How do you keep the Sabbath? [Archive]

BustedFlat

11th March 2007, 11:37 AM

Going to church is what society chooses to do on the sabbath. It is NOT a requirement of God. You can worship God any day of the week...

The sabbath is Saturday not Sunday. No one was ever called by man to keep Sunday holy, nor was the sabbath changed. We have church services on Sunday morning, as that was when the grave was found empty.

Mat 28:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=28&verse=1&version=kjv#1)In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Note Jesus probably rose on the sabbath as the women arrived at dawn to an empty grave.

Note : The week he died there were 2 sabbaths, the Thursday (Passover) after his crucification, and the Saturday before Holy Sunday.

Must Christians keep the sabbath? No. Should they? Yes

Jesus himself told the cripple, after curring him, to take up his bed and walk.

Jhn 5:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=5&verse=9&version=kjv#9)And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath. 10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=5&verse=10&version=kjv#10)The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry [thy] bed. 11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=5&verse=11&version=kjv#11)He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. 12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=5&verse=12&version=kjv#12)Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? 13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=5&verse=13&version=kjv#13)And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in [that] place.

He then went on to challange the Jews in the temple:

Jhn 5:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=5&verse=17&version=kjv#17)But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=5&verse=18&version=kjv#18)Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. 19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=5&verse=19&version=kjv#19)Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

In Jesus

BustedFlat

JoeV

11th March 2007, 12:31 PM

Thanks for those links guys :)

New_Wineskin

11th March 2007, 12:55 PM

I have never understood how anyone could rest and that be called "work."

It obviously isn't actually rest .

2dly, there is no evidence that just because we are to rest in Christ one day of the week that we are supposed to keep all of the ceremonial sabbaths as well.

Nor evidence that "we" are supposed to rest in Christ one day of the week , either .

holo

11th March 2007, 06:44 PM

[/FONT]

I have never understood how anyone could rest and that be called "work."

2dly, there is no evidence that just because we are to rest in Christ one day of the week that we are supposed to keep all of the ceremonial sabbaths as well.But where are gentiles commanded to live according to any part of the mosaic law?

djconklin

11th March 2007, 08:05 PM

I have never understood how anyone could rest and that be called "work."
It obviously isn't actually rest .
Trust me, when I rest, I rest! The Sabbath is a sign that we acknowledge that it is God who sanctifies us.

2dly, there is no evidence that just because we are to rest in Christ one day of the week that we are supposed to keep all of the ceremonial sabbaths as well.
Nor evidence that "we" are supposed to rest in Christ one day of the week , either .

On the one hand, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. On the other hand, there is no text in the Bible that lays aside any one of the 10 Commandments. The early Christians were keeping the Sabbath as late as the 5th century. Even later in Ireland and Ethiopia.

djconklin

11th March 2007, 08:12 PM

But where are gentiles commanded to live according to any part of the mosaic law?

Remember the conference at Jerusalem where the Gentiles were told to abstain from blood, etc.?

BTW, it really is a misnomer to call the Ten Commandments and even the ceremonial law "Mosaic." The former God wrote on tablets of stone and all Moses had to do was to carry it down the mountian (twice!). The latter God told him what to write.

New_Wineskin

11th March 2007, 08:50 PM

Trust me, when I rest, I rest! The Sabbath is a sign that we acknowledge that it is God who sanctifies us.

No reason to trust you , as of yet .

The Sabbath isn't a sign for me at all . I don't know what group this "we" is . I don't need the Sabbaths to sanctify me , Jesus does that .

On the one hand, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. On the other hand, there is no text in the Bible that lays aside any one of the 10 Commandments. The early Christians were keeping the Sabbath as late as the 5th century. Even later in Ireland and Ethiopia.

There is no text in the "bible" that says that *I* am under any part of the Law - nor ever was . I am a Gentile .

And , I no of not a single christian that obeys the Sabbath . If they did , they would obey the law of the Sabbath that commands to put to death those that break the Sabbaths . No text does away with that , either .

New_Wineskin

11th March 2007, 08:51 PM

But where are gentiles commanded to live according to any part of the mosaic law?

Nowhere - only Law givers who want all to think that the Law brings righteousness .

ozmum

11th March 2007, 09:20 PM

http://www.homechurchresources.com/HomeChurchResources_FAQ.htm

this answers the questions everyone is asking here

djconklin

11th March 2007, 09:33 PM

Trust me, when I rest, I rest! The Sabbath is a sign that we acknowledge that it is God who sanctifies us.
No reason to trust you , as of yet .
It's a figure of speech.

The Sabbath isn't a sign for me at all . I don't know what group this "we" is . I don't need the Sabbaths to sanctify me , Jesus does that .

The Bible says: Ezekiel 20:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=20&verse=12&version=9&context=verse)
Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

The Sabbath itself doesn't sanctify you; I never said that it did. I said that it was a sign, just as the Bible says.

There is no text in the "bible" that says that *I* am under any part of the Law - nor ever was . I am a Gentile .

I am a Gentile too. Irish-German!

The Law of God points out what is sin. Since I wish to love and serve God with all my heart, mind and strength and to love my neighbor as myself I pay attention to God's Law so I can tell when I am sinning. Then I can take it to the Lord and ask for His forgiveness. Then by God's grace, as that great Apostle to the Gentiles Paul noted, I can be "transformed by the renewing" of my mind anbd eliminate sin within me--just as the song says" "be of sin the double cure, cleanse me from its quilt and power."

And , I no of not a single christian that obeys the Sabbath .

Sine we're all sinners in need of God's grace that can be wquite true. Not relevant, but true.

If they did , they would obey the law of the Sabbath that commands to put to death those that break the Sabbaths . No text does away with that , either .

They'd also have to stone the adulterer; do you do that? Or, do you recognize that that law only applied to Israel while it was a theocracy?

djconklin

11th March 2007, 09:35 PM

only Law givers who want all to think that the Law brings righteousness .

No one thinks that the Law brings righteousness. The Law points out when you have failed to live righteously and are in need of a Savior. Some people don't want to be reminded and want to dop away with God's Law that Paul describes as "holy, just and good."

ozmum

11th March 2007, 09:38 PM

Everybody lives under law .In this world we live under civil law all the time.
God's government has law too .
Reject that and you are lawless.

BustedFlat

12th March 2007, 12:04 AM

I would direct you to Romans 8:
Rom 8:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=2&version=kjv#2)For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=3&version=kjv#3)For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=4&version=kjv#4)That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=5&version=kjv#5)For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=6&version=kjv#6)For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. 7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=7&version=kjv#7)Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=8&version=kjv#8)So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=9&version=kjv#9)But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his 10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=10&version=kjv#10)And if Christ in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness. [B]11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=8&verse=11&version=kjv#11)But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

In the Mishnah, the commentaries on the law of Moses, there are some twenty-three chapters devoted to the interpreting of the law of the Sabbath day. Makes you understand why we need Jesus.

Artificial Intelligence

12th March 2007, 02:18 AM

Topic. How do you keep the Sabbath. By recognizing Jesus fulfilled that law and thus entering into rest with him as if the sabbath were every day.

PentecostalEmperor

12th March 2007, 02:55 AM

The reason I dont celebrate the Sabbath is because of this verse, but I do worship and rest in God on Sunday, but not because of the Sabbath.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I go to church 4 days a week, and try to worship God everyday in my walk with Him. I dont think God wants one day, He wants our whole lives. God Bless,

--Alicia
Paul is not saying "let no man judge you in your LAWLESSNESS" because it is just a mere tutor. He is saying "let no man judge you in your LAWFULLNESS" because it is a good tutor. In other words " let no man put you down"

djconklin

12th March 2007, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by LittleladyinChrist http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=32637518#post32637518)
The reason I dont celebrate the Sabbath is because of this verse, but I do worship and rest in God on Sunday, but not because of the Sabbath.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Paul isn't talking about the seventh-day Sabbath in those verses. Paul was talking about outsiders coming in (vs. listening to the church "the body of Christ") and judging the poeople of Collosae for eating and drinking (the acts are in view, not the what as some translations say) ON the days that are then mentioned. For more details, see: http://www.666man.net/Colossians_2_16-17_By_David_Conklin/colintro.html

New_Wineskin

12th March 2007, 08:53 AM

The Bible says: Ezekiel 20:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=20&verse=12&version=9&context=verse)
Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

The Sabbath itself doesn't sanctify you; I never said that it did. I said that it was a sign, just as the Bible says.

