

I think that as Christians even though that
We are "living in the world," we aren't suppose
To think like the world! Because Jesus wasn't
Of this world either!

[MattyJames]

I think that as Christians even though that
We are "living in the world," we aren't suppose
To think like the world! Because Jesus wasn't
Of this world either!

I'm not sure how this applies to the subject, but well said none the less. I think you are very right.:thumbsup:

Matt James

[mont974x4]

I find it interesting that of the 10 Commandments all but the Sabbath are again directly commanded in the NT. I also believe that because of the work of Christ we are no longer bound by the Law, that being the ceremonial law. We aren't required to avoid certain foods or build a railing on our roof, for examples. These were fitting for the society at the time but do not practicly fit in our society. The concept behind the statutes may apply but the actual application do not. For example, since we don;t have flat roofs that are extensions of the living space we don't need a railing, however, we should provide a safe environment for our family and visitors in our home.

How does all this affect how we approach the Sabbath? Since it is not directly commanded again in the NT I don't think it is required. If we look to the early church we can see a good example of how things should function. They spent more than just one day together. They worshipped together, fellowshipped together, and served eachother virtually every day. We are too worship/pray at all times. I believe this to mean that we should always have the attitude that we are in God's presence at all times, because we are. That does not mean we stop working and spend our whole time in corporate worship.

Also if we look at Jesus' words regarding the two greatest commendments if we love God and love people the way we should then we basically obey the law.

Mat 22:36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment.
Mat 22:39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.

As to the rest that is promised to us, is it a physical rest? or is it a spiritual rest? Is it now or is it when we get to Heaven? I tend to think it is a spiritual rest and it is when we get to Heaven. With my medical condition I won't see true physical rest until I get my new body from Him. As to spiritual rest, I don't believe that is for this age as non-believers searching for truth and wanting peace of mind people constantly try new things whether it is cults, drugs, sex, booze, or other things all for fulfillment. As a believer we should be constantly looking to Him and growing due to the work of the Holy Spirit while yearning for the day we see Him face to face and crying out in prayerful intercession for others. Simply put, we are always engaged in spiritual warfare, there are no cease fires until that glorious day when we are called home to Him.

[eldermike]

You can't make a pieces/part scriptual argument out of this. This is a doctrinal issue concerning the following:
The purpose of the law.
The purpose of the cross.
Justification
Santification

If it's the law you are keeping for justification purpose then you must keep all of it. Which is the very reason for the law, it's impossible for the use of justification, but instead points us to Christ, who became the law in total by forgiving us through his blood, not our works, or even our obedience. good looks, scriptural understanding, or anything we might come up with.
If the whole law will not justify, then what single part of it can?

And further; if it's not for the purpose of justification then what is the purpose of keeping some of it?

Another question: When were gentiles given the law?

[A Brother In Christ]

Greetings ABITC,

I understand your point, and your views. Like I've posted earlier, I too once held the same beliefs.
However, I still feel that your theology is "smoked screened" by years of "Christian Theology" and twisted scripture, to suit ones own self.

I accept that this debate is probably of no profit, for you are not prepared to understand my position (Not just me, but also thousands of others out there with this same understanding). You are falling into the mainstream interpretation of Pauline scriptures that totally contradicts every other biblical writer.(All the prophets and Apostles) As I have said to others before "Prove the nullifying of the Law without Paulene scriptures". It is impossible. Without Paul, there are no other "absolute" sriptures that "supposedly" support the nullifying of the Law.

I thankyou for your time in posting. However, I am convicted that "...Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Deut 8:3) Notice this verse is out of the Torah (Law). And note Paul states that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." 2 Tim 3:16. (Note Paul is talking only about Old Testiment scripture for the NT was not in place at that time.)

Furthermore, your statment,
"Matt 5:17-20... IS OLD testament... before the church started."
is highly unintelegent. In one clean sweep you have just annulled the whole of Christs teachings and that somehow what He was teaching was only of use for 3 1/2 years. I am astounded that you would even contemplate such thinking.

I do hope that you will look more deeply into the Hebrew/ Israel/ Judeo/ Messianic Faith and its perfect alignment of all scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. Not the Greco/ Roman/ European faith and its replacement theologies, absolutely founded upon the Traditions and Doctrines of men. (Matt 15:9)

I do hope that one day you will reconsider your position. As for me, I am not interested in debating this further.

Reguards.

Matt James

Christ fulfilled the law....

we have a higher calling ....john 13:34-35

[A Brother In Christ]

Also if we look at Jesus' words regarding the two greatest commendments if we love God and love people the way we should then we basically obey the law.

Mat 22:36 Teacher, which is the greatcommandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38This is the great and first commandment.
Mat 22:39And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 22:40On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.

.

John 13:34-35 is the New kind commandment for US

matt 22 is for the Jews under law

[MattyJames]

Shalom Gentlemen,

Thanks for your posts. As I have stated above, I will not be debating this subject any further.

The God you portray is a respector of persons and does not agree with the 65 of the 66 authors of the Bible. As I have also stated above, all doctrine justfiying the annulling of the Law is derived from a misinterpretation of Pauline scriptures. All other writers support the keeping of the Commandments.

