7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[mfblume]

And once again, please deal with my reasoning about Passover and how that if you keep Passover you're violating the purpose of it because it's meant to look ahead not back to the cross.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sorry but that doesnt deal with what I said about observing. It is an old testament term that is common, to show that the days, months and years are observances. That's unrelated to the Lord's supper, since paul spoke of days, months and years to be observed.

It deals EXACTLY with your point. If Paul was arguing against observing, then you and I are in the same boat, just using different calendars. Besides which, as I already showed, the phrase he uses is never used in the Bible to describe Israel's feast days, Sabbaths, etc. It is also NOT used in Jewish contemporary writings. It is completely related to the Lord's Supper, since the Lord's Supper is OBSERVED at set times by practically ALL who aren't spiritual communion types.

Your claim that it is a common, Old Testament term is demonstrably false. Once again, it does not occur in the Old Testament nor does it occur in contemporary Jewish writings as a catch-all phrase for the appointments of Lev 23.

[Esaias]

Brother Blume said:

We know the Passover was something that pointed to Jesus who was still yet to come during the Old Testament times.

Paul clearly stated that when he wrote this: "1 Corinthians 5:7.. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:"

Paul stated that Passover was pointing ahead to Christ, not pointing back, being crucified in sacrifice.

If you keep Passover today, and you believe Passover is included in the holy days of Col 2:15, then you have to insist you are LOOKING AHEAD to Christ's sacrifice for us by keeping Passover. Passover does not LOOK BACK to His sacrifice, but LOOKS AHEAD.

What LOOKS BACK to his death and sacrifice is is COMMUNION SUPPER where we REMEMBER that Christ WAS crucified for us.

WHAT ELSE would PASSOVER be a shadow of that has not yet come in your estimation, seeing as PASSOVER is a holy day? Is it a holy day or is it not? If it is, then I assume you keep it, since you do not agree Paul dissuaded believers from keeping such holy days in Gal 4:11, then what is it a shadow of that has not yet come?

It appears you do not understand some things, so allow me to clear them up for you.

1. Nothing in the passage about Passover proves that present and future tenses should be read as past tenses, which is what you do in Colossians. Paul doesn't say "Passover is (present) a shadow of Christ's death to come (future tense referring to a past event). Your reasoning here seems quite garbled, honestly.

2. Christ our Passover does not mean Jesus is the day of Passover, but that Jesus is our Passover SACRIFICE. The term Passover is often used to refer to the lamb that was sacrificed and eaten (Exodus 12:11, Exodus 12:43, 2 Chronicles 30:17-18, Mark 14:12, etc), as well as to the day on which it was killed, as well as the (next) day on which it was eaten, as well as the whole seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread. So "Christ our Passover" refers to Christ as the Lamb that is sacrificed for us to effect our deliverance.

3. You ignored the part where Paul states the Corinthians were in fact keeping the feast of Unleavened Bread ("...as ye are unleavened..."). Notice, Paul says to purge out the old leaven, but says "AS YE ARE UNLEAVENED". Two leavens, one literal, one metaphorical. They were to get rid of the old leaven, which is a metaphor for their carnality and sin etc. Yet he said they were already unleavened, which requires their then-present condition of being unleavened to be OTHER than the metaphorical condition he wanted them to be. He says AS ye are unleavened. The word as is kathos and means "according to, just as, even as." Just as they were unleavened, according to the fact they were unleavened, they were to become unleavened. Which is only possible if BOTH kinds of unleavened conditions are being referred to. Guy tells his seven foot tall son, "Just like you are tall, stand tall in the face of adversity.' That is, just like you are literally X, be X in a metaphorical sense as well. This proves the apostolic church at Corinth was in fact keeping the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread.

4. You also ignored the fact that Paul instructed them to KEEP THE FEAST (verse 8). They were to keep the Feast sincerely, in a new covenant sense, which required them to purge out the moral leaven JUST AS they had purged out (gotten rid of) the physical, literal leaven. I'm glad you brought up this passage because it is a further proof that the apostolic church kept the Passover. Which of course is acknowledged by ALL as being an historical fact. Four centuries later Christendom was still debating WHEN to keep Passover (not "if it should be kept").