I don't need a sign .

The Law of God points out what is sin. Since I wish to love and serve God with all my heart, mind and strength and to love my neighbor as myself I pay attention to God's Law so I can tell when I am sinning. Then I can take it to the Lord and ask for His forgiveness. Then by God's grace, as that great Apostle to the Gentiles Paul noted, I can be "transformed by the renewing" of my mind anbd eliminate sin within me--just as the song says" "be of sin the double cure, cleanse me from its quilt and power."

Well , if you need to read not to murder and only do not murder because it is written , then I suppose that it does some good for those that you would murder if you didn't read those passages . Yet , many nonchristian Gentiles would never murder even though they never read the Scriptures .

Sine we're all sinners in need of God's grace that can be wquite true. Not relevant, but true.

Quite relevant when people promote them and yet don't follow through themselves . It shows that they don't believe it , themselves .

They'd also have to stone the adulterer; do you do that?

I am not the one pushing the Law . If I agreed with you to obey the Law , I certainly would . But , I would start with stoning those pushing the Sabbaths and their families . They would understand and have no problem with it .

Or, do you recognize that that law only applied to Israel while it was a theocracy?

The Lord came straight out that the Law was for Israel who was brought out of Egypt and their descendants . Paul confirms the fact that Gentiles do not have the Law . Not that Gentiles are forbidden to come under it if they wish . I don't wish . There is a better covenant for me . One that does not command that I put to death Sabbath breakers and adulterers . I wouldn't have time for anything else given how many adulterers and Sabbath breakers are in the christian circles that have the ten commandments as their banner .

djconklin

12th March 2007, 01:17 PM

I don't need a sign .

God gave you one; are you trying to say that you know more than God?

if you need to read not to murder and only do not murder because it is written , then I suppose that it does some good for those that you would murder if you didn't read those passages .

I didn't say that I "needed" to read it. I explcitly stated (which apparently wasn't read) that I follow the moral principal on which the law was based: love for God with all your heart, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself. Now, that you understand the example, we can poroceed to the 4th commandment: by keeping the Sabbth day holy as God asked you to do, you are showing that you love Him above all else. If you call yourself a Christian and chose to deliberately sin against God then we need to ask why are you doing that?

Quite relevant when people promote them and yet don't follow through themselves . It shows that they don't believe it , themselves .

That would be true if we were comparing things that were comparable. Some of God's laws only applied to the theocracy. You can't and must not judge others as quilty for not following those laws. Especially when you aren't even following the basic law.

I am not the one pushing the Law . If I agreed with you to obey the Law , I certainly would . But , I would start with stoning those pushing the Sabbaths and their families . They would understand and have no problem with it .

I am not "pushing" the Law. God made it, not me. I simply choose to obey God vs. the traditions and teachings of man.

The Lord came straight out that the Law was for Israel who was brought out of Egypt and their descendants .

This theory is flawed on several counts:

1) The Israelites knew about the Sabbath the month BEFORE the Law was given at Sinai.
2) Dr. William Mead Jones has confirmed that the Gentiles knew about the sabbath from the time of the Tower of babel when the languages were formed.
3) The Bible shows that the Gentiles knew about not committing adultery before the Jews ever heard of the Law.
4) The Bible shows that Cain knew that it was wrong for him to hate and kill his brother Abel.

History shows us that most of the early Christians were keeping the Sabbath as late as the 5th century. The idea that the Gentiles don't need to obey the Laws of God is a recent invention by sinful man. I prefer to go by the One who gave us His Book.

- DRA -

12th March 2007, 01:42 PM

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Hmm, only Jews were created by God? That's the reason God gave when He gave the commandment.

Dr. William Mead Jones figured that if the bible is true (and he believed it was) then if the Sabbath was made for man (per Jesus) then we should be able to find evidence for it in human languages (from the time of the Tower of Babel). He found that in over 100 languges (and I found 2 he didn't know about) that the seventh day of the week is known as "sabbath."

Ex 31:14 (NKJV) You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Ex 31:15 Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Ex 31:16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.

And,

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
Heb 8:9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Heb 8:11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

From those texts, I determine that the Sabbath was indeed given to the Israelites or Jews, and was a part of the "first covenant" that ended when the "better covenant" (the gospel of Christ) came into effect.

Agree?

- DRA -

12th March 2007, 02:02 PM

The Sabbath was NEVER abolished. YAHSHUA did not come to abolish the laws and prophets but to fulfill them!Matthew 5:17-20
I recommend you to go to these sites:

http://www.amightywind.com/fastfood/sabbath/obedience.htm
http://www.amightywind.com/fastfood/wolves/sabbathchanged.htm

I checked out the websites you posted. Neither addressed Acts 20:7 (NASV) - " Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." I have to wonder why this passage wasn't addressed. Doesn't it clearly tell us the disciples (Christians) came together on the first day of the week -- not the seventh day (the Sabbath)?

As for Matthew 15:17-20, it is agreed that Jesus did NOT come to destroy the law of Moses. Rather, He fulfilled it. The issue is what happened to that law after it was fulfilled. I believe it ended when Jesus nailed it to the cross i.e. Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 8:6-13.

- DRA -

12th March 2007, 02:29 PM

If you decide you're going to keep the Jewish Sabbath, just be sure you don't pick up any sticks or anything like that....or we'll have to stone you to death. And you'd better be doing it on the 7th day or you're not "keeping the sabbath" (scripturally) at all. :)

Ex 31:14 (NKJV) says, "You [the children of Israel - verse 16] shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people."

Also...if you decide you have to keep this law, you'd better make very certain you keep all the rest of them in the Torah as well. Otherwise, you're a goner.

Gal 5:1-4 says,
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

I suspect the person who uses either one point from the old law or the whole old law as justification for what they practice today is a "goner." In essence, if the person was ever united with Christ, they become separated from Him by appealing to the old law versus the law of Christ for what they practice and believe. :eek:

StevenL

12th March 2007, 02:42 PM

djconklin

12th March 2007, 03:19 PM

I determine that the Sabbath was indeed given to the Israelites or Jews, and was a part of the "first covenant" that ended when the "better covenant" (the gospel of Christ) came into effect.

Agree?

No.

1) They knew about the Sabbath a month BEFORE the law was given at Sinai.

2) I explicity stated (slight edit!): "Dr. William Mead Jones figured that if the Bible is true (and he believed it was) then if the Sabbath was made for man (per Jesus) then we should be able to find evidence for it in human languages (from the time of the Tower of Babel). He found that in over 100 languges (and I found 2 he didn't know about) that the seventh day of the week is known as "sabbath."" This tells us that at one point in time ALL mankind knew about the Sabbath.
3) Jesus said that the Sabbath was "made for man." He didn't say just the Jews.

djconklin

12th March 2007, 03:23 PM

I believe it ended when Jesus nailed it to the cross i.e. Colossians 2:14

1) If the Law was nailed to the Cross (i.e., done away with) then why did Paul write some 30-40 years later that the Law was "holy, just and good." Rather odd way to write about something that was no longer in force. If it was "holy, just and good" then why did it have to be done away with? The Law points out exactly how you are a sinner. Wouldn't you want to know so you can confess your sins to God and ask for forgiveness?
2) If the law was done with with then why in Col. 2:16 why doesn't Paul chew out the believers for keeping the feasts and new moons and ceremonial sabbaths? Instead the verse implies that the believers at Collossae were keeping the days and that it was critics who came in from outside and judged them for their eating and drinking (as the case may be) on the days that are then mentioned.

djconklin

12th March 2007, 03:25 PM

I've never been able to make the big leap from ".....the disciples came together on the first of the week (the word 'day' is inserted, not in the original text) to break bread...." to the common assertion that that verse was intended to mean that....they only got together on the first of the week to break bread and everyone was supposed to gather on the first of the week for some sort of worship "service."