I will leave you to your journey of Faith. I pray that God will continue to guide you.

If you wish for me to reply in detail, then please don't hesitate to ask. But as for now, I feel I am wasting my time.

Regards,

Matt James

[mont974x4]

Elderrmike, You are right there is more than one doctrinal issue we are discussing. Should we break it down and discuss them one at a time? There is a bit of overlap with them. However, Romans chapters 6-8 pretty well covers it all. Maybe a thread just going through those three chapters? That would be a great discussion I think.

You are right, we are justified in Christ and no act that we can do will accomplish that.

As to the NT Church, including us, we are free from the law. However, I would submit that we actually live to a higher standard than that of the OT law and the Jews. I only say that because of 1 Cor chapters 8 and 10 when the issue of the meat is concerned. I may be free to do certain things but in order to act in love as is commanded then I actually have to build relationships and really know people. For example, I can have a beer. I don't get drunk and I don't lean on it when I should be looking to God. However, if my having a beer creates an issue for other people then I am wrong.

A Brother in Christ,
are you saying that there are books of the Bible that don't apply to us as Gentiles? I think the only diference between the two Scriptures is one adds that we are to love God with our heart, mind, and soul. I seriously doubt that is a command that doesn't apply to us.

I'm not trying to hammer on you I am just trying to understand what you're saying.

While I agree that each of the Gospels was written to reach a diferent audience, they all say basically the same thing.

[eldermike]

Elderrmike, You are right there is more than one doctrinal issue we are discussing. Should we break it down and discuss them one at a time? There is a bit of overlap with them. However, Romans chapters 6-8 pretty well covers it all. Maybe a thread just going through those three chapters? That would be a great discussion I think.

You are right, we are justified in Christ and no act that we can do will accomplish that.

As to the NT Church, including us, we are free from the law. However, I would submit that we actually live to a higher standard than that of the OT law and the Jews. I only say that because of 1 Cor chapters 8 and 10 when the issue of the meat is concerned. I may be free to do certain things but in order to act in love as is commanded then I actually have to build relationships and really know people. For example, I can have a beer. I don't get drunk and I don't lean on it when I should be looking to God. However, if my having a beer creates an issue for other people then I am wrong.

A Brother in Christ,
are you saying that there are books of the Bible that don't apply to us as Gentiles? I think the only diference between the two Scriptures is one adds that we are to love God with our heart, mind, and soul. I seriously doubt that is a command that doesn't apply to us.

I'm not trying to hammer on you I am just trying to understand what you're saying.

While I agree that each of the Gospels was written to reach a diferent audience, they all say basically the same thing.

The bible is about Jesus from the first page to the last.
Paul asked this: "so what then, should we sin all we want"? (paraphrased)

The answer is no but the purpose of the question is still important.

We can't do what Christ did, and we can't undo what Christ did.

The greatest commandment covers the whole law. Love God with all your heart soul and mind and others above yourself.
Again an impossible law to our flesh..........

But, we have the Holy Spirit and with God we can acomplish what we can't do apart from God.

There is no justification in the law, no lists of do's and don'ts. There is only your obediance to seeking Jesus and dieing to self in the process.

The only work is to believe, the only way to believe truth is written in John 14 verse 6.

I do not see a good reason to start a thread in this forum on any other means of justifcation but if you do I'll post in it:wave:

[mont974x4]

Mike,
I completely agree. I can do no good except that which comes from Christ in me and me in Christ. He is the one and only and He is our justification/salvation. That's definately a good thing because I am very good at just making a mess of things. lol

[Andyman_1970]

First, I'd like to clarify that I don't think any of us to attempt to practice a Sabbath are claiming it earns us salvation or get's us brownie points with God. Nor have any of us indicated that it is a "must do" for a follower of Jesus.

I however believe that taking one day a week to disconnect from the things we are slaves to (time for instance) and rest and relax is how God created us to live, it's the rhythm of life He wants us to live.

Secondly, with regards to justification/salvation, please note, no where in 1st century Judaism or the Torah for that matter, is it understood one did things to earn one's salvation, salvation always has been grace through faith.

Thirdly, the idea that without Christ a person can do no good is not supported by Scripture or the culture that gave us the Scriptures. Romans 2:14-15 Paul indicates that people who don't even know God (because they are His creation and thus are "hard wired" by Him) sometimes do what God requires........sometimes they do good things. If a person can't do anything "good" outside of Christ then that person doesn't have free will........a concept contrary to the tradition Jesus came from. Obviously this is not related to salvation (my comments on lost people doing good things), but I thought I would comment on that.

[eldermike]

First, I'd like to clarify that I don't think any of us to attempt to practice a Sabbath are claiming it earns us salvation or get's us brownie points with God. Nor have any of us indicated that it is a "must do" for a follower of Jesus.

I however believe that taking one day a week to disconnect from the things we are slaves to (time for instance) and rest and relax is how God created us to live, it's the rhythm of life He wants us to live.