5. Regarding the prophetic and typological significances of Passover and the other Feast days, I've written several times about that. Here is a link to a primary synopsis of the subject:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=50138

6. Passover, and the other appointments, are to be kept in a New Covenant sense. Their New Covenant significance is what is in view. Jesus, at the Last Supper, instituted the Christian Passover, or to put it more technically, He gave the Passover its New Covenant significance. The Lord's Supper is in fact the New Covenant Passover memorial meal. While it is true the Lord's Supper has additional significations, such as reflecting the feeding of the five thousand, and the four thousand, and the numerous fellowship meals Jesus ate with His disciples, and thus no need to restrict the Lord's Supper to only a once a year event, it is nevertheless pre-eminently a Passover type of meal. When Christians eat the Lord's Supper, they are in effect eating the New Covenant Passover meal. The problem of course is that most of Christendom has moved the Passover to a non-biblical day (Easter according to Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant dogma, or New Year's Eve as many oneness pentecostals do) as well as changed it from a joyous celebratory meal of fellowship and unity into a funeralesque dirge of morbid self centered introspection and a reenactment of a modified Roman Catholic Eucharistic Mass.

7. The Lord's Supper looks back to His death, as well as forward to His return, for by it we shew the Lord's death UNTIL HE COMES. It is both a memorial of a past event, as well as an anticipation of a future reality. Just like the old Passover was both a memorial of a past event (the original Exodus) and an anticipation of a future event (the Messianic Exodus accomplished by Christ). Which also is a present on going reality, both individually and corporately, in the New, similarly to how it was both a corporate and individual present reality under the Old. Again, see the thread on prophetic aspects of the Feasts I linked to above.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You have to overlook the plain meaning of the handwriting of ordinances, just before we read about sabbaths.

This was addressed awhile back on another thread where you and I discussed this same issue:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...postcount=1009

Originally Posted by Esaias

2. The ordinances of God are not against anyone, it is the penalty which was against us and which was removed. The "handwriting" is the cheirographon, a Greek legal term used for the written record of an accused person's violation of law ("ordinances" or dogmasin). It was brought forth "tou mesou" or "in the middle" of the court (same exact phrase used by Paul). The record of our transgressions was nailed to the cross and "blotted out" (a term used in the OT to refer to God's pardoning of sin, not removing God's commandments).

I thought I had addressed this already on this thread, but the Search function isn't pulling it up, so maybe I overlooked it.

[Esaias]

Regarding "exact phraseology", your argumentation is identical to trinitarians who respond to us pointing out "trinity" is not in the Bible, or (more importantly) the fact there are no Bible verses that actually teach the doctrine of the trinity.

Your strange attempts regarding the identification of the Lamb in Revation are not comparable, as the Lamb who was slain, but lives, has seven horns and seven eyes, the seven Spirits, is on the throne, with God as His Father, by whose blood the saints overcome and are made righteous, who has twelve apostles, etc etc etc, cannot be identified with anything or anyone else EXCEPT Christ, and that's just within the Revelation itself. That is a far cry from me simply observing there is nothing in the entire Bible that says or even suggests we should NOT keep Sabbath. The TWO PASSAGES YOU CITE (Colossians and Galatians) don't say it, nor do they teach it, as I keep showing.

[Esaias]

Whosoever commits sin also transgresses the law, because sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4

If sin is the transgression of the law, then the law is the Divinely revealed standard of what sin is. To claim something is a sin, one needs to be able to point to the law of God and identify where that something is prohibited.

The Ten Commandments are a basic summary of how to properly love God and love one's fellow man. The first four relate directly to one's relationship with God (and are therefore "liturgical" in nature, having to do with worship), the remaining six have to do with one's relations with their neighbor.

These are summed up by the Two Greatest Commandments, to love God with all the heart, soul, and strength (Deut 6:5) and to love one's neighbor as oneself (Lev 19:18). Love is the fulfilling of the law, that is, if you love your neighbor you won't covet their stuff, bear false witness against them, steal, commit adultery, murder, or dishonour one's parents. If you love God you won't serve other gods, make or worship idols, take His name in vain, or forget to keep His Sabbath holy.

Transgressing one of the Ten Commandments is most assuredly sin. Stealing, murdering, adultery, etc, are all sins. So is profaning the Lord's name, worshipping other gods, serving any god other than the LORD, and not remembering the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy. A person claiming to obey the Fourth Commandment, but who actually does the exact opposite of what is written, is no different than a person claiming to obey the second commandment but who actually bows down in worship to statues.

The Pharisees' worshipped God, but their worship was empty, pointless, and useless. It was not acceptable to God. Why? Because they taught as doctrine the commandments of men. They invented things, beliefs and practices, that God Himself never said in His Word. And then they took those man made beliefs and practices and claimed Divine approval and Divine authority for them. Furthermore, their man made beliefs were often designed as loopholes and exceptions, to excuse not actually doing what the commandments of God said to do.

