Rejoicing In the Sabbath:

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Show us a Sunday service.

You respond to a request for a passage with a similar request for a passage.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Romans FORCED the Sunday service upon the church in accordance to their calendar. Originally, the church met on Saturday nights (the first day of the week).

Whether Saturday night or Sunday morning, the point is the same. They had church the first day of the week. Again, it's a strawman to say the Roman church forced anything. They made an issue out of it, but who cares? A day is a day. Paul contrasted those who eat meat and those who refuse meat as those strong and weak in the faith respectively. He did the same with not keeping a day and keeping a day holy in Romans 14. This shows that keeping a day holy is weakness of faith.

Who is weak in the faith? It is the one who is more concerned over the outward issue of meats and days than the other. One who needs a physical act or physical refraining of an act is weak in the faith since they require something physically done or refrained from with a focus on doing or not doing.

Romans 14:1-6 KJV Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. (2) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. (3) Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. (4) Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Not true. It reads:

Galatians 4:10-11
10Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

The Galatians were known as a very superstitious people. Astrology and the pagan superstitions that accomanpanied the cultural holidays was very prevalent among them. Because if you think about it.... Paul would be arguing that they not keep a calendar at all because he states not only days... but months, astrological convergences, and years. lol

We are anti CALENDAR! lol It's not Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday... I refuse to write it or set my alarm. I'm in my REST! LOL

Incorrect. Context shows they were coming under the bondage of Law. Why do you think he mentioned circumcision later? Context is saying the elements of the world UNDER WHICH JEWS WERE BOUND in Gal 4:3 (WE indicating Jews like Paul who wrote) was the bondage GENTILES in the church of Galatia started to experience in verse 9.

Elements of the world are talking about elementary schooling of Law using carnal and worldly physical acts of doing and refraining. You miss the context of Gal 4.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The the Law as a binding covenant with the nation of Isreal was until John. The moral authority of the Law remains. Sin is still transgression of the Law.

There is no distinction between moral authority of Law and religious ceremony.

Of course sin is still transgression of the law. What has that got to do with whether or not Law passed when John came?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Rev. Blume....

What's your take on this verse:

Isaiah 66:22-24
22For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Here, when God speaks of a "new heavens and a new earth", is He speaking about the eternal state.... or the New Covenant?

It is possible he is speaking of New Covenant. I lean that way.

See ...


Isaiah 51:16 KJV And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.


2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (Gr. CREATION) : old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My point is that this was an event that transpired on SATURDAY night just after the SABBATH gatherings. We DON'T see SUNDAY worship here.

You are missing the forest for the trees. And you got it from books of Sabbatarians.

Stick with the Bible, bro. It's either this or that doctrine with you in the last few months.

Sabbath was a shadow of things to come -- the body of Christ. We are out of the days of shadows now. All shadows, from Adam to Christ.

Sunday when we have church is the first day of the week when the Jews had their meetings on the first day. It's all the same day. But to dissect with part of the first day is to be as off as sabbath keepers in my mind because that is an emphasis on shadows and analysis of weak-faithed Christianity. It's so "outward".

Show ONE VERSE where the Lord and apostles commanded KEEP SABBATH DAY, One verse.

Do not go to what people DID that has not explicit command to do so in teaching format.

All the disciples said about Gentiles coming into the church that had to do with Old Covenant was to tell them not to eat meats offered to idols, no blood and do not eat things strangled. NO SABBATH WAS MENTIONED.

And I KNOW the pat-answer sabbatarians give. They say that is because they also said Moses is read in every city as if they can learn from the Rabbi's from the synagogues about sabbath. NO! The reason they noted this must be done because Moses is read every sabbath is because they were saying, "And make sure they get these as the ONLY requirements, otherwise they will be influenced by Judaists in every city on their sabbaths who preach sabbathkeeping."

Acts 15:19-21 KJV Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No. It's not because "it is like Him being there"... He IS there.

He is there, but THAT IS NOT what the context means. That is a traditional error.

Second, if it's true in one context... going to a brother... it's true in others. Else we are burdened with having to know exactly what number a valid "gathering" of believers must be comprised of before Jesus shows up. Duh. That would be stupid. God knows that missionaries often find themselves miles from large groups of believers in hostile countries and by the grace of God find two or maybe three locally to gather with. Remember, this is a KINGDOM... the traditional "church" model is man made.

Has nothing to do with tradition.

I disagree. Many pioneer families didn't have a chapel for miles and circuit riding preachers sometimes didn't show up in that territory but once a month. A strong family unit is truly all that's needed. After all... God might burden that family to travel somewhere where there are no Christians and their home is the only "church" they have.

If I'm wrong... give me chapter and verse about how many people it takes to gather as the church.

Oh please. That is a no-brainer.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not dogmatic. I believe that the quest for understanding truth is continual. Those who are so sold and dogmatic on any position are dangerous in my opinion. Why? Because you have all these "opinions" and each person is "betting" there soul that their's is the correct one. I'm more "rabbinical" in my approach. If you get a wealth of information leading to one conclusion, embrace it. If more information comes that would take you a different direction, take it. Never swear to understand all things. Never. Let the liars do that. lol

It's not being erringly dogmatic. It's being on the other end of error. It's a case of every wind of doctrine. What textbook will you be pasting from next week?
No offense intended.

[bbyrd009]

Well, but I gotta say, having hung around a rabbi...circle, forget what they call them, that that is exactly how these men of God, that have been in the Torah et al since like age 2, do it--yule never hear them say "no," I mean even at things that would come across as pretty far out...they instead seek for...it's hard to explain, kinda, but their approach to an unfamiliar doctrine is more inquisitive than accusative, I guess is the best way to put it. They are debating much more esoteric things that this, but...

[Truthseeker]

Are you allowed to watch college football on the sabbath?