Secondly, with regards to justification/salvation, please note, no where in 1st century Judaism or the Torah for that matter, is it understood one did things to earn one's salvation, salvation always has been grace through faith.

Thirdly, the idea that without Christ a person can do no good is not supported by Scripture or the culture that gave us the Scriptures. Romans 2:14-15 Paul indicates that people who don't even know God (because they are His creation and thus are "hard wired" by Him) sometimes do what God requires........sometimes they do good things. If a person can't do anything "good" outside of Christ then that person doesn't have free will........a concept contrary to the tradition Jesus came from. Obviously this is not related to salvation (my comments on lost people doing good things), but I thought I would comment on that.

If man makes a moral choice he is immoral in the process. God is not making such choices because God is good. Man makes choices because he is not good. (Romans 3:23)
If God is necessary for morality, then man is immoral.
If God is soverign, then man is not making choices that have kingdom/eternal consequences.(rom 3:23 again)

Free will? Man used free will to seperate man and God, it's since never been used for any other purpose. IMHO.

[Andyman_1970]

Romans 3:23 says all have sinned (which they all have) it doesn't say that humans who don't know Jesus can't do good things, it doesn't say sin is an inherited evil vs. a choice we make to disobey God or obey God.

Obviously we disagree on how free will is/has been used.

I've noticed over the last few weeks how many issues trace back to how one understands orginal sin and how that understanding colors how one understands the Text.

[eldermike]

Romans 3:23 says all have sinned (which they all have) it doesn't say that humans who don't know Jesus can't do good things, it doesn't say sin is an inherited evil vs. a choice we make to disobey God or obey God.

Obviously we disagree on how free will is/has been used.

I've noticed over the last few weeks how many issues trace back to how one understands orginal sin and how that understanding colors how one understands the Text.

If it's not an inherited evil, and the bible is talking about men who have yet to be born, what is causing men in the future to sin, all of them?

[Andyman_1970]

If it's not an inherited evil, and the bible is talking about men who have yet to be born, what is causing men in the future to sin, all of them?

All humans choose to sin..........Paul says for all "have" sinned, He doesn't say for all will sin including people yet to be born.......although they will all choose to sin.

[eldermike]

All humans choose to sin..........Paul says for all "have" sinned, He doesn't say for all will sin including people yet to be born.......although they will all choose to sin.

Why?

[Andyman_1970]

They have chosen to follow their evil inclination (yetzer hara tendency to do evil) vs. their good inclination (yetzer ha-tov tendency to do good).

The idea that one is born guilty of sin is contrary to the Scriptures:

Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.

[eldermike]

They have chosen to follow their evil inclination (yetzer hara tendency to do evil) vs. their good inclination (yetzer ha-tov tendency to do good).

The idea that one is born guilty of sin is contrary to the Scriptures:

Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.

That's correct in describing the action but insufficent to understand the reason.

If the wages of sin is death and all have sinned, and all to come will sin, then all have, and all will die.
Why?

[mont974x4]

I think that reference in Ezekiel is an exception because of God's grace at that time. Remember there are other references that say the sin of the father will be passed on.

We are told in Romans that sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and only one man, Jesus, can restore us to God.

Since we agree that ALL have sinned I think it is safe to say that we ALL have sinned...even those yet to be born. It is inherited because of sin entering the world through Adam. Jesus is our only hope. There is however God's grace in this for those who die at such a young age that they fall under the age of accountability (which I believe is personal and is up to God as opposed to a set age) will not be damned to hell.

My comment about not being able to do good without Christ is based on the sin nature of man without Him. I may have done things that were considered good (noble gracious merciful etc) but they were discolored by that sin nature. For example, no matter how small it may have been I may have been motivated by pride. I would basically consider them to be works without faith. Remember, there will be plenty of "good" people in Hell.


I think one of the great discussions is on the issue of God's soveriegnty vs man's free will. This usually comes about when discussing predestination but certainly at other times as well. I'm not sure if my finite mind can fully understand how these pieces fit together but both these things are true:
1. God is absolutely soveriegn
2. Man has free will

[eldermike]

I think that reference in Ezekiel is an exception because of God's grace at that time. Remember there are other references that say the sin of the father will be passed on.

We are told in Romans that sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and only one man, Jesus, can restore us to God.

Since we agree that ALL have sinned I think it is safe to say that we ALL have sinned...even those yet to be born. It is inherited because of sin entering the world through Adam. Jesus is our only hope. There is however God's grace in this for those who die at such a young age that they fall under the age of accountability (which I believe is personal and is up to God as opposed to a set age) will not be damned to hell.

My comment about not being able to do good without Christ is based on the sin nature of man without Him. I may have done things that were considered good (noble gracious merciful etc) but they were discolored by that sin nature. For example, no matter how small it may have been I may have been motivated by pride. I would basically consider them to be works without faith. Remember, there will be plenty of "good" people in Hell.


I think one of the great discussions is on the issue of God's soveriegnty vs man's free will. This usually comes about when discussing predestination but certainly at other times as well. I'm not sure if my finite mind can fully understand how these pieces fit together but both these things are true:
1. God is absolutely soveriegn
2. Man has free will

As long as:
1) God's soveriegn nature includes all of mans free choices.
2) Man's free will is caused.

