7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

But, lest the readers think I didn't address the issue of food:

Originally Posted by Esaias

Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals, Paul said every creature of God is to be received upon condition of its being sanctified (set apart) by two things: prayer, and the word of God (1 Tim 4:5). The word of God sanctifies various animals for human consumption, and excludes certain others (pork, shellfish, spiders, snakes, etc). Therefore the distinction between clean and unclean existed prior to Sinai among gentiles, at Sinai, and after the cross to today.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I already showed you this numerous times. I pointed out his phrase IS NOT USED FOR GOD'S APPOINTED DAYS in either the old testament or even in contemporary Jewish writings. Other scholars agree,

Many scholars agree with me as well.

Paul is referring to a pagan astrological calendar. I addressed the fact they were going BACK to their preChristian religious practices which were heathen. YES they were interested in being circumcised, I pointed out they were being influenced by a JEWISH GNOSTIC HERESY which many other scholars AGREE.

You have to say something about circumcision because it's mentioned in context with bondage. But if we catch the point Paul made in saying Law was a schoolmaster and the same law was tutors and governors, then we realize it is not speaking about paganism at all. These gentiles were brought into law after being in paganism, and then under law they found Christ and became part of the New Covenant body.

Law was called a schoolmaster.

Law was referred to as tutors and governors, identical to schoolmasters. Paul said the Father appointed a time for the children who were heirs (old covenant Israelites) to be under the elements of the world and then to leave those elements. That time was Christ.

These two passages are saying the exact same thing:

Galatians 3:24.. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Galatians 4:2-4.. But is under tutors and governors (SCHOOLMASTER OF LAW) until the time appointed of the father. ..(3).. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world "ELEMENTARY" SCHOOLMASTER OF LAW): ..(4).. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (TO BRING US UNTO CHRIST),

Having introduced the analogy of Law as a schoolmaster in ch 3, Paul elaborates on that in chapter 4, thereby CONTINUING the analogy.

He noted they were seeking to go back under bondage of law to which they entered after having been pagans, before they found Christ. And this is continued even further in ANOTHER analogy of LAW VERSUS GRACE when he spoke of Sara and Hagar. The Old Covenant was represented by Hagar, and the New by Sarah. Law gendered to bondage, as implied in the analogy when Mt Sinai was mentioned, and was situated in Arabia, the land of bondage from where Hagar was. THEY DESIRED to be under law, which was the same desire to go to elements of the world. the ONLY reason you resists this is because you will not allow yourself to see that we are not to keep days, since you obviously invested much attention and your life to proposing the need to keep sabbath days and the feasts. It's why you get angry when discussing this, when you do not get angry when disagreeing with other views, like prophecy. You've got a marked distinctive anger when THIS issue is disagreed upon with you. That's telling.

You have to CREATE a picture of law amalgamated with paganism to reason this away, when ch 3 clearly states the elements of the world under which the schooled "children" were was LAW, and that's doubly emphasized with 4:24's reference to bondage of old covenant. He does not amalgamate the BONDAGE they were under with two different entities like PAGANISM and OLD COVENANT LAW.

And LAW, which is what I claim is all Paul referred to, is CONTINUED to be the system from which the Galatians had to be removed in chapter 5! To prove that, CIRCUMCISION is included, and BONDAGE is once again mentioned.

Galatians 5:1-2.. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. ..(2).. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.


Paul says nary a thought about paganism as a system they were desiring to be under again. He constantly and ONLY refers to them going under LAW, not LAW AND PAGANISM fused together.

Galatians 5:1-6.. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. ..(2).. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. ..(3).. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. ..(4).. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. ..(5).. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. ..(6).. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Where does he name ONE single pagan point in these details? You make yourself ASSUME the days and months and years are pagan, but the CONTEXT from 3 through 5 is LAW. Hagar the OLD COVENANT, not Hagar the old fused with paganism.

And he continues referring to law, and notes something that sabbatarians always claim those who disagree with them need to hear.

Galatians 5:13-14.. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. ..(14).. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


He thereby pulled from LAW to say it was of God! And we are not lawless just because we are delivered from LAW. The law is fulfilled in the way the SPIRIT inspires and strengthens us to love. And then chapter 5 continues in the same manner Romans 7 through 8 does by referring to walking after the Spirit instead of using flesh to serve God in oldness of the letter which is walking after the flesh. That's why Paul contrasted serving God in oldness of the letter with newness of the Spirit, instead of contrasting a life of lawlessness with newness of the Spirit. Walking after the flesh is trying to serve God by law in oldness of the letter. It is the attempt to SERVE GOD.