It's especially weird when you realize that it was our Saturday nite vs. Sunday morning. Then on the breaking of bread (supposed to be a communion service) if you read the text carefully you'll find that they (by that thinking) celebrated communion twice in less than 20 hours!

djconklin

12th March 2007, 03:27 PM

I suspect the person who uses either one point from the old law or the whole old law as justification for what they practice today is a "goner." In essence, if the person was ever united with Christ, they become separated from Him by appealing to the old law versus the law of Christ for what they practice and believe.

Alright! Now, I'm a heretic!

I'll stand side by side with Paul then: LOVE IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE ***!

- DRA -

12th March 2007, 05:59 PM

I'm not defending keeping a seventh day sabbath for believers......but

I've never been able to make the big leap from ".....the disciples came together on the first of the week (the word 'day' is inserted, not in the original text) to break bread...." to the common assertion that that verse was intended to mean that....they only got together on the first of the week to break bread and everyone was supposed to gather on the first of the week for some sort of worship "service." It just simply says that they at times did get together and eat on the first of the week. Any other idea is an addition by the reader/interpreter. I don't really see a basis for a commandment or even a tradition there.

Agreed. The word "day" is added by the translators to clarify the thought. However, I don't think our study our study is complete without considering relevant passages. Agree?

Here's what I found based on the KJV ...

Mt 28:1
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mr 16:2
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Mr 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Lu 24:1
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

Joh 20:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

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.

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.

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.

In every one of these passages, the word "day" is added by the translators to help us understand the thought. Is there anything in these passages that helps us understand what was meant by "upon the first (?) of the week?" I believe there is.

- DRA -

12th March 2007, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I suspect the person who uses either one point from the old law or the whole old law as justification for what they practice today is a "goner." In essence, if the person was ever united with Christ, they become separated from Him by appealing to the old law versus the law of Christ for what they practice and believe.

[/FONT]

Alright! Now, I'm a heretic!

I'll stand side by side with Paul then: LOVE IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE ***!

No one said you were a "heretic."

If you will be kind enough to allow me a little time to review your posts, I'll have a better understanding of where you are coming from. Then we can work on trying to reach a common understanding of the Scriptures.

Sound fair?

New_Wineskin

12th March 2007, 08:29 PM

[/font]

God gave you one; are you trying to say that you know more than God?

Well , that ends that . I don't discuss things with those who lie about me .

djconklin

12th March 2007, 08:54 PM

God gave you a sign. How is that a lie about you?

djconklin

12th March 2007, 08:55 PM

No one said you were a "heretic."

Not in that exact word, but the meaning was certainly clear.

If you will be kind enough to allow me a little time to review your posts, I'll have a better understanding of where you are coming from. Then we can work on trying to reach a common understanding of the Scriptures.

Sound fair?

Sounds great.

holo

13th March 2007, 08:10 AM

1) If the Law was nailed to the Cross (i.e., done away with) then why did Paul write some 30-40 years later that the Law was "holy, just and good." Rather odd way to write about something that was no longer in force. If it was "holy, just and good" then why did it have to be done away with? The Law points out exactly how you are a sinner. Wouldn't you want to know so you can confess your sins to God and ask for forgiveness?Rather than go to the law which opposes us and is the only thing the accuser may use to accuse us, we should go to the Saviour who defends and aquits us, and also gives us what we need to live holy lives. What do you need the law for? You're righteous.

The law, however good and just and holy, had to be done away with because it never led anyone to righteousness, it was the ministry of death and the power of sin. The fault is not with the law, however. But in any case, whether or not the law still stands, we're DEAD to it. We have nothing to do with it. Or, at least I don't :)

I haven't missed it for a second, and I have no idea what I'm supposed to need it for.

2) If the law was done with with then why in Col. 2:16 why doesn't Paul chew out the believers for keeping the feasts and new moons and ceremonial sabbaths? Instead the verse implies that the believers at Collossae were keeping the days and that it was critics who came in from outside and judged them for their eating and drinking (as the case may be) on the days that are then mentioned.Paul was a jew to the jews and a greek to the greek. He lived as though he had the law when he was with people who were in fact under it, in order that he may win some of them.

The law was never given to the gentiles, and the law is a whole - if you're under it, you're under all of it.

StevenL

13th March 2007, 09:47 AM

Agreed. The word "day" is added by the translators to clarify the thought. However, I don't think our study our study is complete without considering relevant passages. Agree?

Here's what I found based on the KJV ...

Mt 28:1
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mr 16:2
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Mr 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Lu 24:1
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

Joh 20:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

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.

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.

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.

In every one of these passages, the word "day" is added by the translators to help us understand the thought. Is there anything in these passages that helps us understand what was meant by "upon the first (?) of the week?" I believe there is.
Agreed. Good job. Thanks for the list.

None of that tells me I'm obligated to do anything on the first of the week. Just tells me some did a few times.

Artificial Intelligence

13th March 2007, 02:19 PM

The law, however good and just and holy, had to be done away with because it never led anyone to righteousness

But the law was never done away with, it was not destroyed nor rejected as if it were flawed in any way or such. The law still exists, but as I mentioned it is fulfilled. Done away with and fulfilled are two different words with different meanings in the English language.

The law still exists but not as a school teacher for the Jews to follow and it was never meant for the Christian to follow. It exists as a Law that only one could fulfill and thus it is complete. What the law (and the profits) actually did is validate the ministry of Jesus Christ since He was the only one to abide in the Law and thus fulfill it which made Him the master of it.

Now when a person comes to Christ they are not under the Law but under Christ who fulfilled the law for us and through him we are accounted as having the Law fulfilled. So we may not live by the Law which is attached to the Sabbath, but in Christ who fulfilled the law in Him we live the Sabbath daily for we have entered into His rest.

Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 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 till all is fulfilled.

Scorcher505

13th March 2007, 02:30 PM

The sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. The Catholic Church changed the Sabboth from Sat to Sun because maybe Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday... maybe. No one knows. But we do know that God rested on the 7th day and made it holy and COMMANDED us not to work on it.

- DRA -

13th March 2007, 02:57 PM

...

Okay, I’ve reviewed your previous posts as I said I would do in post 50 on page 5.

Here’s how I view the thoughts you’ve posted so far …

Your first post (page 2, post 18) in this thread contains what I believe is an assumption – “to rest in Christ one day of the week.” But, maybe I’m mistaken. Please provide the scriptural basis for this statement, and identify the day we are to “rest.”

I also believe there are assumptions being made about Genesis 2:1-3. For instance, the passage says God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. I don’t see where that automatically implies or infers that mankind was commanded to keep that particular day. In fact, it isn’t mentioned again until Exodus 16:23. In that context, and in the giving of the law (of Moses) that continued, the command to observe the Sabbath was given exclusively to the Israelites.

I spent some time reading “Sabbath Truth – In the World’s Languages” about Dr. William Meade Jones. In short, Dr. Jones assumes God commanded the observance of the Sabbath in Genesis 2:1-3, and then uses that assumption to infer that Noah kept the Sabbath i.e. Gen. 6:9; 7:5. While it is agreed that Noah was a just man that obeyed what God commanded him, it is still not proof that he was commanded to keep the Sabbath. Frankly, I’m not exactly sure what Dr. Jones’ thoughts about all the languages was supposed to prove. I believe the Scriptures completely furnish us with all we need to know to serve and please God (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:3). So, I believe sound biblical reasoning is based on what the Scriptures say. Would you agree? If not, please explain how the Scriptures are lacking without additional input e.g. by men such as Dr Jones.