[mont974x4]

I'm not sure I understand.

[Andyman_1970]

I think that reference in Ezekiel is an exception because of God's grace at that time. Remember there are other references that say the sin of the father will be passed on.

Scripture references please.

We are told in Romans that sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and only one man, Jesus, can restore us to God.

The idea of sin entering the world is not the same as every human afterwards being born guilty of sin.

[A Brother In Christ]

As long as:
1) God's soveriegn nature includes all of mans free choices.
2) Man's free will is caused.proverbs 16:9

[eldermike]

I'm not sure I understand.

Well, if God is sovereign can mans choices, or the outcome of mans choices be unknown to God?

If the answer is no, then:

If our choices are known to God when did He know them?

If before we make them, they are caused.
If after we make them, He's not sovereign.

[Andyman_1970]

That's correct in describing the action but insufficent to understand the reason.

If the wages of sin is death and all have sinned, and all to come will sin, then all have, and all will die.
Why?

Where does Romans 3:23 say all to come will sin? (if we are still referencing that passage) While I would argue that is a true assumption on your part it is an assuption without Scriptural backing.

To clarify where I'm coming from, all are personally responsible for their sins and no one elses.

We are way off topic now, so I don't want to incure the "wrath" of the topic police.........LOL;)

[eldermike]

proverbs 16:9

A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Man heart - enemy of God
man's steps - God is sovereign even over His enemy

[eldermike]

Where does Romans 3:23 say all to come will sin? (if we are still referencing that passage) While I would argue that is a true assumption on your part it is an assuption without Scriptural backing.

To clarify where I'm coming from, all are personally responsible for their sins and no one elses.

We are way off topic now, so I don't want to incure the "wrath" of the topic police.........LOL;)

Before the topic police get here:wave:

If a man reads Rom. 3:23 100 years from now will it still be true?

[Andyman_1970]

This is where Hebrew thinking vs. Greek thinking comes in to play.

Greek thinking is very "either or", and is the kind of thinking we were all educated with, and has been the predominate mode of thinking in the church and most theologians from about the 4th century on.

Hebrew thinking (or Eastern thinking as it's sometimes referred to) is much different than Greek thinking, and was the mode of thinking of those who brought us the Scriptures. In this mode they are very comfortable holding two contradictory truths (for example in this discussion man's free will vs. God's sovereignty) to be equally true at the same time........instead of an "either or" proposition it's more like a "both and" proposition.

Anyway, this should shed some light on where I'm coming from in this discussion.

[eldermike]

This is where Hebrew thinking vs. Greek thinking comes in to play.

Greek thinking is very "either or", and is the kind of thinking we were all educated with, and has been the predominate mode of thinking in the church and most theologians from about the 4th century on.

Hebrew thinking (or Eastern thinking as it's sometimes referred to) is much different than Greek thinking, and was the mode of thinking of those who brought us the Scriptures. In this mode they are very comfortable holding two contradictory truths (for example in this discussion man's free will vs. God's sovereignty) to be equally true at the same time........instead of an "either or" proposition it's more like a "both and" proposition.

Anyway, this should shed some light on where I'm coming from in this discussion.

It does, and I have been taught both ways.

[mont974x4]

2 Sam 12:10 is an example of the punishment of the father being passed on.

The reference in Proverbs was definately a good one for the discussion of mans free will vs Gods soveriegnty.

Mike, good point. The idea that all of have sinned was true yesterday, is true today, and will be true in the future.

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not.
Rom 7:19 For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise.
Rom 7:20 But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.





It is of great importance that we realize we are doomed to death because of sin from birth. It is only God's grace that saves us through Christ.

[mont974x4]

Could we also say that OT prophesy supports the idea that current sins affect future generations, as past sins affect present and future generations. While I certainly support the idea that the chain may be broken, so to speak, it is only due to God's grace and the personal relationship of individuals with God.

For example, we often see abuse and alcoholism go on in a family for generations, until one of the descendants becomes saved and the Holy Spirit breaks that cycle.

I hope that makes sense. lol I am running back and forth between posting here and rewiring our house and hanging drywall.

[Andyman_1970]

[/SIZE]It is of great importance that we realize we are doomed to death because of sin from birth.

How can a new born baby be guilty of sin? Are you asserting that I am responsible for someone's sin other than my own?

[Andyman_1970]

2 Sam 12:10 is an example of the punishment of the father being passed on.

I would say that's a bit of a thin basis to assert that children are born guilty of their parents sin.

How do you reconcile the contradiction we have between this passge in 2 Samuel and Ezekiel 18? (I believe there are also a few passages in the Torah that indicate the children are not responsible for the parents sin, I'll have to find those).

[mont974x4]

No I am not saying we are not responsible for our own sin. I am simply saying that being born into this sinful world I share in the condemnation of sin unless I turn to Christ as my Lord and Savior.


I don't see any contradictions. I see examples of God either showing His grace at that time or God showing His justice.

