7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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's used in the Bible right in that verse.. You can't go by how many times a certain description is used about an issue, seeing as that raises the question of what if that's the issue right there, and it's the only time it mentions it in that way,?

Are there no instances in the Bible when the Bible refers to an issue in a unique way that's not mentioned that way in any other place? Sure. So, you don't use the way in which something is referred to in order to determine whether or not it's about that issue. You look at contacts. And contacts shows us from chapter 3 that the Schoolmaster which is referred to as tutors and governors in chapter 4, is law. And as I already stated, it's awful coincidental that the law had days and months and years that were holy, if that's not what chapter 4 is referring to when he mentions those time periods.

It is also NOT used in Jewish contemporary writings.

I already addressed that in the same principle I just mentioned.

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.

that's not true at all, because there's no specific day it's supposed to be done, neither a year nor a month.

Your claim that it is a common, Old Testament term is demonstrably false.

that's patently false, because the Bible speaks about observing particular days, months, and years in the law.

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.

moot, as I just explained earlier.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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

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

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

no, it says the ordinances were against us. It didn't say the penalty was against us. And they were against us because of what Romans chapter 8 says. That the law could not accomplish for us through those ordinances what God actually accomplished later through Christ, because Christ did what the law could not do in being the very things that are afforded us that were otherwise earned through law.

Law was ordained to life, but Paul found it to be unto death when he tried to obey the last commandment to not covet, and failed. This is because, as Galatians chapter 3 tells us, the law demanded one to obey all what is written, in order to live. But life can't come that way, because Habakkuk says the just shall live by faith.

[mfblume]

I will deal with your other posts later when time permits, but I'm especially looking forward to seeing what you said about Passover.

[mfblume]

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.

that was not my point, and I will allow it to be a case where I didn't get across my point properly.

My point has nothing to do with present or past cases. It has to do with Christ being referred to in the Passover as what the Passover pointed ahead toward. I'm not dealing with grammar like we are in Colossians chapter 2. I'm dealing with the fact that Passover pointed ahead to Jesus Christ, not back. Paul demonstrated that to us when he said that Christ was our Passover.

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.

well, that's not what I was arguing. .

2. Christ our Passover does not mean Jesus is the day of Passover, but that Jesus is our Passover SACRIFICE.

The title of Passover day is named after the Passover. Jesus Christ is that Passover after which the day was named. The day is about what's done on the day. It's holy because of the celebration. I thought that was a given. Just like Sabbath.

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.

That's conflating the point, which is getting away from it. Is the day itself holy if the Celebration is not involved? If course not.

3. You ignored the part where Paul states the Corinthians were in fact keeping the feast of Unleavened Bread ("...as ye are unleavened...").

I didn't ignore it because it's not there. Park was saying we keep these things in they're realities by having Christ, and by purging our of our lives make, etc. He's not saying anything like actually keeping the feasts literally.

Notice, Paul says to purge out the old leaven, but says "AS YE ARE UNLEAVENED". Two leavens, one literal, one metaphorical.

how this can be misread.

He's saying we are unleavened. And that's how we purge the leaven today. It's like saying, "seeing as" in modern vocabulary.

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 hoops the hoops.

They're were to get rid of the old leaven WHICH WAS the massive in their lives. They, as a result, were unleavened, and were the bread.

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.

Is compared with, when kathos is used, not as in with a demanded observance. Compared wuth what was done under law.

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.

hoops defying occams razor In reading.

The just as, is not at all as you claim. It is just as is done literally under law.
[/quote]
4. You also ignored the fact that Paul instructed them to KEEP THE FEAST (verse 8). [/quote]

Please don't use the word "ignored" as in a lie. I ignored nothing.

Park was telling them to keep the feast by doing the antitype of removing malice from their lives.

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").

I've rarely seen such distortion of the word.

It proves nothing of the sort. On the bursary, it shows that we keep it under the new covenant as per its antitypical manner.

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.

all the above is wishful unfounded conjecture.

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.

What you totally avoided is the fact that passover only looks ahead. And if you keep Passover, then what will yet happen that passover, not Lord's supper, looks ahead to?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by 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.

Too obvious a rebuttal is involved to respond to this, as has already been proved.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

WARDEN.

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,

WARDEN.

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,

WARDEN

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.

Hoops upon hoops.

Law was the schoolmaster WARDEN like tutors and governors in ch 4.

What a hold sabbath keeps on people!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by 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.

Strawman. Sunday is not holy. Next.

[mfblume]

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.

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

Wrong application of my argument. Law of sin and death operates when we keep law of God in oldness of the letter.

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.

No.

Under the law is ANYONE, including those saved by grace, who put themselves beneath it by the same way you put yourself under sabbath.

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.

So, law was therefore bondage. Agreed

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.

'I qustion your honesty here, since you say this after I repeated again and again that it is not antinomianism to say the Spirit leads us to do what the law tried, but failed, to get us to

It's like pretending I think sunday is holy and referring to sunday keepers.

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.

This shows you never once got what I said about the Romans 7 principle, while all the while saying you disagree with my view, which therefore cannot be the case. You never understood it.

One is in BONDAGE when one uses law as in oldness of the letter service to God, meaning that the methodology makes one a prisoner, not the law.

Your argument, though you do not realize it, makes it impossible to be guilty of sin, regardless what one does.

No, you do not understand what I believe, which is now evident more than ever.

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.

Again, I question your honesty after I have noted fufilled types ALONE are done away with. Why continue if you continue to ignore what I said and misrepresent me with strawmen?

[mfblume]

I am encouraged and reminded by Paul's detractors' constant accusation of his belief, which were patently misrepresentative, as he continually had to disclaim his belief whenever he mentioned this issue.

Romans 6:1-2.. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? ..(2).. God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Romans 6:15.. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.


Romans 7:7.. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.


Romans 7:13.. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.


It is so true that one who preaches the genuine message of Romans will inadvertently be misunderstood as promoting antinomianism.

But along with Paul, I claim these words..

1 Corinthians 9:21.. To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,)...

I thought you could follow what I was trying to say. But alas...

Read my book entitled SIN LESS if you really want to know, because you truly do not understand what I am saying.

Someone wisely said if you are not mistaken to be antinomian, then you're likely not preaching what Paul did.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Again, I question your honesty after I have noted fufilled types ALONE are done away with.

I do not question your honesty. I do, however, question your reading comprehension and reasoning abilities. But that does not have to do with your morals. So, since you question my honesty, I think we are done here.