Rejoicing In the Sabbath:

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by mfblume

..."wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Nuff said.

Man, you do not even believe the bible! What's it to you?

I already said TWICE NOW that a man needs a day of rest. Don't you read? lol

Hallowed (Blessed, Sanctified), it; shows how important “Rest” is.

Man, show me where I said I don't believe the Bible! I challenge the Bible, and that mfblume, is something everyone does! If people didn't challenge the Bible, we wouldn't have over 30,000 Christian Denominations on Earth.

What's it to you? You use the Bible and preach false concepts that deceive the listener!

So, if a man needs a day of rest, where do you draw the line?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tgbtg

brethren, reverting back to the law is what paul fought tooth and nail.

Consider this:
1 now i say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3 even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4 but when the fulness of the time was come, god sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 and because ye are sons, god hath sent forth the spirit of his son into your hearts, crying, abba, father.
7 wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of god through christ.
8 howbeit then, when ye knew not god, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
9 but now, after that ye have known god, or rather are known of god, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 i am afraid of you, lest i have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
12 brethren, i beseech you, be as i am; for i am as ye are: Ye have not injured me at all.
13 ye know how through infirmity of the flesh i preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14 and my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of god, even as christ jesus.

Let's stop trying to observe days that are a shadow of the real thing. Moreover, if we have the real thing. Why revert back to the shadow?

Continuing:

Gal 4
9 my little children, of whom i travail in birth again until christ be formed in you,
20 i desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for i stand in doubt of you.
21 tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 for it is written, that abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 but he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 which things are an allegory: For these are the two covenants; the one from the mount sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is agar.
25 for this agar is mount sinai in arabia, and answereth to jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

The law given on mount sinai (exodus 20) leads to bondage!!! It's right there brethren!

agreed!

[Praxeas]

I wonder sometimes when people bounce around from doctrine to doctrine if they just don't feel complete in Him and are constantly looking for something new to believe in

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The early church met on the first day of the week. It's in Acts.

You’ll discover that it’s not there.

Yes it has.

It was UNTIL JOHN. That means it is not SINCE JOHN. SINCE JOHN, the Kingdom of God is preached, not Law. That is from the very context you cited to show Law exists today. Paul said LAW is done away with in 2 Cor 3, like the glory on Moses' face faded away.

The Law of God is still present identifying sin in both the lives of the unsaved and the saved.

Yes there is.

Acts 20:7 KJV And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread...

Let’s look at the entire verse and I’ll show you that this isn’t entirely what you think:

Acts 20:7-8
7And 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.
8And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

The first thing we must note is that the calendar of the early church measured days from sun-down to sun-down. We read that the disciples came together "to break bread", and Paul preached unto them "until midnight". This tells us something… if Paul preached until midnight on the “first day of the week” the disciples had to have gathered "to break bread" shortly after sun-down on Saturday evening. An interesting note here… the text mentions something very few pay close attention to. The text states that there “were many lights in the upper chamber where they gathered together”. This is important. Why? Because after the Sabbath, about 45 minutes to an hour after sundown Saturday night (on the first day of the week), the Havdalah service begins! This service ceremonially ends the Sabbath and separate the Sabbath from the common days of the week. There is a meal eaten as part of the Havdalah service called the “Melaveh Malka” (also known as “the fourth meal”). This was the reason they gathered to break bread! The “many lights” refers to the Havdalah candles that were a part of this service:

To see an image of this celebration: http://www.mitlasproductions.com/smu...lah_candle.JPG

These are candles with at least six wicks and are held in small torches.

What we see is the disciples, and Paul, closing the Sabbath. So, let's read it again with what we now know and see if we see a "Sunday worship service" in this text....

Acts 20:7-8
7And 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.
8And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

Upon review, I believe that most readers would agree with me that it is obviously a false pretense to say that this verse validates a Sunday worship service based merely on the words "first day of the week". It was a service closing the Sabbath on Saturday night that began shortly after sun-down, "the first day of the week".

So…nice try Rev. Blume.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Brethren, reverting back to the Law is what Paul fought tooth and nail.

Consider this:
1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
12 Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.
13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Let's stop trying to observe days that are a shadow of the real thing. Moreover, if we have the real thing. why revert back to the shadow?

Continuing:

Gal 4
9 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

The Law given on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20) LEADS to BONDAGE!!! It's right there brethren!

This is always the Scripture I see trotted out for a defense of denying the Sabbath, and I gotta say it seems weak. It relates to the Sabbath only in that the Sabbath is a day, and I'm pretty sure the similarity ends there. This is not the kind of "days" that this verse means, but empty, meaningless days. They were sick with them at the time.

Yes, the Law leads to bondage, but you distort this to say "keeping the Sabbath" is now bondage, equal to "honoring your father and mother" is now bondage? And missing the point of the "bondage" here, to me; unless you feel somehow compelled to observe the Sabbath? Then I would agree with you.

While I don't think we are to cherish the Sabbath above Grace, Isaiah makes plain that the Sabbath will be observed again, at least if you understand his words here to be prophecy?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I wonder sometimes when people bounce around from doctrine to doctrine if they just don't feel complete in Him and are constantly looking for something new to believe in

I depends on one's expression of faith. Some a "credal", meaning they have a set creed that they adhere to as dogma. Some are "confessional" having only the bare essential doctrines that they believe in articulated, yet leaving room for conversation regarding all other issues of faith and practice.

I'm more confessional. I enjoy asking questions, challenging dogma, seeking answers, and engaging in the conversation of faith.

[johnny44]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Doing good, healing for example, and seeking nourishment doesn't violate the Fourth Commandment.

So they were in full compliance with the commandment when the were in the field plucking grain?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by johnny44

So they were in full compliance with the commandment when the were in the field plucking grain?

Yes. The commandment speaks of rest and worship. Not eating, gathering food, healing, or doing good.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I wish you could get what we are saying.

Resting a certain day is simply common sense. What day? It does not matter. But under religious covenant, the day DID matter.

Well the day apparantly matter so much that God made note of it in Genesis, this was long befoere there was a religious covenant.

Also we must rembember that the Israelites kept the Sabbath way before there was a covent, for the covenant was establish at Mount Sinai, but the Sabbath was kept before that event.

So we know that before there was a religious covenant the day DID matter.

If something is establish only under a religious convenant, the rightfully it can be discarded when the covenant is not longer binding, but if something is established before the religous covenant, then it is rigth to assume that it still is valid, since it was established before.

The fact that the Sabbath was later added to the law with more instructions does not negate its validity.

[Aquila]

Sacred rhythms of rest.

Where in the NT are we commanded to take a day of rest or for worship?