Just as Romans 7 was about people trying to keep law to serve God, and then spoke instead of walking after the Spirit ,as though using law was walking after the flesh, Gal 3 through 5 is speaking about serving God in bondage of law versus walking after the Spirit. And if we walk after the Spirit we will not commit the sins that law preached against, anyway.

' I pointed out the internal evidence of Paul's words that the heretic teachers were NOT just promoting Sabbath keeping or obeying God's commandments, but were doing something ELSE. I demonstrated how if your understanding is correct Paul's words would HAVE NO WEIGHT AGAINST THE HERESY!!! Because he REMINDS the Galatians a circumcised man is indebted to do THE WHOLE LAW, and the heretics according to Paul were NOT DOING THAT. Which means this is a JEWISH GNOSTIC HERESY, not people trying to obey God's commandments.

You are again making claims the context simply does not state, but must be injected. Paul actually said they must keep all the law because dabbling in law demanded full compliance with all of it, and the need to do it all or die. And he also said elsewhere in Gal 3 that one cannot keep all the law when he said a person is cursed if they're under law. Not cursed if they're under a heresy of gnosticism. Where do you continually get this gnostic heresy argument from? He ONLY speaks of LAW ITSELF. He said LAW over a life puts one under a curse, not gnostic heretical distortion of law. LAW.

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.

How can one be under a curse if one is under PURE LAW? How can THIS verse be about gnostic heresy when Paul stated LAW puts one under a curse? Law genders to bondage. Christ delivered us from the Law. Not gnostic heresy.

So, why does Paul say one is under a curse if one is under law? It is because the law demanded that one NOT BREAK ONE LAW in order to live. He quoted Lev 18:5. How can THAT mean one is cursed if one is under law. You keep saying it is gnostic heresy that puts one under a cruse. He said LAW. And the reason it puts one under a curse can ONLY be realized when one takes other passages referring to law, as well, like Peter's words in Acts 15:10 where he said its a yoke they nor their fathers could bear. He was NOT referring to pharisaism, either, in Acts 15 because he simply said MOSES. Not ONCE does he mention a gnostic distortion of law, but simply law.

Back to Gal 3, Paul said the prophet said we LIVE BY FAITH, contrary to what Moses said in Lev 18:5., not with Gnostic Precepts 3:19 . How could Paul contradict Moses with another prophet? It was not because law was evil. It was because of what Romans 7 said.
Law is holy, just and good but man is sinful and cannot keep it. Hence, death. THAT is the death that old covenant gendered toward.

People who were accused of trying to keep ONE ASPECT of the law were reminded by Paul of what Lev 18:5 says. And Paul did not respond saying gnostic heretics were cursed, BUT ANYONE UNDER LAW. And he said it was because LAW demanded total obedience to all its precepts. He then contrasted THAT with the prophet's words that a man will LIVE BY FAITH instead of Lev 18:5's life by doing. This is not a contrast with gnostocisim but old covenant law, just as Hagar was Law and the schoolmaster was law, not gnostic heresy.

It's like no verse that refers to law in this light can say anything to you, if what I am saying is correct, because you will always pull out the gnostic heresy card. Hagar is old covenant. But you say it is gnostic heresy. Paul said law was a schoolmaster and continued that idea in referring to tutors and governors. But you say tutors and governors whom the Father appointed Israel to be under til Christ came was gnostic heresy. Paul says in Gal 5 that bondage is with circumcision, and you somehow again throw in gnostic heresy. Paul said one under law in Gal 3 is under a cruse, and you throw in gnostic heresy.

No, rather for the umpteenth time you are repeating your assertion WITHOUT PROOF and more importantly WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE POINT BY POINT EXPLICATED REFUTATION I ALREADY GAVE OF THIS SPECIOUS "ARGUMENT".

And I'm not interested in repeating all this YET AGAIN just to have you post one or more 10000 character multi font multi color posts that never actually deal with the data but which just repeat your assertions.

I am proving context.

You do NOT keep the Fourth Commandment because it SAYS THE SEVENTH DAY... D A Y ... IS THE SABBATH OF JEHOVAH. It says remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy. Your argument about higher deeper spiritual obedience that does away with obligation to do what it actually says is false, because if it were true IT WOULD MEAN AS LONG AS I LOVE GOD AND THE CHURCH I DONT HAVE TO HONOUR MY LITERAL PARENTS.

Moot as explained.

This - your approach - is EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for, coming up with pious spiritual sounding LOOPHOLES to avoid doing what is LITERALLY COMMANDED.

You are effectually calling Paul's words loopholes, because anything I say about sabbath as a shadow are from PAUL, and anything I say about keeping sabbaths days is because of PAUL. PAUL led me to these thoughts, not some desire to not keep sabbath..