A perfect example of this is in Mark 7:9-13.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Here, the Pharisees took the Fifth Commandment and devised a theological loophole, to avoid doing what the Commandment said to do. The reason was s "higher spiritual fulfillment" that provided an excuse to actually, in practice, NOT do what the Word said to do. This was called rejecting the commandment of God in favor of a man made religious tradition.

The Fourth Commandment is similarly treated by many today. A religious dogma is created (not found in Scripture) like "Jesus is our Sabbath" or something similar, and an excuse is provided to not actually remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy, which is exactly what the commandment of God said to do. The man made tradition makes the commandment of God of no effect, because it is not actually being obeyed. I'm sure the Pharisees believed they were honouring father and mother (by means of numerous convoluted theological gyrations) but the reality is they weren't, because they weren't actually doing what God said to do.

[Esaias]

The original apostolic church kept the Sabbath, and believers in succeeding generations followed the ancient, Biblical, and apostolic practice. In the second, third, and fourth centuries (100s, 200s, and 300s AD) a growing movement later identified as "catholicism" sprang up, spread abroad, and by the 4th century became the official religion of the Roman Empire

This movement was known for numerous innovations, including the following:

1. Binitarianism and Trinitarianism.
2. Pouring in place of immersion.
3. Various baptismal formulas in place of "in the name of Jesus Christ" only.
4. Veneration of martyrs, and relics of martyrs, veneration of saints, and veneration of angels, prayers to dead saints and angels, etc.
5. Imposition of various fasts and unscriptural food regulations, ascetism, "penance", flagellation, etc.
6. Adoption of pagan Sun worship such as Christmas, Sunday Passover and Sunday Pentecost, Sunday keeping, Sun symbolism, Eucharistic Mass, etc.
7. Clericalism, priesthood, clergy-laity distinction, magical sacraments, etc.
8. Gradual loss of genuine Holy Ghost baptism and charisms (gifts of the Spirit), replaced by ceremonial "Christening rites", Confirmation, creation of Exorcist as a priestly office, etc.
9. Introduction of physical altars, candles, incense, vestments, bell ringing, and special dedicated temples (church buildings), and so forth.
10. Queen of heaven worship masquerading as veneration of Mary, concept of the Theotokos (Mother of God), etc.

Many of these changes took place over time, and much was fiercely debated as each new innovation was brought in. The "Ante Nicene Fathers" are essentially the writings of various persons recording these various debates. They allow us to chart the rise and development and spread of error and heretical departures from original apostolic faith and practice.

Interestingly, many of the innovations and heresies originated in Rome, and Alexandria. Trinitarianism, Gnostic tendencies, Sun worship, pagan Mystery cult elements, all of these things can be seen getting an early start and maintaining a strong foothold in Rome and Alexandria.

Which brings me to a citation from the 5th century writer Sozomen, in his Ecclesiastical History. After surveying the numerous varieties of local customs throughout the Empire regarding things like the numbers of deacons per church, how many churches a bishop might oversee, how many days or weeks the people fast throughout the year, how often an Alleluia was sung, and so forth, he makes the following observations:

"Assemblies are not held in all churches on the same time or manner. The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings, and, although they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries." Eccl Hist, VII:19, see here for Book VII http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26027.htm

According to Sozomen, writing in the fifth century, practically all Christians everywhere still kept Sabbath - except in Rome, and Alexandria. Hippolytus, a Roman apologist writing in the third century, refers to Sabbath keeping in the church at Rome ( See Apost Trad XX:7 full text here: http://www.bombaxo.com/patristic-stu...lic-tradition/ ), so Sabbath keeping apparently died out in Rome sometime between the 200s and 400s.

The early Christian history books are filled with polemics concerning Sabbath keeping, and just as trinitarianism replaced Oneness to become the "official" doctrine, Sunday keeping eventually replaced Sabbath keeping as the "official" practice.

Notes:

1. It is not intended that Sozomen was claiming most Christians kept Sabbath and not Sunday. The near universal practice in Sozomen's day (mid 5th century AD) was BOTH: Sabbath and Sunday were both recognized and observed, but among trinitarians Sunday had the preeminence, and eventually wholly displaced Sabbath altogether.

2. The citation from Sozomen follows a discussion of Passover keeping, where he points out Rome and Alexandria did not follow the practice of the rest of Christendom, but instead always kept Passover (and thus Pentecost) on a Sunday. The rest of the churches kept Passover on the 14th day of the first month of the Biblical calendar (14 Abib). The practice of Rome won out, and now all catholics and Protestants and Orthodox maintain a Sunday Passover/Easter and a Sunday Pentecost.