Now, to a select few specifics …

Post 32 on page 4. Ezekiel 20:12. Please help me fill in this blank. From verse 3, “Son of man, speak to the elders of _______, and say to them … (NKJV).” Now, let’s go to Exodus16. Please explain to us from the context who was being instructed in verse 23 to keep the Sabbath. My point? I don’t disagree that the Israelites were commanded to keep the Sabbath and to view it as a sign between them and God. However, the part of the story that I’m missing is how we get from what God commanded the Israelites under the law of Moses to what He expects of us (both Jews and Gentiles) today under the gospel of Christ.

BTW, I also have one more question about this particular post. Why do you acknowledge that we must observe the Sabbath, but NOT acknowledge the punishment pronounced on those who break it i.e. Exodus 31:14? Not sure, but your answer seems to be related to this quote from post 40 on page 4, “Some of God’s laws only applied to the theocracy.”
Please explain.

Post 28 on page 3. The conference is Jerusalem is used to answer the question about whether or not any part of the Mosaical Law was commanded to Gentiles. Note Acts 15:1,5,20,24,& 29. Is the Sabbath mentioned in those verses? Obviously, the Jewish Christians were trying to bind the old law upon the Gentile Christians, but the matter was settled. Only a few basic items that predated the law were commanded to the Gentiles – and observing the Sabbath did NOT make the list.

BTW, that particular post also refers to the “former God” and the “latter God.” Please explain.

Post 33 on page 4. Agreed, the law is “holy, just, and good” i.e. Romans 7:12. Let’s explore the context. Chapter 6 discusses the blessings enjoyed in baptism and how we are no longer in bondage to sin. Chapter 7 begins by discussing something else the Christians is no longer in bondage to – the law. Paul admonishes those once under the law to view it as a marriage, in which the two were bound together until death. However, the person that has been baptized into Christ has died (in a sense) … see 6:3-8. Thus, they are free from their marriage (to the old law), and are free to marry another (Christ) – having been delivered from the law (7:6). So, what about the old law? Was it bad? No, it was holy, just, and good (7:12). However, it was limited in what it could accomplish. It couldn’t take away sin. It identified it and condemned those under it, but could not take those sins away. Therefore, it was replaced by a better covenant – built upon better promises i.e. Hebrews 8:6-13.

So, could the Jewish Christians still practice things under the law? Take the matter of circumcision that came up for discussion in Acts 15. It wasn’t necessary to continue to observe this practice. However, later Paul had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3, but refused to have Titus circumcised in Galatians 2:3-5. As for circumcision under the gospel of Christ, God was indifferent about it (Gal. 5:1-16). However, for those who made circumcision a matter of faith, they found themselves indebted to keep the “whole law” – which resulted in their separation from Christ. Concisely stated, those who wanted to practice circumcision for whatever reason were welcome to, but could not make it binding upon others. This is the same principle I see being discussed in Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14.

Post 40 on page 4. You said to New Wineskin, “If you call yourself a Christian and chose to deliberately sin [NOT keeping the Sabbath] against God then we need to ask why you are doing that?” To me, that reveals you are treating the Sabbath just like some Jews were circumcision in Gal. 5:1-4, which leaves you indebted to keep the whole law – which means you are turning away from the gospel. Frankly, I encourage you to take to heart what the apostle wrote there. Not because you are a "heretic" (your wording -- NOT MINE), but because you are violating the principle being taught in that text.

- DRA -

13th March 2007, 03:16 PM

God gave you a sign. How is that a lie about you?

In New Wineskin's defense, God gave the Israelites a sign in Ezekiel 20:3,12. If you are trying to apply that to New Wineskin -- or the rest of us, then please help us see the link between that passage and what we are to do today under the gospel of Christ.

True, Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27). Post 45 on page 5. True, "He didn't say just the Jews." Exodus 16 and the following chapters say it was given to just the Israelites (or Jews). By the way, who was Jesus speaking to in Mark 2:27? Weren't the Pharisees a sect of the Jews (see verse 24)?

- DRA -

13th March 2007, 03:28 PM

Agreed. Good job. Thanks for the list.

None of that tells me I'm obligated to do anything on the first of the week. Just tells me some did a few times.

The "list" wasn't intended to tell you what you are obligated to do on the first (?) of the week. I posted the list for consideration about what the first (?) of the week points to.

Now, since Jesus commanded that we observe the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34), I think we should consider the scriptural evidence that discusses when the disciples observed it i.e. an approved example. Do you agree?

BTW, I suggest also considering 1 Cor. 16:1 along with verse 2.

Now, back to the Sabbath. Do you find any evidence the disciples assembled on the Sabbath day? Wouldn't the Sabbath be later in the week versus the first of the week?

- DRA -

13th March 2007, 03:38 PM

But the law was never done away with, it was not destroyed nor rejected as if it were flawed in any way or such. The law still exists, but as I mentioned it is fulfilled. Done away with and fulfilled are two different words with different meanings in the English language.

The law still exists but not as a school teacher for the Jews to follow and it was never meant for the Christian to follow. It exists as a Law that only one could fulfill and thus it is complete. What the law (and the profits) actually did is validate the ministry of Jesus Christ since He was the only one to abide in the Law and thus fulfill it which made Him the master of it.

Now when a person comes to Christ they are not under the Law but under Christ who fulfilled the law for us and through him we are accounted as having the Law fulfilled. So we may not live by the Law which is attached to the Sabbath, but in Christ who fulfilled the law in Him we live the Sabbath daily for we have entered into His rest.

Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 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 till all is fulfilled.

I opened a thread about Bible Interpretation based on Matthew 4:5-7. In essence, I believe Jesus teaches us in that text that the truth will harmonize between passages of Scripture. You are invited to join that discussion. :) Perhaps in that thread, or this thread (your choice), you can explain how your understanding of Matthew 5:17-18 harmonizes with this text from Hebrews 8:

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Another relevant passage is Romans 15:4. The old writings are there for our learning -- not our law.

Artificial Intelligence

13th March 2007, 04:40 PM

I opened a thread about Bible Interpretation based on Matthew 4:5-7. In essence, I believe Jesus teaches us in that text that the truth will harmonize between passages of Scripture. You are invited to join that discussion. :) Perhaps in that thread, or this thread (your choice), you can explain how your understanding of Matthew 5:17-18 harmonizes with this text from Hebrews 8:

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Another relevant passage is Romans 15:4. The old writings are there for our learning -- not our law.Yes, concerning Hebrews 8, this is directed towards the house of Israel, for the Jews. Much of this has to do with prophetic interpretations such as from Ezekiel’s writings (ch 36, 37, 38 etc…). Lets never confuse the Church with the Jews, God has a plan for His bride the Church (Gentile and messianic Jew now members of the Church) as well as a plan for the Jews (house of Israel) which is unfolding still and has yet to come to complete fulfillment, until everything is accomplished. We certainly are in the New Covenant as believers and followers of Christ, but this is still an unfolding plan that has yet to be drawn to its conclusion in which such prophecies I just mentioned in Ezekiel are fulfilled and the Jews (full house of Israel) are all brought into the new covenant which we are already the recipients of.

StevenL

13th March 2007, 04:48 PM

The "list" wasn't intended to tell you what you are obligated to do on the first (?) of the week. I posted the list for consideration about what the first (?) of the week points to.

Now, since Jesus commanded that we observe the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34), I think we should consider the scriptural evidence that discusses when the disciples observed it i.e. an approved example. Do you agree?

BTW, I suggest also considering 1 Cor. 16:1 along with verse 2.