[Andyman_1970]

Deut. 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

2 Kings 14:6 "But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

Ezek.33:20 "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways."

Jer. 31:29-30 "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."

[Andyman_1970]

I am simply saying that being born into this sinful world I share in the condemnation of sin unless I turn to Christ as my Lord and Savior.


How can a new born baby be guilty of sin, as you imply, other than they are being held responsible for the sins of their parents or ancestors? Sin is disobedince to God's Law, how can a new born baby be disobedient to God's Law (Torah)?

[eldermike]

Deut. 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

2 Kings 14:6 "But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

Ezek.33:20 "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways."

Jer. 31:29-30 "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."

Sin is not generation to generation (a cycle that can be broken) it's just sin in everyone (not a cycle but a condition). That's all this says.

[mont974x4]

I believe a newborn has not reached an age of accountability and would fall under grace.

The sin itself is not passed on but rather the nature of sin and certainly the consequences unless God's grace is upon them.

[eldermike]

I believe a newborn has not reached an age of accountability and would fall under grace.

The sin itself is not passed on but rather the nature of sin and certainly the consequences unless God's grace is upon them.

That is a good baptist belief as well. Do babies go to heaven is a whole nuther subject. My opinion is yes. But the reason is not accountability related it's only the cross, only God, otherwise we begin to take credit for our good choices in life.

[mont974x4]

uh oh I didn't want to be a good Baptist. lol Actually I attend a small SBC but I'm not sold on the need to be a "member" (although I am a "member") and I generally find denominational titles to be divisive. Sorry, that probably all belongs in another thread, doesn't it?

[eldermike]

uh oh I didn't want to be a good Baptist. lol Actually I attend a small SBC but I'm not sold on the need to be a "member" (although I am a "member") and I generally find denominational titles to be divisive. Sorry, that probably all belongs in another thread, doesn't it?

That's actually a good SBC attitude, I share it:wave:

[mesue]

Hello all,

Was discussing with my father the roots of Anabaptists and we were stumped as to whether you's observed the Saturday Sabbath or Sunday Sabbath.

I browsed through your list of doctrines but I didn't see any definate in this area.

Would appreciate any comments.

Many Thanks,

Matt James
Moved to Anabaptist Forum as OP is addressing Anabaptists. :)

[AmishBoy]

Sin is not generation to generation (a cycle that can be broken) it's just sin in everyone (not a cycle but a condition). That's all this says.

I feel like sin is a cycling condition, im prob going off on a tangent here lol but it is a nature born into us. Parents look at their 3-4 year old and he/she is lying to them and they are wondering who taught them that?? Sin is not cycled but its nature is born into each of us.

[ZiSunka]

I feel like sin is a cycling condition, im prob going off on a tangent here lol but it is a nature born into us. Parents look at their 3-4 year old and he/she is lying to them and they are wondering who taught them that?? Sin is not cycled but its nature is born into each of us.

Sin is indeed born into us.

My deaf nephew started telling lies when he was 3. He couldn't hear, so it isn't like he learned to lie from listening to his mom or dad. Yet when he did something bad, he lied to his mother about who did it (he blamed his dog for all the holes in his Ronald McDonald inflatable doll, but his mother saw him poke the thing with a push pin like a hundred times).

Sin isn't something we have to learn, we are born with it.

[Danfrey]

If we are born with sin, we better be sure to baptise our infants. Original sin was a concept that didn't come along until Augustine used it to defend infant baptism. We are born in the flesh which lends itself to falling into sin, but a baby is born pure. That is why most believe that a baby that dies will be in paradise.

[Andyman_1970]

If we are born with sin, we better be sure to baptise our infants. Original sin was a concept that didn't come along until Augustine used it to defend infant baptism. We are born in the flesh which lends itself to falling into sin, but a baby is born pure. That is why most believe that a baby that dies will be in paradise.

Yeah what he said............:thumbsup:

[Andyman_1970]

Since we're on the "sin" tangent...............

An excerpt from the article, Theological Errors due to Seperation from Hebrew Roots

By: Dan Rodriguez

III. A world of difference exists between Judaism and traditional Christian theology when we come to the subject of sin. Judaism teaches that man is born good. He is not born a sinner. He becomes responsible for his sins at the age of 13 (12 for girls) when he becomes a "man of duty" (Bar-Mitzvah). Until this age, a child's sins are the responsibility of the parents. From the age of 13, he is considered a responsible adult who can choose not to sin. It is taught that man is born good, but has two opposing inclinations in him: One leads to the good, and the other to the bad. Paul dealt with the concept of the good and bad inclinations in Romans 7:17-21. Even the bad inclination is not evil in and of itself. If properly directed and controlled, it serves a useful purpose.

In contrast to this biblical concept, Christianity offers the doctrine original sin, beginning with Augustine (355-430), bishop of Hippo in Africa. He was the architect of an ideology that taught that the act of sex was the vehicle of original sin. (See D.J. Bailey, "Sexual Relations in Christian Thought," pg. 53-56; D. Feldman, Marital Relation, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law, pg. 83-84) Augustine taught that the consequence of this sin is transmitted through the sexual act from one generation to the next. Because of this, a child, he said, was literally conceived in the "sin" of its parents. The connection between this idea and the doctrine of Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth should be obvious.

