7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[peter83]

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath
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.

The "day of the Lord: is the day that starts when He comes till the eternity...
Real SABBATH KEEPERS are resting from now till eternity too. "
9 There remaineth therefore a SABBATISM to the people of God.5 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Did God rested for 24 hours? Does His rest we will enter lasts 24 hours? No!
Sabbath started and we are in...if we are really resting. Amen.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Romans 14:
1 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. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

Romans 14 is often brought up to justify Sabbath breaking, but a careful examination reveals that is a misuse and misinterpretation of Paul's teaching.

First, the claim is made that because of Romans 14, Sabbath keepers shouldn't judge Sunday keepers or other non Sabbath keepers. But then the non Sabbath keepers usually wind up judging the Sabbath keeper as being "in bondage" and somehow less than a genuine, true, or "full and free" Christian. Thus showing they aren't consistent in their application of the chapter.

Second, the term Sabbath is nowhere found in the passage, it must be inferred. But inferences require care, lest they turn out to be simply adding to the Word of God.

Third, the subject is "doubtful disputations". Doubtful means:

the thinking of a man deliberating with himself
a thought, inward reasoning
purpose, design
a deliberating, questioning about what is true
hesitation, doubting
disputing, arguing

Disputation means:

judicial estimation: - discern (-ing), disputation.

So doubtful disputations are judicial estimations or conclusions resulting from personal reasonings or deliberations.

These doubtful disputations or personal reasonings resulting in judicial estimations or conclusions revolved around such things as "esteeming one day above another vs esteeming every day alike" and "eating all things vs eating only herbs". So that what is being discussed are moral judgments based on personal deliberations concerning special days and restricted diets.

Jews were well known for fastings (both full and partial), abstaining from animal meats from gentile sources, and keeping various days as special or even "holy", NONE of which was ordained by God. But these various holidays, fast days, fasting regulations, abstentions from gentile food, etc, were given the status of "law" by Jews - and still have that status - even though they are really judgments or judicial decisions based on personal reasonings ("traditions of men"). For example, Pharisees usually fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12), which is generally understood to mean Mondays and Thursdays.

An interesting account is given in the Didache (8:1)concerning this:

But do not let your fasts coincide with those of the hypocrites: since they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, you must then fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

This is, in fact, the origin of catholic/orthodox Wed. and Fri. fasting. Notice how it is said "you must then fast on..." showing how early catholicism was disobeying Paul's instructions, by imposing special observances of days (combined with fasting regulations) born out of personal deliberations, imposed on the church. Jews often did this in the first century to Gentiles (demanding that Pharisaic regulations concern extra biblical holidays, fasting, and other food regulations be observed as a point of obligatory faith and practice) and this Pharisaic mentality continued in Catholicism, with its appointment of weekly fast days, Lenten fasts, pre-Communion fasts, penance fasts, numerous holy days invented by men such as various Saints' Feast days, etc.

The Fourth Commandment, however, is not a "doubtful disputation". A doubtful disputation is NOT just any old thing about which someone somewhere might dispute, or have doubt's about. It is a personal deliberation, an "in my personal opinion" deliberation resulting in a judicial estimation or judgment "everyone ought to do thus and such." The Pharisee who wanted to fast twice a week or celebrate Chanukah was NOT to impose such things on others - Jew or gentile - as if such personal reasonings were of Divine institution and obligation. Nor were they to condemn fellow Christians for not observing what they personally had devoted to God. And vice versa. Same thing with the vegetarianism issue (v 2-3), which proves the issue wasn't God's commandments (Sabbath, food laws) but personal, extra Biblical convictions or determinations. IE extra Biblical "standards".

Esaias, I have tried to explain to you that you are as opposite the teaching of the Apostle Paul as it is possible to be. Paul taught (even the Jews) to forsake Moses. You are teaching Gentiles to follow Mosaic law. You’re as wrong as it is possible to be on this.

Acts.21

[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

The Gentiles never followed the law. Some of t Jews (Pharisees) tried to subvert them but the apostles stopped that nonsense at the council of Jerusalem. Now you’re following in the steps of the Pharisees. The same ones who Jesus had so much trouble with, about the same subject (keeping the Sabbath).

You’re wrong.

You’re wrong.

You’re sooooooo wrong.

Other than that I like you just fine.

[Esaias]

I'd like to take a moment and describe why I am a Sabbath keeping Christian. This is my personal story, if anyone's interested.

Before my conversion to Christ, I was a heathen. Not raised in any kind of church environment. I was literally a pagan, and wound up as a devout practicing traditional Satanist.

At a certain point I became convinced the Bible is Truth and Reality, Jesus rose from the dead, there really is a God who created everything and to whom I must answer. And, that I must repent, which included renouncing my paganism and anything contrary to the Will of God.

When I came into Pentecost, I was early on exposed to some of the best, most powerful preaching I have ever heard (this was in several different UPCs, by the way) concerning our absolute need to "let go of man made traditions and stick to the Bible ONLY".

I took it to heart. The result? No Christ's Mass (birthday of the Sun God, Mithra, or Baal), no Easter with all the fertility rites of Ishtar, no Halloween (indisputably pagan day of the dead), no trinity (pagan triadism), no Mary Queen of Heaven/Mother of God, no communion wafers, etc etc.

And no Sunday keeping, either.

