[mfblume]

Context is not lost, and are you implying I did this purposely to accomplish that?

Originally Posted by Esaias

Do you understand that your statement comes across as saying "Context is not used to determine the meaning of a word in Scripture"?

I am standing on context by using what Colossians 2 said along with what Galatians 3 said, which is why I said the actual overall picture is that the reason elements of the world are listed as law in Col 2 with traditions of men is because we not only are to avoid traditions of men, but also elementary schooling of law if those elements are said to not be something we much engage in.

Please include all I say about the issue, and not just one small part out of overall context.

It has been noted by many that simply taking a Strong's Dictionary and thinking THAT determines the meaning of a Biblical term, without regard to it's USAGE in Scripture, in it's CONTEXT, is a sure fire way to misunderstanding?

Read again what I just said.

Brother Blume, the Galatians were pagans, in bondage to stoicheion of the world, and were slipping back into the bondage they had been delivered from.

Paul said the Jews were in bondage to the elements of the world. Jews, Esaias. Jews. They were under law until Christ came, like students bound under tutorship until graduation day. That’s plain context.

Paul did say "the same type or classification of bondage", but that they were desiring to be in bondage to what they had been delivered from when they worshipped devils.

He said BONDAGE, period. And like so many scholars noted apart from my own studies that arrived at the same conclusion, showing it’s self-evident, they went from one form of bondage to another.

The new testament shows a Sabbath keeping church. Luke constantly refers to the seventh day as the Sabbath, in non Judean contexts. His mindset was different than yours, as evidenced by the terms he uses.

That’s a claim you did not even attempt to justify by example. Jesus was born under the law and kept all the observances of law. That does not prove we’re meant to keep law.

Also, Paul was repeatedly accused of speaking against the law. If Paul taught what YOU taught, the accusations would be justified. Yet Paul repeatedly affirmed he said no such things. Calling the recognition of God's holy days and especially the weekly Sabbath "weak and beggarly elements" that everyone ought to abandon would fit the bill, yet Paul denied such accusations.

It’s so plain to see in Paul’s context of Gal 3 through 4 that’s it’s hard to resist refusing to answer your statement here. I really cannot believe you cannot see the point I am making about Gal 3-4 context knowing what you’re seen in other issues. It’s like you’re in a bubble when it comes to Sabbath keeping while you are great in other aspects. You hit this issue and it’s ridiculous compared to brilliant words on other issues.

Paul was said to be speaking against law because they thought he meant law was trash and rubbish, which is what you were actually, and falsely, accusing me of antinomianism a few months ago.
Paul never stated law was trash, but it can appear to have been the case when one does not understand what Paul taught about how we are meant to live by strength of the Spirit, after prayer in faith for God to empower us to live righteously, rather than making ourselves obey rules on a list.

Paul plainly stated that the commandments of God written and engraved on stones were the MINISTRATION OF DEATH. I meant to bring this up earlier, since I recall how you waffled on that terribly so by saying Paul was not referring to the actual ten commandments in 2 Cor 3 when he distinctly said he was! And to see Sabbath fulfilled is to keep it in our rest with Christ, aside from the moral commandments to not kill, etc., which are not shadows as Sabbaths were.

The post apostolic history of the church shows that Sabbath keeping (and Passover and Pentecost as well!) were apostolic traditions attacked by the developing trinitarian catholic movement, along with Oneness and Jesus' Name baptism.

No, and the same argument you use here can be said about real presence in the communion supper, which was claimed to have been kept by the early church. This is why I stick with the BIBLE, and not to so-called historical references outside the bible.

I've studied this out for YEARS, and honestly I've heard just about every argument there is on the subject.

I’ve also studied this for YEARS, Esaias. YEARS. I n ever even met a sabbatarian when I began studying this, because the bible teaches about the issue. So, let’s leave how long we’ve studies this or what history after the bible says, and deal with the bible as I have been.

Example: Sabbath keeping is a fundamental building block (of what, we may enquire?) and therefore we can do away with it.

I already said it was a shadow of Christ’s rest through the work of the cross. I already said the context of Hebrews 4 leads up to our need to go to that throne upon which he rested, which you seemed to agree with, though you never really clarified it when I asked, after you claimed you keep Sabbath and refer to a superior on where we’re told there remains a rest to the people of God in Heb 4.

You once compared it to "ABCs" but failed to grasp what you yourself were saying: that once we learn to read and write complex syntax we can do away with the ABCs! Absurd!

How can you twist words like this so often? The ABC comparison is doing away with the actual blocks that are painted with letters of the alphabet to teach us how to read and write, and being abandoned so that we do not have to resort to our little wooden blocks of painted letters when we actually write as adults. Keeping the day is a building block that teaches us there is a superior rest beyond mere observance of a physical day on planet earth, which is resting in the finished work of the cross.

Wonderfully enough, this is shown when Israel left Sinai, where law was given, and went a three day journey to enter the REST OF CANAAN, representing entrance into the rest of the cross by leaving law’s schoolmastery.

The Sabbath was around long before Sinai and the law COVENANT. Jesus said it was made for MAN, which man must be Adam, and by extension all mankind. Not just "the Jews".

Show me one man keeping it in the bible before Moses came with law.

Your arguments about Sabbath keeping being "fulfilled" by simply being a Christian would apply to all of the Ten Commandments.

No it would not apply to all ten. How is a command to not murder fulfilled in Christ so we need not keep the refrain from murder any more?

I have repeatedly pointed this out to you but you keep avoiding it. The same arguments you make re the Fourth Commandment can be made against the others.

No it cannot. And I explained that over and over and you refuse to acknowledge I ever did. AGAIN (!!) let me explain it. Sabbath was a a shadow of the rest Christ entered after his work of NEW creation, and we enter that REST by ceasing from law’s push to make us righteous through works. Now how can that apply to the other of the ten?

Ex: The fifth commandment centers on physical actions and biological (fleshly, natural) parents, but Jesus is our Father and the church is our Mother, these are higher spiritual truths found in Christ. So what the fourth commandment pictured is for us to give honour to God and Church, and therefore we do not need to bother with the literal obedience to the literal command in regard to our fleshly fathers and mother's.

You’re really reaching now.

Honouring mother and father is a moral obligation aside from the amoral nature of Sabbath keeping.