Sin should be understood as defiance and rebellion to divine law. It is not a hereditary evil. It should be clear that if there did exist such a thing as "original sin," transferred from one generation to the next, this would undermine man's divine right to a free will. Man would no- longer be a free moral agent. Man, contrary to this, has to choose the good and reject the evil; overcome the evil with good. (For an analysis of this see S. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, New York: Schocken Books, 1961, pp. 242-263.)

[eldermike]

Since we're on the "sin" tangent...............

An excerpt from the article, Theological Errors due to Seperation from Hebrew Roots

By: Dan Rodriguez

A man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus... by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified... if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. (Gal. 2:16,21)

[Andyman_1970]

A man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus... by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified... if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. (Gal. 2:16,21)

I've never advocated that the "Law" does save, or score one points............Hebrew roots and being observant to Torah are not the same thing.

As I stated about 2 or 3 pages ago, no where does Torah or the OT declare one can earn their right standing before God by observing Torah.........observing Torah was the outward manifestation of one's faith in God...........kind of like our Baptism is today, an outward sign of an inward change.

[ZiSunka]

I've never advocated that the "Law" does save, or score one points............Hebrew roots and being observant to Torah are not the same thing.

As I stated about 2 or 3 pages ago, no where does Torah or the OT declare one can earn their right standing before God by observing Torah.........observing Torah was the outward manifestation of one's faith in God...........kind of like our Baptism is today, an outward sign of an inward change.

So if observing the law was an outward sign of faith in the OT days and baptism is one sign today, why still keep the law? If we keep any part of the law, aren't we judged by the whole law?

Didn't God institute the law so people would know what sin is?

[mont974x4]

Going back to the end of page 8....except that baptism doesn't save anyone. As was mentioned in an above post, it is an outward sign of the inward change. Baptism before salvation is little more than a public dunking.

[ZiSunka]

page 8?

[eldermike]

So if observing the law was an outward sign of faith in the OT days and baptism is one sign today, why still keep the law? If we keep any part of the law, aren't we judged by the whole law?

Didn't God institute the law so people would know what sin is?

I would only add: and to point us to Christ.

[ZiSunka]

I would only add: and to point us to Christ.

Very good point. Sorry I left that out.

If we didn't feel the weight of sin that we get from reading the law, we wouldn't understand our need for help getting out from under the weight of those laws and that sin. :)

[mont974x4]

Sorry, I meant page 8 of this thread.

As to the Law, I agree, as Paul says in Romans, without the Law he wouldn't know he was guilty of covetousness without the law and he wouldn't know that he needed Christ. (please forgive the paraphrasing)

[ZiSunka]

There are only 5 pages in this thread. :?:

[eldermike]

Very good point. Sorry I left that out.

If we didn't feel the weight of sin that we get from reading the law, we wouldn't understand our need for help getting out from under the weight of those laws and that sin. :)

Yep.

Jesus dropped the word bomb of all time right on the law, in the sermon on the mount with just a few simple words. "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is Perfect"

Game over.

[Andyman_1970]

So if observing the law was an outward sign of faith in the OT days and baptism is one sign today, why still keep the law? If we keep any part of the law, aren't we judged by the whole law?

Didn't God institute the law so people would know what sin is?

I don't believe I've ever advocated for anyone to follow Torah or that they had to follow Torah.

Why is it when people see "Law" in my posts they don't read the rest of it???

[eldermike]

I don't believe I've ever advocated for anyone to follow Torah or that they had to follow Torah.

Why is it when people see "Law" in my posts they don't read the rest of it???

I am not misunderstanding you:wave: but there are others that read these threads and any of us are eaisly misunderstood.

[Andyman_1970]

I am not misunderstanding you:wave: but there are others that read these threads and any of us are eaisly misunderstood.

I agree............it's easy to read something into something when posting vs. a face to face conversation.

Shalom Mike...........:wave:

[mont974x4]

Maybe it's a setting issue as it affects the number of posts shown per page based on the how the user configured his or her control panel. lol I have 10 pages for this thread. Maybe I should indicate post numbers instead? I apologize for any confusion.

[ZiSunka]

I don't believe I've ever advocated for anyone to follow Torah or that they had to follow Torah.

Why is it when people see "Law" in my posts they don't read the rest of it???

I'm still trying to figure out where the Bible says that a child's sins are on the parents until age 13?

Where does the Bible even mention the parent's receiving the weight of the child's sin and where is the age 13 mentioned?

[Andyman_1970]

I'm still trying to figure out where the Bible says that a child's sins are on the parents until age 13?

Where does the Bible even mention the parent's receiving the weight of the child's sin and where is the age 13 mentioned?

That was certainly the understanding in the tradition Jesus came from.