What frustrated me over time was that all would agree "no traditions of men" but they often did not practice it. LOTS of our people are caught up in tons of man made traditions, either handed down from trinitarians and pagans, or invented recently amongst themselves. These traditions are promoted as if they were God's will for His people, but they are not.

So, Sabbath keeping for me is simply an extension and application of basic Bible preaching I heard coming across old time Pentecostal pulpits. "Strip away traditions of men, and follow the Bible." So I did.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Esaias, I have tried to explain to you that you are as opposite the teaching of the Apostle Paul as it is possible to be. Paul taught (even the Jews) to forsake Moses. You are teaching Gentiles to follow Mosaic law. You’re as wrong as it is possible to be on this.

Acts.21

[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

The Gentiles never followed the law. Some of t Jews (Pharisees) tried to subvert them but the apostles stopped that nonsense at the council of Jerusalem. Now you’re following in the steps of the Pharisees. The same ones who Jesus had so much trouble with, about the same subject (keeping the Sabbath).

You’re wrong.

You’re wrong.

You’re sooooooo wrong.

Other than that I like you just fine.

Acts 28:
17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Sadly, you believe the false witness of the Jews instead of Paul's own testimony. THAT is what's sooooo wrong.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Acts 28:
17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Sadly, you believe the false witness of the Jews instead of Paul's own testimony. THAT is what's sooooo wrong.

This is where terminology and word usage begin to mystify me. Prior to reading this thread, I would never have given any thought to 'customs of our fathers' meaning anything other than customs.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Ehud

This is where terminology and word usage begin to mystify me. Prior to reading this thread, I would never have given any thought to 'customs of our fathers' meaning anything other than customs.

He was constantly accused by the Pharisees of - as Tithesmeister said - "teaching Jews to abandon Moses", teaching against the law (the Torah), etc. Yet, he himself always denied those charges, and maintained his absolute innocence. Teaching Jews to stop keeping Sabbath or to eat swine's flesh, for example, would have been, in no uncertain terms, teaching "against the law" and against "the customs of our (Judean) fathers".

Compared with his numerous other statements and actual teachings concerning the relationship between faith and works, grace and the law, etc it becomes clear that Paul no antinomian, or anti Law preacher, nor did he "teach Jews to abandon Moses" in the sense of "Hey, all Jews, stop obeying the commandments in the Pentateuch, eat pork and blow off the Sabbath, that's what God REALLY wants."

The problems he faced were Jews holding on to the old covenant and not believing Jesus is the Messiah, Jews demanding gentiles get circumcised and follow Jewish (Pharisaic man made) traditions, gnostics and pseudomystics enticing Christians into pagan syncretistic mixtures of Biblical/heathen faith, antinomians who refused to live by the Word or who thought grace was a license to break God's commandments, and heretics introducing their own ideas and doctrines out of their own imaginations and passing them off as special insight.

He was not spending his time trying to convince people not to obey the Bible.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

He was constantly accused by the Pharisees of - as Tithesmeister said - "teaching Jews to abandon Moses", teaching against the law (the Torah), etc. Yet, he himself always denied those charges, and maintained his absolute innocence. Teaching Jews to stop keeping Sabbath or to eat swine's flesh, for example, would have been, in no uncertain terms, teaching "against the law" and against "the customs of our (Judean) fathers".

Compared with his numerous other statements and actual teachings concerning the relationship between faith and works, grace and the law, etc it becomes clear that Paul no antinomian, or anti Law preacher, nor did he "teach Jews to abandon Moses" in the sense of "Hey, all Jews, stop obeying the commandments in the Pentateuch, eat pork and blow off the Sabbath, that's what God REALLY wants."

The problems he faced were Jews holding on to the old covenant and not believing Jesus is the Messiah, Jews demanding gentiles get circumcised and follow Jewish (Pharisaic man made) traditions, gnostics and pseudomystics enticing Christians into pagan syncretistic mixtures of Biblical/heathen faith, antinomians who refused to live by the Word or who thought grace was a license to break God's commandments, and heretics introducing their own ideas and doctrines out of their own imaginations and passing them off as special insight.

He was not spending his time trying to convince people not to obey the Bible.

In reference to the bolded. He didn’t always deny the charges.
It was not only the Pharisees that accused him. It was the apostles as well. Allow me to show my work.

[17] And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
[18] And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
[19] And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
[20] And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

This is describing Paul being received of the brethren of the church at Jerusalem. Verse 21 is the accusation that Esaias seems to think is made by Pharisees. But if you look at verse 18 you see that it was James that Paul went in to see. James and all the elders, OF THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM.

I didn’t know James was a Pharisee. I knew that Paul had been one but not James.

Another issue that Esaias is missing is , well

Esaias,

Please show where Paul denied the accusation of James and the elders. According to your words Paul ALWAYS denied teaching the Jews to forsake the law. Show your work.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Ehud

This is where terminology and word usage begin to mystify me. Prior to reading this thread, I would never have given any thought to 'customs of our fathers' meaning anything other than customs.

Customs are customs . . .

Laws are laws.


Esaias is confused.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Customs are customs . . .

Laws are laws.


Esaias is confused.

Not hardly, but it is clear that you are getting more confused by the moment.

Acts 25:
7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. 8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended any thing at all.

[Esaias]

Custom:

G1485

Original: ἔθος

Transliteration: ethos

Phonetic: eth'-os

Thayer Definition:

custom
usage prescribed by law, institute, prescription, rite