Now, back to the Sabbath. Do you find any evidence the disciples assembled on the Sabbath day? Wouldn't the Sabbath be later in the week versus the first of the week?
I don't know of any evidence that they, as a matter of course or of tradition, assembled on the seventh day or on the first of the week. They went into the synagogues in the Gentile cities where the Jews met on the sabbath to preach the good news. But that's still just a Jewish thing.

I've never been convinced that, because it says that they gathered on the first of the week "to break bread", that they were observing the Lords Supper at that time. Breaking bread could (and does at times) just mean they were eating a meal together. No doubt they did that a lot. As far as considering it "an approved example", I suppose one could do that if they wished and follow it with great benefit. I also think one could decide to worship and break bread and collect money for the needs of saints on say, Thursday night regularly to great benefit also....with the approval of God.

There's really no way to know from the letters if they kept a specific day, except for those who were clinging to the Jewish ways even after the Sacrifice. But we can know from the Scriptures that, whatever day or days that anyone decides to dedicate to the Lord for whatever purpose......it's good with Him. UNTIL.....some taskmaster begins to tell others that THEY must keep that day or days also or they're disobeying God. Then it becomes a false teaching.

If I decide to go hang around with some Seventh Day Adventists, I will "keep the sabbath" with them on Fri night and Sat. I will "keep the sabbath" with a Baptist on Sunday, if I decide to fellowship with one for a while. And....do both with a perfectly clear conscience.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts about keeping the sabbath.

I personally think walking with God in the Spirit every day in righteousness through His Son is "keeping the Sabbath." I'm one of those that Paul talked about who thinks every day is holy.....as long as you're in the Messiah.

- DRA -

14th March 2007, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by - DRA -
I opened a thread about Bible Interpretation based on Matthew 4:5-7. In essence, I believe Jesus teaches us in that text that the truth will harmonize between passages of Scripture. You are invited to join that discussion. Perhaps in that thread, or this thread (your choice), you can explain how your understanding of Matthew 5:17-18 harmonizes with this text from Hebrews 8:

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Another relevant passage is Romans 15:4. The old writings are there for our learning -- not our law.

Yes, concerning Hebrews 8, this is directed towards the house of Israel, for the Jews. Much of this has to do with prophetic interpretations such as from Ezekiel’s writings (ch 36, 37, 38 etc…). Lets never confuse the Church with the Jews, God has a plan for His bride the Church (Gentile and messianic Jew now members of the Church) as well as a plan for the Jews (house of Israel) which is unfolding still and has yet to come to complete fulfillment, until everything is accomplished. We certainly are in the New Covenant as believers and followers of Christ, but this is still an unfolding plan that has yet to be drawn to its conclusion in which such prophecies I just mentioned in Ezekiel are fulfilled and the Jews (full house of Israel) are all brought into the new covenant which we are already the recipients of.

Note the blessings promised in Hebrews 8 under the better covenant i.e. verse 12 - "their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more," which is quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34. As for Ezekiel 36-38, the Israelites fell into captivity because of disobedience (i.e. idolatry) and were scattered. A remnant returned to Israel. Ezekiel, a prophet of God, sees the remnant prosper once again in Israel. Later, the remnant returns in 3 main waves i.e. 536 B.C. led by Zerrubabel, 458 B.C. led by Ezra, and 444 B.C. led by Nehemiah.

After some 400 years of silence, Jesus arrived on the scene in Israel. Even though, generally speaking, the Jews reject Him as their Messiah (the king prophesied of in the O.T.), Jesus died for them and the Gentiles (i.e. the "world" in John 3:16. Jesus commanded His apostles to take the gospel to all the world (Matt. 28:18-20 -- "Every creature" in Mark 16:15). Their message was to preach Jesus as both Lord and Christ (e.g. Acts 2:36) and the forgiveness (remission) of sins in His name (Acts 2:38 i.e. Hebrews 8:12). This message was preached to both Jews and Gentiles, who were brought together to form "one church" (Eph. 1:22 through 4:6).

Not sure what else God has in mind for the Jews. In fact, I don't think that He has left any promises unfulfilled that He made to Israel.

- DRA -

14th March 2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by - DRA -
The "list" wasn't intended to tell you what you are obligated to do on the first (?) of the week. I posted the list for consideration about what the first (?) of the week points to.

Now, since Jesus commanded that we observe the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34), I think we should consider the scriptural evidence that discusses when the disciples observed it i.e. an approved example. Do you agree?

BTW, I suggest also considering 1 Cor. 16:1 along with verse 2.

Now, back to the Sabbath. Do you find any evidence the disciples assembled on the Sabbath day? Wouldn't the Sabbath be later in the week versus the first of the week?

I don't know of any evidence that they, as a matter of course or of tradition, assembled on the seventh day or on the first of the week. They went into the synagogues in the Gentile cities where the Jews met on the sabbath to preach the good news. But that's still just a Jewish thing.

Well, assembling was commanded i.e. Hebrews 10:23-31. Therefore, if it is true that the Scriptures completely furnish us with what we need to please and serve God (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then we should find evidence in His word when we should assemble. For sure, Acts 20:7 is an example of the disciples assembling. I think it is an approved example, in the sense that what they did was acceptable and pleasing to God. Now, if you think the day of the week was incidental, and we can substitute another day (?) for the one we are told the disciples met on, please explain the scriptural basis for the reasoning.

I've never been convinced that, because it says that they gathered on the first of the week "to break bread", that they were observing the Lords Supper at that time. Breaking bread could (and does at times) just mean they were eating a meal together. No doubt they did that a lot. As far as considering it "an approved example", I suppose one could do that if they wished and follow it with great benefit. I also think one could decide to worship and break bread and collect money for the needs of saints on say, Thursday night regularly to great benefit also....with the approval of God.

Okay, let’s see which view of “breaking bread” harmonizes with other relevant passages. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 addresses the type of meal the disciples were supposed to have when they came together.

Not sure how you think 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 authorizes giving on Thursday nights. BTW, I suspect Nadab and Abihu had no idea of just how displeased God was going to be with them when they deviated from what He told them (Leviticus 10:1-2). However, He was displeased. And, their defense went up in smoke – literally!

There's really no way to know from the letters if they kept a specific day, except for those who were clinging to the Jewish ways even after the Sacrifice. But we can know from the Scriptures that, whatever day or days that anyone decides to dedicate to the Lord for whatever purpose......it's good with Him. UNTIL.....some taskmaster begins to tell others that THEY must keep that day or days also or they're disobeying God. Then it becomes a false teaching.

Not sure which specific passages you have in mind, but I think you are misunderstanding the principle taught under the law of Christ. Consider Romans 14. Whether eating meat or observing a certain day, it simply didn’t matter to the Lord one way or the other. Briefly stated, with it didn’t make any difference to God whether they did or didn’t. Note Galatians 5:6. Circumcision is like that under the gospel (law) of Christ. Doesn’t matter to God. However, all things don’t fall into this category. On matters that God has authorized, we must do them. And, if God has specified or authorized a certain day (?) to do them, then that’s when we should do them. Under the law of Moses, God certainly had expectations around the Sabbath day. Now, were the Israelites free to pick another day they wanted to rest on, or did God expect them to observe the day He said to? Like was pointed out previously, God specifically commands us to assemble (Heb. 10:23-31) – the Lord and the Spirit seem to take it downright personal when the disciples forsake the assembling of the church. Therefore, it is in our best interests to assure we understand what God’s expectations are.

My intent isn’t to come across as a “taskmaster,” but simply like Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2a.

If I decide to go hang around with some Seventh Day Adventists, I will "keep the sabbath" with them on Fri night and Sat. I will "keep the sabbath" with a Baptist on Sunday, if I decide to fellowship with one for a while. And....do both with a perfectly clear conscience.

Fellowship (joint participation) implies approval or consent. I suggest considering 2 John 9-11.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts about keeping the sabbath.

