Why Sunday

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Amanah

In the old testament the Sabbath day was first instituted at creation when God rested from His works on the seventh day.
So the Sabbath transcends the law as it was before the law, and continues after the law. (whether literal or spiritual)

When Moses received the 10 commandments, the Sabbath was instituted for the Israelites as a day they could do no work, a day of rest.
Their worship was a daily worship and sacrificial system of animal offerings along with feasts and remembrances.

At the time of Jesus and the Apostles there was a daily sacrificial system along with Rabbis meeting with and teaching people in the temple daily.
Along with a Sabbath rest.

After the resurrection, the Apostles continued to teach and meet daily in the temple. And they observed the Sabbath.

After the temple was destroyed and diaspora, the Jews observed the Sabbath as a day of rest, fellowship, and ritual observances with prescribed candles and prayers, ect.

It is not clear to me how Christians transitioned after the destruction of the temple, other than what was decided at the Jerusalem Council.

But it does seem that the Jerusalem church observed the law.
http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/evidence.html



After Constantine, Sunday was made the official day of Christian observance.

*************

Since the Bible is a history of the church, and the early Jerusalem Church is in transition, still keeping the law. it is difficult. The early church struggled to define the transition.

Also, they did not yet have a compiled New Testament, so their bible was the Hebrew scriptures.

The mistake that I think you're making is saying that God commanded man to have a day of rest on the 7th day back in Genesis when God himself rested on the seventh day. But we don't read a command ever given to man to rest at that time. Personally, I think, because Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, numbers, and Deuteronomy, that he inserted the point here that it was made sacred. But you don't read of God commanding any man to keep that day, anyway. You just read that God rested. But then in Moses day man is invited to rest that day for the first time. Never before that do you ever read of man being commanded to take that day and rest. Since Moses wrote Genesis, and commented that God had made it a holy day, that was to prepare people for the law that he was bringing to them in his day. But the fact remains, that God never commanded a man to keep that day when he rested himself on it. Man was invited for the first time to do so in the law of Moses.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

He also said eating was a shadow of things to come. Have you stopped eating food? Or are you "weak in faith"?

When Paul said meats and drinks were a shadow of Jesus Christ, he was referring to the meat and drink distinctions of what was allowed and what wasn't. It wasn't just eating food.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Already addressed previously, "works of the law" is now and was then a Jewish idiom for rabbinic halacha, not the written commandments of the Pentateuch. Not understanding the actual meaning of terms used in the Bible leads to faulty conclusions. Paul was not saying those who obey God's commandments are under a curse. The subject in Galatians is JUSTIFICATION, not "shall we obey God?"

And by the way, Paul's point is those who are "of the works of the law" DO NOT OBEY GOD. That's why they are under the curse, they seek justification by legal means apart from Christ, which is an impossibility. But again, the subject is NOT "why Christians are free to disobey God's instructions".

Yes, Paul was talking about the law of Moses when he talked about being cursed under the law, because he also referred to the law of Moses, not halacha Judaism, in Leviticus 18 and 5. He's restricting everything he's saying to the writings of Moses, and not some rabbinical tradition

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Again, is not the entire law said to be a shadow? Therefore everything from Genesis to Malachi can be kept spiritually while disobeying the actual words of whatever God said.

And again, there is no verse that says "the Sabbath is a shadow so no need to keep it".

We're just repeating things, because I already said that the ceremonies and rituals are what Paul is referring to in the shadow.

[mfblume]

Bro Avery, you said it was here that I made debate tactics and strawman arguments. Thanks for the reference.

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are missing consistently the same thing Paul's detractors missed. You think removal of the law means acceptance and allowance for sin.

I meant that you think OUR idea of removal of law is license to sin. Is that not what you think we are saying when way there is removal of law? It seems you and Bro Esaias always reference antinomians my when we talk as though we think no law is freedom to sin. I can see how you thought I made a straw an post since I said you believe removal of law is license to sin. I thought you would understand thatI east your opinion of our thoughts is such.

No. You miss the point as Esaias does that the problem with Law was not the Law.

Again, in reference to what you think about our thoughts.

It was man's sin. And the METHOD of taking sinful men and making them merely refuse to sin and instead obey DOES NOT WORK.