This brings up one of the "problems" IMO with Sola Scriptura, or the idea that the NT can be accurately understood with only the OT........many of the ideas and teachings of the Oral Torah were in place in the setting Jesus came out of, He even references them and uses them to "get around" some of the tricky religious leaders in the Gospels (indicating He was familiar with the Oral Tradition).

While I would never advocate that the Oral Torah is binding on a Gentile follower of Jesus it sure sheds alot of light on the culture and background of the Gospels. (the bold and underline are for clarification lest someone misunderstand me and think I was indicating the Oral Torah is binding for us today...;) )

So where have I advocated where one must be Torah observant??

[mont974x4]

I don't know who mentioned 13 as an age? I know traditionally that is the Jewish age but I don't remember a specific age being set in Scripture as the age of accountability.

2Ch 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah.



This would indicate that we can be judged as either doing evil or righteousness earlier than most people say or think. As I said in an earlier post, I don't see any set age of accountability in the Bible and that leads me to believe that it is a personal thing between the individual and God. He knows the hearts of each of us. This would also allow for His grace when dealing with those with mental handicaps that may not fully understand the gospel until much later.

If we look at other kings in the OT, specifically in 1,2 Kings and 1,2 Chronicles we often see them described as either doing acts of evil or of righteousness along with a comparison to their fathers. While this does not say specific sins are passed down through generations it does indicate the general heart attitude and the importance of raising children in a godly way.

Wayne Grudem, in his book Christian Beliefs, defines sin this way:
any failure to conform to God's moral law in act, attitude, or nature.

Eph 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
Eph 2:2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience;
Eph 2:3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: -
Eph 2:4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not of works, that no man should glory.
Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Rom 5:11 And not only so , but we are also boasting in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom now we did receive the reconciliation;
Rom 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;
Rom 5:13 for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law;
Rom 5:14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.
Rom 5:15 But, not as the offence so also is the free gift; for if by the offence of the one the many did die, much more did the grace of God, and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ, abound to the many;
Rom 5:16 and not as through one who did sin is the free gift, for the judgment indeed is of one to condemnation, but the gift is of many offences to a declaration of `Righteous,'
Rom 5:17 for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one--Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:18 So, then, as through one offence to all men it is to condemnation, so also through one declaration of `Righteous' it is to all men to justification of life;
Rom 5:19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.
Rom 5:20 And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,
Rom 5:21 that even as the sin did reign in the death, so also the grace may reign, through righteousness, to life age-during, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[ZiSunka]

That was certainly the understanding in the tradition Jesus came from.

This brings up one of the "problems" IMO with Sola Scriptura, or the idea that the NT can be accurately understood with only the OT........many of the ideas and teachings of the Oral Torah were in place in the setting Jesus came out of, He even references them and uses them to "get around" some of the tricky religious leaders in the Gospels (indicating He was familiar with the Oral Tradition).

While I would never advocate that the Oral Torah is binding on a Gentile follower of Jesus it sure sheds alot of light on the culture and background of the Gospels. (the bold and underline are for clarification lest someone misunderstand me and think I was indicating the Oral Torah is binding for us today...;) )

So where have I advocated where one must be Torah observant??

It's interesting that you believe that Jesus came from a tradition of bar mitzvah, since this is something that can't be directly traced back any earlier than the 12th century. Prior to that, children were permitted to perform many of the functions of the mitzvah without having any kind of "coming of age" ceremony. The ritual of the bar mitzvah as we know it today developed in the 19th century and was (and still is) a source of much controversy between the more conservative sects and the more liberal sects. The conservative sects wanted to maintain the system of calling a boy up for his first reading of the Torah without having any kind of ceremony, but the more liberal sects felt having a coming of age ceremony was something to celebrate. Almost immediately bar mitzvahs became party events among American Jews.

It developed its "confirmation" aspect in abouit 1846, when Rabbi Mayer Wise wrote a confirmation ceremony to be done in conjunction with the bar mitzvah to echo the Catholic system of spiritual confirmation of children who reach the "age of responsibility."

Originally this ceremony took place at the bar mitzvah, but some sects now perform the confirmation at 16 or 17 years old. Some even delay it to the 21st birthday, signifying the end of childhood and the beginning of eligibility for marriage and the responsibilities of a family. It is done at this age because of God's exempting young men 20 years or younger from being forbidden to enter the promised land; most Judaic scholars agree this age was set because before that point, a young man is not considered to have full faculty to make wise decisions.

There is no evidence that any such ceremony would have been observed during the days of Christ.

So you aren't advocating that a gentile follower of Christ observe the Torah? Are you aware there is no longer Jew or Gentile in the eyes of the Lord?

[Andyman_1970]

It's interesting that you believe that Jesus came from a tradition of bar mitzvah, since this is something that can't be directly traced back any earlier than the 12th century. Prior to that, children were permitted to perform many of the functions of the mitzvah without having any kind of "coming of age" ceremony. The ritual of the bar mitzvah as we know it today developed in the 19th century and was (and still is) a source of much controversy between the more conservative sects and the more liberal sects. The conservative sects wanted to maintain the system of calling a boy up for his first reading of the Torah without having any kind of ceremony, but the more liberal sects felt having a coming of age ceremony was something to celebrate. Almost immediately bar mitzvahs became party events among American Jews.