I personally think walking with God in the Spirit every day in righteousness through His Son is "keeping the Sabbath." I'm one of those that Paul talked about who thinks every day is holy.....as long as you're in the Messiah.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. However, like my thoughts and the thoughts of others, they must be compared to God’s thoughts i.e. Romans 3:4a.

Artificial Intelligence

14th March 2007, 05:12 PM

Note the blessings promised in Hebrews 8 under the better covenant i.e. verse 12 - "their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more," which is quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34. As for Ezekiel 36-38, the Israelites fell into captivity because of disobedience (i.e. idolatry) and were scattered. A remnant returned to Israel. Ezekiel, a prophet of God, sees the remnant prosper once again in Israel. Later, the remnant returns in 3 main waves i.e. 536 B.C. led by Zerrubabel, 458 B.C. led by Ezra, and 444 B.C. led by Nehemiah. No, I don't believe so. Ezekiel is unfulfilled prophecy. In this case they are scattered throughout the world; throughout many nations, not taken into captivity by a nation but scattered into the entire world. It does not speak of a remnant but the whole house of Israel which will return from this world dispersion. This is exactly what is happening now and has never happened before, the full house of Israel is returning to the land from a world dispersion, the world is a cup of trembling over it as well, and soon the end-times battles will begin. We, the Church, are not the House of Israel, we are not Jews. The house if Israel is the House of Israel and the Church is the Church everyplace it is mentioned in scripture. As the Church, we are not bound to the Law of Moses, but to the Redeemer who fulfilled the law for us and in him we are complete.

StevenL

14th March 2007, 05:57 PM

- DRA -

14th March 2007, 07:01 PM

Hi DRA.

Romans 14:1-8 tells me all I need to know about keeping "days."

If you and those you fellowship with feel the need to pull passages out of the letters and make "commandments" or "laws" out of them, that's perfectly fine...for yourself. Do it and be blessed. However,I find the way you're using the words to be in error since you're attaching some sort of "disobedience curse" to them. Any free son will reject such as that with joy.

God bless brother.

No problem.

I have given Scripture to support my points. If you think I've made an error somewhere, then please point out exactly where and what the truth on that particular point is.

Come to think of it, your approach to Romans 14 certainly has its possibilities. Take Hebrews 3 through about the first half of chapter 4. In that text, we are admonished to not harden our hearts -- today (several times). However, since Romans 14 tells us that we really don't have to keep or worry about any particular days, then we really don't have to worry about obeying God today. We can put it off until tomorrow, right? And, we can continue to do that until the Lord returns, right. Therefore, its not really our fault that we didn't heed God today. It's His fault for leaving that little loophole in His word, right?

Don't spend too much time worrying over me or those that I fellowship. You just keep doing what you are doing and enjoy that. There's no need to get ugly. People sometimes do that when they can't find a scriptural basis for what they promote.

I suspect those I put some sort of "disobedience curse" upon won't have to worry too much about that when the judgment occurs. If memory serves me right, it's really about what we do and say in comparison to God's word i.e. 2 Cor. 5:10.

Go in peace. :wave:

StevenL

14th March 2007, 07:44 PM

Sorry man, what you're bringing forth is not God's Word at all and certainly not Scriptural evidence that God's people are "commanded" to do something on a certain day. I know that you think it is.

You have proof from an apostle that God approves of a man that keeps a day of his choosing or keeps any other day of his choosing but you don't want that.

I've seen this a million times and I'll see it a million more times before it's all done. I just keep on talking to people about the freedom in Yeshua. And warning them about bondage. The Letters are full of warnings about this very thing we're discussing.

I just hope the people of God really hear them.

- DRA -

14th March 2007, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Note the blessings promised in Hebrews 8 under the better covenant i.e. verse 12 - "their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more," which is quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34. As for Ezekiel 36-38, the Israelites fell into captivity because of disobedience (i.e. idolatry) and were scattered. A remnant returned to Israel. Ezekiel, a prophet of God, sees the remnant prosper once again in Israel. Later, the remnant returns in 3 main waves i.e. 536 B.C. led by Zerrubabel, 458 B.C. led by Ezra, and 444 B.C. led by Nehemiah.

No, I don't believe so. Ezekiel is unfulfilled prophecy. In this case they are scattered throughout the world; throughout many nations, not taken into captivity by a nation but scattered into the entire world. It does not speak of a remnant but the whole house of Israel which will return from this world dispersion. This is exactly what is happening now and has never happened before, the full house of Israel is returning to the land from a world dispersion, the world is a cup of trembling over it as well, and soon the end-times battles will begin. We, the Church, are not the House of Israel, we are not Jews. The house if Israel is the House of Israel and the Church is the Church everyplace it is mentioned in scripture. As the Church, we are not bound to the Law of Moses, but to the Redeemer who fulfilled the law for us and in him we are complete.

Jeremiah 23:1-5 (NKJV) ...

1 "Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!" says the Lord.
2 Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel against the shepherds who feed My people: "You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings," says the Lord.
3 "But I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.
4 I will set up shepherds over them who will feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, nor shall they be lacking," says the Lord.
5 "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.

Romans 9:27 ...

27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved." [See Isaiah 10:20-21]

Additional Food for Thought about the Remnant -- Romans 11:5 ...

5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. [This presents the remnant of Jews being saved under the gospel of Christ as the antitype, and the remnant of Jews that returned from Assyrian and Babylonian captivity as the type.]

Romans 4:11-12 ...

11 And he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Romans 9:6 ...

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

:idea:

Artificial Intelligence

15th March 2007, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Jeremiah 23:1-5 (NKJV) ...

1 "Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!" says the Lord.
2 Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel against the shepherds who feed My people: "You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings," says the Lord.
3 "But I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.
4 I will set up shepherds over them who will feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, nor shall they be lacking," says the Lord.
5 "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.

Actually if you read on it distinctly says from the North.
Also if you read the context:
5 “ Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD,
“ That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
6 In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Yet, where is the King which will rule on Earth where the House of Israel will dwell safely? where Judah will be saved. Are you Judah? Or did the king fail? No! it has not happened yet. This is a prophecy within a prophecy which points to the reason why they are brought back from the north in that time, to not be abandoned and left to perish completely, that the Messiah will come one day later on to rule on Earth where they will all be saved, not a remnant into the Church or the Church to become the remnant. Remember, there is no distinction within the Church between Jew or Gentile, the Church does not receive the promises that God made for the house of Israel. If Israel is lost, so is the whole plan and God the maker of Heaven and Earth is made out to be a simple god that does not know the things to come.

- DRA -

16th March 2007, 12:29 PM

Actually if you read on it distinctly says from the North.
Also if you read the context:
5 “ Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD,
“ That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
6 In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Yet, where is the King which will rule on Earth where the House of Israel will dwell safely? where Judah will be saved. Are you Judah? Or did the king fail? No! it has not happened yet. This is a prophecy within a prophecy which points to the reason why they are brought back from the north in that time, to not be abandoned and left to perish completely, that the Messiah will come one day later on to rule on Earth where they will all be saved, not a remnant into the Church or the Church to become the remnant. Remember, there is no distinction within the Church between Jew or Gentile, the Church does not receive the promises that God made for the house of Israel. If Israel is lost, so is the whole plan and God the maker of Heaven and Earth is made out to be a simple god that does not know the things to come.

Okay, Jeremiah 23:1-8 (KNJV) says,

1 "Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!" says the Lord.
2 Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel against the shepherds who feed My people: "You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings," says the Lord.
3 "But I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.
4 I will set up shepherds over them who will feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, nor shall they be lacking," says the Lord.
5 "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
7 "Therefore, behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "that they shall no longer say, 'As the Lord lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,'
8 but, 'As the Lord lives who brought up and led the descendants of the house of Israel from the north country and from all the countries where I had driven them.' And they shall dwell in their own land."