There I meant that you miss the purpose that Paul wrote Romans 7. He was writing to explain to us that a change from the OLDNESS of letter to newness of Spirit was necessary becuase OLDNESS of letter is a METHOD that does not work. And he described how that does not work in verses 15-24 of Romans 7.

It works on paper alone. And by the same token, you confuse what it means to walk after the flesh as though it does not INCLUDE self making self-righteous through obedient works.

ABove, I was addressing the thought that you folks espouse which is the idea that walking after the flesh is simply committing sins like adultery and so on. Is that not what you think walking after the flesh is? Committing sins? I was explaining that walking after the flesh is also using the he OLDNESS of the letter to serve God.

the entire concept you overlook is that Law is good, but the method and serving manner of law makes it not work. You miss the entire concept that I presented in my thread about walking after the flesh being law-keeping.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes, Paul was talking about the law of Moses when he talked about being cursed under the law, because he also referred to the law of Moses, not halacha Judaism, in Leviticus 18 and 5. He's restricting everything he's saying to the writings of Moses, and not some rabbinical tradition

I don't think you really understand what halacha is and its relation to the written law. Halacha is the Jewish understanding of "How to obey the Torah". It is basically "How to justified" or "How to be righteous". Yet it is NOT just "Do what is written". It is also not just "some rabbinical tradition". It is JUDAISM.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

ABove, I was addressing the thought that you folks espouse which is the idea that walking after the flesh is simply committing sins like adultery and so on. Is that not what you think walking after the flesh is? Committing sins? I was explaining that walking after the flesh is also using the he OLDNESS of the letter to serve God.

Paul said explicitly that flesh is disobedient to the law of God. The fleshly or carnal mind is enmity with God BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD. Being fleshly does NOT mean "doing the will of God."

Serving in the oldness of the letter is NOT obeying God's commandments as written. It is contrasted by Paul with circumcision of the heart. The oldness of the letter is THE OLD COVENANT. That METHOD is devoid of the Cross, and therefore you will not actually serve God. You will not actually do what God commands. Why? Because you are under the old covenant, under the law. This is absolutely GUARANTEED if you follow "the deeds/works of the law", the ergon nomou, of halachic tradition.

But if you allow the Spirit to lead, you will serve God in the newness of the Spirit. Not new laws, but a new administration or diakonia (ministry), the laws of God being administered by the Holy Ghost in the heart instead of in tables of stone etc.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't think you really understand what halacha is and its relation to the written law. Halacha is the Jewish understanding of "How to obey the Torah". It is basically "How to justified" or "How to be righteous". Yet it is NOT just "Do what is written". It is also not just "some rabbinical tradition". It is JUDAISM.

Is it exactly what God intended them to understand about the Law according to what Moses wrote? All that I see Paul doing is quoting the Old Testament and showing that one is cursed under such a law becuase law itself said one was when it said the criteria for being cursed is being unable to keep it.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

The verses he quoted are from the Law and are making reference to that same law, itself. Law said that you are cursed if you do not continue in all of that and and same law.

Deu 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Paul stated that becuase Deut 27:26 made that claim, then everyone is cursed who is under it. How can he say that unless he is implying that no one can perfectly keep it?

Then verse 11 quotes another passage from the Old Testament:

Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

And verse 12 quotes yet another passage from Law.

Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

Then verse 13 another passage from Law.

Deu 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

And Paul is stating that the Law itself made these claims, and he is showing how that being under such a law means you cannot keep it and will therefore be cursed. He is reasoning with what the Law itself stated,and not some way the rabbis thought in his day, whether they understood it correctly or not. Paul flatly stated that Moses told the people that they are cursed if they do not keep all the law God gave to them perfectly. What does that have to do with the way rabbis thought, unless they correctly understood those references Paul made?

What am I missing here?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul said explicitly that flesh is disobedient to the law of God. The fleshly or carnal mind is enmity with God BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD. Being fleshly does NOT mean "doing the will of God."