It developed its "confirmation" aspect in abouit 1846, when Rabbi Mayer Wise wrote a confirmation ceremony to be done in conjunction with the bar mitzvah to echo the Catholic system of spiritual confirmation of children who reach the "age of responsibility."

Originally this ceremony took place at the bar mitzvah, but some sects now perform the confirmation at 16 or 17 years old. Some even delay it to the 21st birthday, signifying the end of childhood and the beginning of eligibility for marriage and the responsibilities of a family. It is done at this age because of God's exempting young men 20 years or younger from being forbidden to enter the promised land; most Judaic scholars agree this age was set because before that point, a young man is not considered to have full faculty to make wise decisions.

There is no evidence that any such ceremony would have been observed during the days of Christ.

Actually in Luke 2, there is a reference to Jesus and the concept of being a full member of the community. Jewish boys from the Galilee area (more orthodox than the Judean area) were only allowed go to Jerusalem for Passover if they had completed the bet sefer portion of their education (memorization of the Torah for one). They were permitted to go to Jerusalem and present the Passover lamb at the Temple on behalf of their family as was the custom of the day. This was an informal bar mitzvah if you will and indicated to the community that this boy was ready to move on to the bet Talmud portion of their education.

This is way off the OP, so if you'd like to continue this please PM me. I don't want to bring down the wrath of the topic police here.

So you aren't advocating that a gentile follower of Christ observe the Torah? Are you aware there is no longer Jew or Gentile in the eyes of the Lord?

I’m not aware of any passage in the NT where Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah are commanded to stop being Jewish.

[ZiSunka]

Actually in Luke 2, there is a reference to Jesus and the concept of being a full member of the community. Jewish boys from the Galilee area (more orthodox than the Judean area) were only allowed go to Jerusalem for Passover if they had completed the bet sefer portion of their education (memorization of the Torah for one). They were permitted to go to Jerusalem and present the Passover lamb at the Temple on behalf of their family as was the custom of the day. This was an informal bar mitzvah if you will and indicated to the community that this boy was ready to move on to the bet Talmud portion of their education.

Luke 2 doesn't say anything about Jesus presenting a lamb for his family, or that he was now authorized to read the Torah in the Temple. This is a case of an explanation being invented to support a later ceremonial development.


Luke 2:41 Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43 After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.



Not a word about a coming of age ceremony, a lamb being presented, a custom of having a son present the lamb for the family as part of a bar mitzvah, nothing like that. It's especially weird since even Jewish historians agree that bar mitzvahs came about in the 12th century, 1,200 years after the events of Luke 2.

[Andyman_1970]

I didn't mention a ceremony, I mention that was the custom to present the lamb on behalf of your family, which denoted one had memorized Torah, which Luke does cite "according to the customs".

We'll have to disagree on this.

[Andyman_1970]

The Gospels also don't say that He attended school at the local synagouge, but I whole heartedly believe that He did. Again, this highlights the inadequacy I see with Sola Scriptura.

The Gospels don't record His attendance for each of the appointed feast for every year of His life, but I believe that He did, otherwise He would have been a false Messiah.

Just because the Gospel doesn't record it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[ZiSunka]

The Gospels also don't say that He attended school at the local synagouge, but I whole heartedly believe that He did. Again, this highlights the inadequacy I see with Sola Scriptura.

The Gospels don't record His attendance for each of the appointed feast for every year of His life, but I believe that He did, otherwise He would have been a false Messiah.

Just because the Gospel doesn't record it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Plus he was 12 years old at these events, but a bar mitzvah is at 13 years old.

I have no doubt he was in attendance for every appointed feast, but you can't read into them that he was bar mitzvahed when bar mitzvahs didn't start to happen until 1200 years after he came of age.

[Andyman_1970]

I didn't say He was bar mitzvah'd I indicated He, according to the customs, presented the Passover lamb at the Temple on behalf of His family when He was 12.

[ZiSunka]

I didn't say He was bar mitzvah'd I indicated He, according to the customs, presented the Passover lamb at the Temple on behalf of His family when He was 12.

Actually in Luke 2, there is a reference to Jesus and the concept of being a full member of the community. Jewish boys from the Galilee area (more orthodox than the Judean area) were only allowed go to Jerusalem for Passover if they had completed the bet sefer portion of their education (memorization of the Torah for one). They were permitted to go to Jerusalem and present the Passover lamb at the Temple on behalf of their family as was the custom of the day. This was an informal bar mitzvah if you will and indicated to the community that this boy was ready to move on to the bet Talmud portion of their education.

And you really have to stretch to make it out that Jesus presented the lamb at the Temple. The reference "according to the custom" refers to the custom of going to Jerusalem for the passover, not to Jesus presenting the lamb. There is absolutely no indication of what you are saying. You are putting stuff in there to suit your customs.

Nevertheless, I will not continue to disabuse you of your ascertion that Christ was bar mitzvahed. If it's that important to you, I'll just let it go. :)