First off, note the word "remnant" in the bolded red font. Does the word mean "the whole" or "a part of the whole?"

Second, let's note the context of the word "remnant." The passage (verse 3) says, "But I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase." A remnant would be returned "out of all countries where I have driven them." This particular point is also emphasized in verse 8. The remnant would return "from the north country and from all the countries where I had driven them." Perhaps it would good to remind ourselves that the divided kingdom was first taken captive by the Assyrians, and the remaining southern kingdom by the Babylonians over a hundred years later. And, that the Babylonians absorbed the people under the Assyrian Empire when they defeated it. Thus, the Israelites were not only taken captive to the north, but scattered to other areas as well. These passages reflect these things. As previously stated, only a remnant of the Israelites returned.

The king alluded to in the passage is Jesus ... the son of David (Matthew 1:1; 22:41-46) who was "all authority ... in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:18).

Under Jesus a better covenant is promised to not only Israel and Judah (Hebrews 8:6-13), also to the Gentiles as well (Ephesians 1:22 through 4:6). Under this covenant sins are "remembered no more" (Heb. 8:12 - see Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

I suspect that no part of God's plan has failed or is in danger of failing. Rather, if anything is doomed for failure, it is the misunderstanding of God's plan for mankind. Frankly, I'm not sure why you think God has not fulfilled everything for Israel that He promised them. I suspect this reasoning is connected with the millennium reign of Christ. If this is the case, I suggest that Colossians 1:13 and Revelation 1:9 be consulted. In essence, those passages plainly show the kingdom promised in the Old Testament was set up in the first century. Therefore, there is no need for Him to return to build His kingdom -- because He has already built it.

BustedFlat

16th March 2007, 01:14 PM

I suspect that no part of God's plan has failed or is in danger of failing. Rather, if anything is doomed for failure, it is the misunderstanding of God's plan for mankind. Frankly, I'm not sure why you think God has not fulfilled everything for Israel that He promised them. I suspect this reasoning is connected with the millennium reign of Christ. If this is the case, I suggest that Colossians 1:13 and Revelation 1:9 be consulted. In essence, those passages plainly show the kingdom promised in the Old Testament was set up in the first century. Therefore, there is no need for Him to return to build His kingdom -- because He has already built it.

I would caution you to pay close attention to :

ISA 9:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa009.html#7) Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

JER 23:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jer/Jer023.html#5) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

LUK 1:32 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk001.html#32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

LUK 1:33 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk001.html#33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

He did not sit on the Throne of David in the first century, so he could not have built any kingdom. And He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever. I do believe that can house can only be Israel. As his reign over that house will never end the plan of God is yet to be fulfilled.

In Jesus

BustedFlat

- DRA -

16th March 2007, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by - DRA -
I suspect that no part of God's plan has failed or is in danger of failing. Rather, if anything is doomed for failure, it is the misunderstanding of God's plan for mankind. Frankly, I'm not sure why you think God has not fulfilled everything for Israel that He promised them. I suspect this reasoning is connected with the millennium reign of Christ. If this is the case, I suggest that Colossians 1:13 and Revelation 1:9 be consulted. In essence, those passages plainly show the kingdom promised in the Old Testament was set up in the first century. Therefore, there is no need for Him to return to build His kingdom -- because He has already built it.

I would caution you to pay close attention to :

ISA 9:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa009.html#7) Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

JER 23:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jer/Jer023.html#5) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

LUK 1:32 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk001.html#32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

LUK 1:33 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk001.html#33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

He did not sit on the Throne of David in the first century, so he could not have built any kingdom. And He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever. I do believe that can house can only be Israel. As his reign over that house will never end the plan of God is yet to be fulfilled.

In Jesus

BustedFlat

Thanks for your comments. You have confirmed what I suspected.

And, I also appreciate the words of caution. I think caution is indeed a valid point that should be considered. Here is how I exercise caution in my understanding of Scripture:
Let's compare what you are proposing with other Scriptures ...
Mark 9:1. Jesus promised that the kingdom would be built during the lifetime of the first-century disciples.
Colossians 1:13. The aposle Paul wrote that disciples were translated out of darkness into the kingdom. Now, wouldn't that mean the kingdom was established? I mean, how can someone be translated into something that is not yet in existence?
Revelation 1:9. The apostle John was in the kingdom.
To me, the dangerous approach to these passages would be to portray the Lord as not doing what He said He would do, and to portray two of His apostles as misrepresenting the truth of the matter.

And, as far as Jesus sitting on David's throne is concerned, I suggest consideration of the apostle Peter's sermon in Acts 2. In a nutshell, after the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, the Spirit directed Peter to deliver a message where Jesus was proclaimed to be both Lord and Christ (verse 36). "Christ" is the Greek version of the Hebrew word "Messiah," which means Jesus is the king promised through David. In the preceding verses, Peter uses passages such as Psalm 16:10 and Psalm 110:1 to show that the promises were fulfilled in Jesus -- not in David himself. On top of the scriptural evidence, Peter appeals to another piece of evidence to show that Jesus is exalted to God's right hand and currently reigning -- the arrival of the Holy Spirit (verse 33).

Don't know if you have read the previous posts, but another passage to consider is Romans 4:11-12. In a nutshell, the point is that the true children of Abraham aren't those who are of his direct lineage, but those who have the faith that he had. Another relevant text is Romans chapters 9-11. God intended all along to extend an invitation to the Gentiles to be His people. They readily accepted. Not all. Just those who had the type of faith Abraham had.

:clap:

BustedFlat

16th March 2007, 03:52 PM

Thanks for your comments. You have confirmed what I suspected.

And, I also appreciate the words of caution. I think caution is indeed a valid point that should be considered. Here is how I exercise caution in my understanding of Scripture:
Let's compare what you are proposing with other Scriptures ...
Mark 9:1. Jesus promised that the kingdom would be built during the lifetime of the first-century disciples.

Mar 9:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. 2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=2&version=kjv#2)¶And after six days Jesus taketh [with him] Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. 3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=3&version=kjv#3)And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. 4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=4&version=kjv#4)And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. 5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=5&version=kjv#5)And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=6&version=kjv#6)For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid. 7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=7&version=kjv#7)And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. 8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=8&version=kjv#8)And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

They saw, but where they in 1st century Galilee? I would contend they were in heaven as John was in Revelation.

Colossians 1:13. The aposle Paul wrote that disciples were translated out of darkness into the kingdom. Now, wouldn't that mean the kingdom was established? I mean, how can someone be translated into something that is not yet in existence?

God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are out side of time. To be translated into the kingdom that is yet to come is not outside the power of God.

Revelation 1:9. The apostle John was in the kingdom.

Rev 1:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rev&chapter=1&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:

To me, the dangerous approach to these passages would be to portray the Lord as not doing what He said He would do, and to portray two of His apostles as misrepresenting the truth of the matter.

And, as far as Jesus sitting on David's throne is concerned, I suggest consideration of the apostle Peter's sermon in Acts 2. In a nutshell, after the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, the Spirit directed Peter to deliver a message where Jesus was proclaimed to be both Lord and Christ (verse 36). "Christ" is the Greek version of the Hebrew word "Messiah," which means Jesus is the king promised through David. In the preceding verses, Peter uses passages such as Psalm 16:10 and Psalm 110:1 to show that the promises were fulfilled in Jesus -- not in David himself. On top of the scriptural evidence, Peter appeals to another piece of evidence to show that Jesus is exalted to God's right hand and currently reigning -- the arrival of the Holy Spirit (verse 33).

Don't know if you have read the previous posts, but another passage to consider is Romans 4:11-12. In a nutshell, the point is that the true children of Abraham aren't those who are of his direct lineage, but those who have the faith that he had. Another relevant text is Romans chapters 9-11. God intended all along to extend an invitation to the Gentiles to be His people. They readily accepted. Not all. Just those who had the type of faith Abraham had.