Yes, but I am saying you miss the context of all that he meant when he spoke of walking after the flesh. Again, Rom 7:6 spoke of the manner of serving God by OLDNESS of the letter. Then he went on to describe what that manner was by depicting himself in the shoes of someone enacting it out. And then Paul called that a walk after the flesh, because he explained that the way you do this service is by carrying out commands devoid of the power of the cross and finding that in your flesh is not good thing, which is a reference to the sin that was in his flesh. Why would he suddenly talk about his flesh when he was describing the manner of serving God by the letter? It was becuase that is the only way to serve in that manner. You read the letter and make yourself obey it, and find that sin that is in your flesh instead takes that law you try to obey and kills you with it (Ro. 7:11). So,while you seek to obey the letter, sin in your flesh assassinates you with that law,and you fail. Paul was describing why people try to keep law and fail.

After having made this reference to sin in the flesh, while trying to keep the law, he then summarized the whole problem of serving God by the letter by saying it's more or less a case of ACVTUALLY serving the law of sin and death with the flesh, since sin in his flesh disallows him from performing what he willed to do in obedience, and the only thing that remains faithful to keeping the law IS HIS MIND seeing as HE maintained th will to obey.

Rom 7:25 ... So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

And after having described the futility of serving God in OLDNESS of the letter,and summarizing what happens in verse 25with a reference to the flesh that he introduced to the explanation in verse 18, he then writes 8:1 and tells us to not walk after THAT FLESH that caused the problems according to 7:18 and 7:25, and INSTEAD walk after the Spirit. In other words, becuase his description of serving in oldness of the letter caused him to recognize that sin in his flesh was a recurring troublemaker in all of that effort, he then described such an effort as walk after the flesh. It's actually more complex than what you're relating about it.

Serving in the oldness of the letter is NOT obeying God's commandments as written. It is contrasted by Paul with circumcision of the heart. The oldness of the letter is THE OLD COVENANT. That METHOD is devoid of the Cross, and therefore you will not actually serve God.

What do you mean that serving in OLDNESS of the letter is not obeying commandments as written? Paul said that he set out to do what the law commanded, and found himself unable because in in his flesh would react to his every attempt and slay him using that law.


It's as if sin could think, and as soon as Paul set out to obey the law as written, sin thought,"Oh, he's trying to serve God by the letter, so I will take that attempt of his handling of law, and use that law to cause him to fail him instead."

Paul analyzed how sin would stir up every time he set out to serve God without reliance on the Spirit and reliance on the basis of the work of the cross that led to his life from death with Christ to not serve sin. He then basically said that serving in oldness of the letter was walking after the flesh, because you rely on flesh to obey what your mind wills to accomplish, and only finding sin in your flesh using law to kill your efforts.

It is the Old Covenant way of serving God. I agree it is devoid of the cross. But that is what You will not actually do what God commands. Why? Because you are under the old covenant, under the law. This is absolutely GUARANTEED if you follow "the deeds/works of the law", the ergon nomou, of halachic tradition.

But if you allow the Spirit to lead, you will serve God in the newness of the Spirit.

Not new laws, but a new administration or diakonia (ministry), the laws of God being administered by the Holy Ghost in the heart instead of in tables of stone etc.

I agree.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The question before us is "Did God give the law knowing man was unable to keep it?"

Several things need to be determined before the question can be answered.

1. What is meant by "law" in the question? Is it the first 5 books of the Bible? Is it all the commands of God to men in general? Is it the Sinaitic Covenant? Is it the Levitical system of clergy, temple, and offerings, and washings, etc? What is meant by "law" in the question?

The written Law of Moses, as first mentioned in Romans 2.

2. What kind of inability are we talking about? Physical inability? By which I mean a natural inability, an inability arising from something lacking in the very essence or nature of mankind.

Sin in our flesh disables us from keeping Law perfectly. Rom 7:17-18. Paul described this earlier in 7:8-11. He identifies where sin dwells in 17-18. What he said in verses 8-11 are what I refer to as someone being disabled from keeping law.

Or is the inability a moral inability? By which is meant an inability arising from a choice, an inability that is rooted in the free will of the individual. To illustrate: you cannot flap your arms and fly around, that is a natural inability. You cannot sell your child for 1000 dollars, that is a moral inability. You technically could if you wanted to, but you choose not to, therefore you "can't" do it. Which kind of inability are we talking about?

Definitely not the latter you described just now above.

3. What does it mean to be righteous? What does it mean to say that God is righteous?

To be righteous is to be in good standing with God. God being righteousness means that He is just and good and is only everything that is right.

Hope that helps.