3. The rise of trinitarianism, and rise of Sunday keeping, are joined both historically and theologically. They arose in the same areas, promoted by the same people, and are part of the same Sun worshipping Baal religion masquerading as Christianity.

[Esaias]

Me: Romans 7 proves that those under the law were in bondage - not to the law of God, but to the law (rule, dominion, power) of SIN (lawbreaking).

Brother Blume: Incorrect.
Law was a bondage because Paul said they were SHUT UP and KEPT FROM, which indicates terms of bondage, in describing Jews under Law.

1. Romans 7 most plainly states the bondage Paul complained of was the bondage to the law of sin, not the law of God:

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

2. "Those under the law" are not those who obey God's commandments, but rather those who were members of the (Old) Sinaitic Covenant. They were in bondage to sin. The law served as the jailer, as it were, because the law condemned them because of their crimes (transgressions, "sins"). This is emphatically maintained by everyone, myself included.

3. BUT, to argue that "law was bondage, Jesus freed us from bondage, thus freed us from law, THEREFORE IT IS OKAY TO NOT DO WHAT THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT SAYS TO DO" is antinomianism, plain and simple. It posits that God's commandments are bondage, that moral obligation to obey God is bondage, that we are freed from moral obligation to obey the commandments of God.

Your argument, though you do not realize it, makes it impossible to be guilty of sin, regardless what one does. You try to avoid this consequence of your argumentation by asserting the Fourth Commandment is somehow qualitatively unique and different from the other ten, that it is equivalent to the law regarding the daily sacrifice or those regulating offerings and such. But that is simply not the case, as I already proved regarding both the argument about "ritual" and about "observances".

If being freed from the law means no longer obligated to do what the commandment of God actually says, then it applies to any and ALL commandments of God. And if the commandments of God are no longer obligatory, there can be no such thing as transgression. And thus, no sin. Sin is now impossible, in this scheme of things. Which by the way results, necessarily, in universalism. If nobody can be guilty of sin, nobody can be deserving of punishment. But Jesus does not save by getting rid of the commandment, but by getting rid of the transgression.

[Esaias]

The Sabbath was given by Jesus Christ. Sunday keeping was given by the same folks who brought us the trinity, infant baptism, Mary worship, priests and popes, indulgences, Purgatory, statues and icons, praying to dead "saints", and more scandals than you can shake a stick at.

Yet, Sabbath keeping is a negative while Sunday keeping gets a free pass? "Oh, it doesn't matter what day...." Really? Then why do all the non Sabbath folks do the Sunday thing? If the day is irrelevent, then why pick Sunday? Mighty big coincidence?

It's like those who say "the baptismal formula doesnt matter" yet follow the trinity formula. It proves it DOES matter, enough to regulate your decisions, your faith and practice.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Me: Romans 7 proves that those under the law were in bondage - not to the law of God, but to the law (rule, dominion, power) of SIN (lawbreaking).

Brother Blume: Incorrect.
Law was a bondage because Paul said they were SHUT UP and KEPT FROM, which indicates terms of bondage, in describing Jews under Law.

From Vincent's Word Studies:

But the office of the law as a jailer was designed to be only temporary, until the time when faith should come. It was to hold in custody those who were subjected to sin, so that they should not escape the consciousness of their sins and of their liability to punishment.
Faith (τὴν πίστιν)

The subjective faith in Christ which appropriates the promise. See on Galatians 1:23.

We were kept (ἐφρουρούμεθα)

Better, kept in ward, continuing the figure in shut up, Galatians 3:22. The imperfect tense indicates the continued activity of the law as a warder.

Under the law (ὑπὸ νόμον)

Const. with were kept in ward, not with shut up. We were shut up with the law as a warder, not for protection, but to guard against escape. Comp. Wisd. 17:15. The figure of the law as pedagogue (Galatians 3:24) is not anticipated. The law is conceived, not as the prison, but as the warder, the Lord or despot, the power of sin (see 1 Corinthians 15:56; Romans 7), by whom those who belong to sin are kept under lock and key - under moral captivity, without possibility of liberation except through faith.

Shut up unto the faith (συνκλειόμενοι εἰς τὴν πίστιν)

Εἰς unto or for expresses the object of keeping in ward. It is not temporal, until, which is a rare usage in N.T., but with a view to our passing into the state of faith.

Which should afterwards be revealed (μέλλουσαν - ἀποκαλυφθῆναι)

The position of μέλλουσαν emphasizes the future state of things to which the earlier conditions pointed. The faith was first revealed at the coming of Christ and the gospel.