:clap:

To me it is much more dangerous to pick at parts of the Word of God and not read the whole Word. Romans is written to the Gentiles and as such contain an emphases on the Gentile world. It is a very dangerous thing to conclude that the church will reap the rewards that God has promised to the Jew.

The dreams of Daniel;

Dan 9:26 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Dan&chapter=9&verse=26&version=kjv#26)And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 24 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Dan&chapter=9&verse=24&version=kjv#24)¶Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Dan&chapter=9&verse=25&version=kjv#25)Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Dan&chapter=9&verse=26&version=kjv#26)And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Dan&chapter=9&verse=27&version=kjv#27)And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The interval between the 69th week, which ends at the entrance of Jesus ridding on an ass into Jerusalem and the start of the 70th week will be the time of the Gentiles at which point He will confirm the covenant.

Rom 11:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. 2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=2&version=kjv#2)God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=3&version=kjv#3)Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=4&version=kjv#4)But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.

Rom 11:25 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=25&version=kjv#25)For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=26&version=kjv#26)And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=27&version=kjv#27)For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

The writer clearly states that that AFTER the time of the Gentiles Israel will be saved. It is not alluded to nor suggested, but is a statement.

In Jesus

BustedFlat

Iosias

16th March 2007, 04:03 PM

May I suggest that you buy this (http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Day-Joey-Pipa/dp/1857922018/ref=sr_1_1/104-1402299-9070331?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174075399&sr=8-1) and read it! It is excellent!!

pgp_protector

16th March 2007, 04:19 PM

I Go to Work* On Most Saturdays & Sundays

*At Church

- DRA -

19th March 2007, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Thanks for your comments. You have confirmed what I suspected.

And, I also appreciate the words of caution. I think caution is indeed a valid point that should be considered. Here is how I exercise caution in my understanding of Scripture:
Let's compare what you are proposing with other Scriptures ...
Mark 9:1. Jesus promised that the kingdom would be built during the lifetime of the first-century disciples.

Mar 9:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. 2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=2&version=kjv#2)¶And after six days Jesus taketh [with him] Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. 3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=3&version=kjv#3)And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. 4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=4&version=kjv#4)And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. 5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=5&version=kjv#5)And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=6&version=kjv#6)For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid. 7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=7&version=kjv#7)And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. 8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=9&verse=8&version=kjv#8)And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

They saw, but where they in 1st century Galilee? I would contend they were in heaven as John was in Revelation.

Actually, Mark 9:1 is a part of the discussion that began in Mark 8:27 and continues through Mark 9:1. See also Matthew 16:13-28. Note the Next verse in Mark -- "Now after 6 days" (9:2 - NKJV). I suspect you are trying to connect Jesus' discussion in the area of Cesarea Philippi with His transfiguration that occurred six days later on a high mountain.

Let's see now. Did the disciples go to heaven to "see the kingdom come with power?" Consider John's teaching in Matt. 3:2 - the kingdom is "at hand [close]." Likewise, Jesus taught the kingdom was "at hand [close]" (Matt. 4:17). How close was it? Jesus promised in Mark 9:1 and Matthew 16:28 that some of the disciples would "see" it before they died ... and they would see it "come with power." Therefore, if we can determine when this power Jesus promised the disciples came upon them, we should be able to determine if and when the kingdom was established. Let's see. Luke 24:49 gives us additional insight into when the "power" was to come upon the disciples. Evidently, it wasn't to be too far in the distance because the disciples were told to tarry in Jerusalem until it came. In Acts 1, after Jesus ascends into heaven, we find the disciples tarrying in Jerusalem, just as Jesus instructed (verses 12-26. Then, low and behold, "power" came upon the disciples in Acts 2:1-4. Therefore, if we can trust Jesus, the disciples had just seen the kingdom of God come with power. To me, it's not too terribly hard to determine that the disciples were right there in the first-century Jerusalem when the kingdom came with power. Peter even proclaims the arrival of the Spirit (the power) was according to Joel's prophecy. And, as previously stated, Peter, under the direct guidance of the power that Jesus sent -- the Holy Spirit, preached a lesson where Peter proclaimed that Jesus was sitting on God's right hand and reigning on David's throne (Acts 2:32-36). In response, three-thousand Jews obeyed what they were told to do and were forgiven of their sins (Acts 2:38-41). Thus, they were translated out of darkness (sin) into the kingdom of the Son of His love, "in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:13-14). Thus, when the 3,000 Jews were forgiven of their sins in Acts 2:41, they were translated into the kingdom. In essence, if the kingdom has NOT been established, then we are all still in our sins. :cry:

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Colossians 1:13. The aposle Paul wrote that disciples were translated out of darkness into the kingdom. Now, wouldn't that mean the kingdom was established? I mean, how can someone be translated into something that is not yet in existence?

God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are out side of time. To be translated into the kingdom that is yet to come is not outside the power of God.

Clearly, Jesus established His kingdom when He said He would. That's the point the Scriptures show.

Originally Posted by - DRA -
Revelation 1:9. The apostle John was in the kingdom.

Rev 1:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rev&chapter=1&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: [/QUOTE]

Uh, not sure what your point is. Physically, according to Revelation 1:9, John was on the island of Patmos. Spiritually, according to Revelation 1:9, John was in the kingdom. And, at the appropriate times, John was given selective visions of heaven as described in the book.

- DRA -

19th March 2007, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by - DRA -

To me, the dangerous approach to these passages would be to portray the Lord as not doing what He said He would do, and to portray two of His apostles as misrepresenting the truth of the matter.

And, as far as Jesus sitting on David's throne is concerned, I suggest consideration of the apostle Peter's sermon in Acts 2. In a nutshell, after the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, the Spirit directed Peter to deliver a message where Jesus was proclaimed to be both Lord and Christ (verse 36). "Christ" is the Greek version of the Hebrew word "Messiah," which means Jesus is the king promised through David. In the preceding verses, Peter uses passages such as Psalm 16:10 and Psalm 110:1 to show that the promises were fulfilled in Jesus -- not in David himself. On top of the scriptural evidence, Peter appeals to another piece of evidence to show that Jesus is exalted to God's right hand and currently reigning -- the arrival of the Holy Spirit (verse 33).

Don't know if you have read the previous posts, but another passage to consider is Romans 4:11-12. In a nutshell, the point is that the true children of Abraham aren't those who are of his direct lineage, but those who have the faith that he had. Another relevant text is Romans chapters 9-11. God intended all along to extend an invitation to the Gentiles to be His people. They readily accepted. Not all. Just those who had the type of faith Abraham had.

To me it is much more dangerous to pick at parts of the Word of God and not read the whole Word. Romans is written to the Gentiles and as such contain an emphases on the Gentile world. It is a very dangerous thing to conclude that the church will reap the rewards that God has promised to the Jew.

The dreams of Daniel;

Dan 9:26 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Dan&chapter=9&verse=26&version=kjv#26)And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 24 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Dan&chapter=9&verse=24&version=kjv#24)¶Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Dan&chapter=9&verse=25&version=kjv#25)Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Dan&chapter=9&verse=26&version=kjv#26)And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Dan&chapter=9&verse=27&version=kjv#27)And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The interval between the 69th week, which ends at the entrance of Jesus ridding on an ass into Jerusalem and the start of the 70th week will be the time of the Gentiles at which point He will confirm the covenant.

Food for Thought:
Matthew 24:15 says, "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place." (KNJV)

followed by this thought ...

Matthew 24:34 says, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled."

Conclusion, the events discussed in Matthew 24:2-34 occurred during the first-century. The description is of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Rom 11:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=1&version=kjv#1)¶I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. 2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=2&version=kjv#2)God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=3&version=kjv#3)Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=4&version=kjv#4)But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.

Rom 11:25 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=25&version=kjv#25)For I would not, breth