Now, try not to be so angry about this in the future. You do it in other issues.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

But, lest the readers think I didn't address the issue of food:

You just made void the words about food that Paul made.

Every single proposal you make about these passages are clearly seen to be based on inserting your thoughts into the verse, rather than getting your thoughts from the verse at hand.

[Tithesmeister]

Brother Blume does Esaias believe it is a sin to eat pork?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The power of God, the effect of the Holy Ghost, is to deliver the sinner from bondage to sin and disobedience (Romans 6-8). Sabbath breaking is sin, therefore one of the things the law of the Spirit does is end a person's Sabbath breaking, by faith in Jesus. I proved this already. I exegeted Romans 8 and showed point by point that Paul clearly taught the law breaker is the carnal, fleshly, natural one who minds the flesh, as opposed to the spiritual, spiritually minded Christian who actually obeys the law of God.

That law includes the Fourth Commandment.

It's amazing how far people will go not to give up their weekends!

Eisegesis, and reading into a text a predetermined opinion.

Paul said sabbaths are not to be kept, and also said Spirit leads to life above sin, leading one to understand walking by the flesh is exactly what you are proposing, since you are not seeing the connection between Romans 7:6 and Romans 8. How the flesh wants to hold onto elements of the world!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Please refresh your understanding of what a straw man fallacy is, and get back to me afterwards. Also, I assume you meant "...and IT IS NOT the law of Moses..." which is silly,

No, you misunderstood my point. You are proposing we keep the law of Moses, but the law of the Spirit of life is DISTINCT from the law of Moses.

Writing God's law in our hearts is actually talking about changing our natures so we WANT to do what's correct, not to give HEART to the ordinances and festivals of the outward and material.

God gave His law through Moses, the people didn't keep it, so He said He would make a new covenant with them and write His law in their hearts and cause them to obey His law, commandments, statutes, judgments, etc. You are proposing some new legislation as a replacement for God's law (commandments, statutes, etc).

No, I am saying the Law of the Spirit of Life established the Law of Moses, and is the actual Law Paul said he was under. The law of the Spirit is LIFE, where the old covenant gendered to bondage, not gnostic heresy gendering to bondage, regardless of what bondage gnosticism genders toward ( and it surely does).

Yet where is this new legislation found? Nowhere, that's where. The New Testament writings do not legislate new law as replacement for the commandments of God we read in the Scriptures. Rather, they repeatedly affirm God's law, as I keep showing and you keep rejecting.

Who said replacement? You sound like a dispie trying to say that anyone who disagrees with Zionism is a replacement theologian, when the same argument for them is the same to you: The New is beyond the Old, not replacing it, by way of it being the fullfillment of the shadows of all form the old that was ordinancial and ritual, like keeping a certain day of every week holy.

Don't remember you asking that, actually. Can you show me one person who REFUSED TO KEEP SABBATH AFTER CHRIST? No, you cannot,

I've answered these alleged unanswerable statements by you many times already. Gal 4 shows Paul saying we need to refuse to keep it.

without begging the question and interpreting didactic statements in your favor.

Gal 4 plainly says it, without the wresting of his words to make it speak about gnostic heresy.

Israel wasn't even keeping Sabbath prior to Moses, apparent, hence the command to REMEMBER it.

Show me one person before Moses who kept it. The reason God said to remember it was because THEY ALL KNEW GOD RESTED, though He never told Adam to do so, or anybody else til Moses!!

Passover, Pentecost, Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles were not given prior to Sinai, to my knowledge, they were not known prior to that.

What about sabbath day? Where did God tell anyone to, and where did anyone actually, keep the seventh day before Moses?

Neither apparently was God's name JEHOVAH (Ex 6:3). Nor is there any indication people abstained from bestiality or cross dressing prior to Sinai. None of which proves people today should not follow the Sinaitic injunctions against bestiality or cross dressing.

You can't show one single instance of anyone keeping sabbath til Moses, I see. And try to reason it away.

We only read GOD rested the seventh day. NO ONE ELSE. And when Moses came along God commanded man to JOIN HIM once a week.

And therefore (try to follow the logic here) just because there is no record of a person doing something prior to Sinai doesn't mean we don't have to do it either.

That's not conclusive to this issue and you know it. It's like proposing a faulty soliloquy.

Not one word TO keep sabbath from God til Moses. Moses commands it. Grace comes and Paul speaks of law as a schoolmaster from which Jews were delivered. He actually SAYS law gendered to bondage and called commandments engraved on stone the ministration of DEATH. And you say, "Just because no one was said to keep sabbath does not mean they did not." Show me where God told man before Moses to keep it, then.

Meanwhile, I already showed you in this thread and the other previous thread how the early apostolic church was in fact keeping God's appointed feast days. Of course, you can't accept that, because it would overthrow your entire argument. Quite understandable.

Early apostolic church was also said to believe real presence. Sorry, I stand on the bible.'

The readers can decide what they understand God wants them to do, or not do.

Amen.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother Blume does Esaias believe it is a sin to eat pork?

I wondered that myself until tonight . After reading his words this evening, I think so.

Veil.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I wondered that myself until tonight . After reading his words this evening, I think so.

Veil.

Nope, don't eat veal either, it's too mushy for me.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You just made void the words about food that Paul made.

Every single proposal you make about these passages are clearly seen to be based on inserting your thoughts into the verse, rather than getting your thoughts from the verse at hand.

Fascinating. I made Paul's words void? Let's see:

1 Timothy ch 4:
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

Paul prophesied about a soon to arise apostate false religion. It would be a "departure from the faith" meaning it would originate in the apostolic church but fall away from original apostolic doctrine. It would give heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons. Two characteristics of this coming false religion were "forbidding to marry" and "commanding to abstain from foods that God had created to be received with thanksgiving".

What happened shortly after the death of the apostles? History shows us that a movement arose within Christianity, departing from apostolic faith and practice, introducing bizarre mystical doctrines and ascetic practices. This is known as "Gnosticism" and it eventually produced CATHOLICISM. Which introduced a celibate priesthood (forbidding to marry) and numerous fasts, including Lent (commanding to abstain from God-ordained foods).

And let's look at what was being commanded to abstain from. Unclean meats, as defined by God? No. Rather, "meats which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by them who believe and know the truth." Were the unclean animals, which God declared are not for human consumption, created to be eaten by those who know the truth, and believe it? What is the truth? It is God's Word, revealed in the holy Scriptures. And God's Word shows us not only are certain animals unclean (thus NOT created to be received as food) but that this distinction was known clear back in Genesis:

Genesis ch 7:
1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

So the foods created by God to be received by those who believe and know the truth (God's Word is truth) are distinct from those God did NOT ordain to be food, and this has nothing to do with any Sinaitic covenant.

The creatures of God (which He created to be used for food) are to be received, because they are sanctified. Sanctified means "set apart". So these foods are SET APART (obviously, set apart to be eaten as food). Set apart or sanctified by what? Two things, "prayer" AND THE WORD OF GOD.

Paul said these creatures are sanctified by THE WORD OF GOD, and that's why they are to be eaten. Pray tell, where does THE WORD OF GOD SET APART animals to be eaten? Why, the list is in Leviticus 11, and in Deuteronomy 14. And Genesis 7 proves this list was known in Noah's day.

So, it is not I who make Paul's words void, it is YOU. Pork is NOT sanctified by the Word of God as food, no matter how much you like your bacon.

[Esaias]

"But what about Peter's vision? Didn't God tell him that pork chops and shrimp cocktail was now okay to eat?"

Acts ch 10:
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

According to Peter himself, God did NOT show him not to call pork unclean, but to call no MAN unclean. The vision was not a lesson from God about diet. It was a lesson about erroneous Jewish attitudes towards non Jews.

Notice, Peter said it was "unlawful" for a Jew to "keep company or come unto" a gentile. What law? Not God's law. No commandment of God can be found in all of Scripture forbidding an Israelite to contact, hang out with, or visit a gentile.

So what "law"? JEWISH LAW, the "law" invented by Rabbis, Pharisees, scribes and lawyers, which they passed off as "God's law" (Matt 15:9, Mark 7:7). TALMUD.

Brother Blume thinks I'm just making stuff up when I say "law" to a JEW is not just "Moses' law" AS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE, but that they held their manmade talmudic traditions as "Moses' law" and as "God's law". THEY STILL DO. Yet here is evident proof of the very thing. And it is proof that in the apostolic church there were those who KEPT TALMUDIC TRADITION AS IF IT WERE GOD'S HOLY LAW. Even Peter had to unlearn this stuff.

So when I point out that a lot of the Judaizing that Paul had to deal with was NOT just people wanting to obey THE SCRIPTURE, but TALMUDIC JEWISH TRADITIONS BEING PASSED OFF AS GOD'S LAW, I am NOT just pulling this out of my hat, I am NOT making it up, and I am NOT "reading into the text".

Rather, the antisabbatarians are constantly denying the plain texts of Scripture, and reading their preconceived a priori assumed notions into the text, then claiming the text supports their position. Just like trinitarians.

And no great wonder, since it was the trinitarians who gave us CHURCH ON SUNDAY, which the antisabbatarian just will not let go of.