Why Sunday

[mfblume]

Varying opinion of Sabbatarians claim that Paul spoke about former pagan acquaintances by pointing out that he encouraged Gentile believers in other scriptures to keep the feasts. They argue that it was pagans, and not Jews, who were condemning them for keeping Old Covenant celebrations by referring to these words.

Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,”

However, context says otherwise. The passage be-fore Paul’s reference to judging, in reference to new moons and sabbaths in Colossians 2, makes it clear that Paul did not write about pagans who were judging believ-ers for keeping holy days and sabbaths.

Colossians 2:13-14 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

Paul said that the handwriting of ordinances was against them. That is a reference to Law. Ordinances were throughout the Old Covenant. Hebrews Chapter 9 corresponds to this passage and makes it clearer, as we discussed in earlier chapters.

An ordinance is a rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action. An ordinance may be a Law or statute of sovereign power. In this sense, it is often used in the Scriptures. Exodus 15; Numbers 10; Ezra 3.

Feasts and sabbaths were ordinances. The handwrit-ing of ordinances was against us because they were a re-membrance of sins.

So, Paul said, based on the fact that handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross, that is the reason that they should not let anyone judge them.

Judging people was done in the early church by le-galists. Those who were liberal could be accused of des-pising legalists, whereas legalists judged the liberals. The language is distinguished in Romans 14.

So, context tells us that sabbaths and new moons, drinks and holy days, were part of the handwriting of or-dinances.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But simply because of the Sabbath was made for man doesn't mean that man is supposed to always keep the Sabbath.

Realy, that doesn't prove that Jesus was going to introduce a religion void of a sabbath. The commandments themselves have don't commit murder with keep the sabbath.

Originally Posted by mfblume

It doesn't mean that the Sabbath is always going to be in effect.

Why? It certainly we are not given any indication that it was to be nullified in the future.

Originally Posted by mfblume

The temple and the animal sacrifices were also made for a man, but both of them are gone now and we have what those things merely foreshadowed.

Actually they weren't the same as what Jesus was dealing with when eating wheat kernels with His disciples. Matthew 24, clearly shows Jesus' intention for the temple law system. The animal sacrifices, priesthood were all to culminate.

Originally Posted by mfblume

When Colossians talked about nobody judging, it's not talking about people who were keeping those things and were criticized for doing them. It was talking about the handwriting of ordinances that was removed out of the way, and Legalists generally are the ones who judge those for not doing this things, while liberals are the ones who despise those who do. Romans 14 was dealing with Legalists esteeming one day above another, and the stronger Brethren of faith despised them in return. It's not days of fasting, since the day is not esteemed in a fast. But the fast itself. However, the day is esteemed in sabbath keeping.

Jesus was a legalist, Paul was a legalist, everyone from the Essenes, and the different schools of the Pharisees were legalists. Paul is dealing with the Judaic calendar, and the rabbinical traditions concerning that calendar. Not dealing with the sabbath instruction in the commandements. We run into some funny logic when we want to extrapolate one of the ten.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And the reason that Sabbath day's journey was mentioned in Matthew chapter 24, is because you can only go a certain Distance by law on sabbath. So when Jesus said pray that your journey be not on the Sabbath, he was saying by law they wouldn't be able to flee like they should be able to otherwise on a sabbath day. That proves that it's a first-century fulfilment because it's not a law that requiring anybody to not go a certain distance on a Sabbath today.

Again, if Jesus was teaching that the sabbath wouldn't be an issue for His followers, then no matter what the length of difficulty. It would of been a moot point. Again, one doesn't need to be a Sabbath Keeper to see the obvious. But teaching that Jesus taught to disregard the sabbath isn't found in the Gospel. Paul certainly didn't teach to disregard the commandment. Definitely not to the first century Judean converts. They were dealing with issues, issues which pertained exclusively to their time. Which we don't have, going on today. New moons? Days of fastings? Meat offered to idols? mandatory circumcision of children? We are told not to commit adultery? Respect and care for parents? But a day? Nope, No day, that seems to missing? That is all I am saying here. No consistency means bad argument.

[mfblume]

Some of my studies on the topic that I made lately.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Sabbatarians claim that this verse in the Book of Ro-mans is easy to misinterpret as if it was telling us that there are no special days or sabbaths or holy days, and that every day is alike. They insist that is not the case.

The only problem for them is that Galatians Chapters 3 through 4 teaches us to not keep any days. Romans 14 falls on that clearer passage.

Those who claim sabbath-keeping is not an issue in Romans Chapter 14 insist that the actual debate with which Paul dealt was what days were correct in which they were to fast and pray. Should they fast twice a week like the Pharisees, or should they fast only on certain days and only eat at certain times?


Truth be told, this chapter is not about fasting. No-body considered a day of fasting to be esteemed above another day, simply because fasting took place on that day. Any given day itself was not suddenly magnified when a fast began on it. Nobody considered that the day they in which they would fast was a special day to be es-teemed above other days, because the issue was not the day, but rather the experience of the actual fast.

Romans 14:6 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.”

He was not associating the keeping of days with eat-ing or not eating, except in the sense that they had one common denominator – Law. Law demanded that certain foods be not eaten, and certain days be kept holy. The chapter is not themed after the issue of days alone. It’s not about sabbath or no sabbath. It’s not about any particular aspect of Law, while I still maintain that sab-bath was part of Law, and is mentioned. Paul generally spoke against the disfellowship of fellow believers, some of whom generally kept Law and others did not.

He did not mention eating in association with esteeming days in order to say that he was discussing days of fasting. He simply listed estimation of days as well as other items on a list that were distinct and separate, but all from the same Law, including what meats we can eat or not eat. It was not even about fasting, anyway, in any verse there. It was about disallowance of meats offered to idols.

The liberals were eating anything, and had the tendency to despise legalists, while the legalists had the tendency to judge liberals. There is a distinction in those terms that Pau used for a reason.

Those who felt that they could only eat certain meats would often avoid eating any meat for fear of making a mistake. So, really, it’s not even about meats not allowed under Law. Paul also discussed this in 1 Corinthians Chapters 8 and 10.

So, it’s not about combining the thought of days and not eating certain meats with fasting, as though it’s a discussion of days of fasting. It’s distinguishing those who have stronger faith and those who lack and depend on doing and not doing, as was the case of Law, according to Leviticus 18:5 where you were told that you must achieve eternal life by doing.

Sabbatarians respond by saying that there were pagan groups of people in those days who emphasized ve-gan diet and the neglect of flesh on certain days with fast-ings of certain foods at designated times.

That is not explained in the context, though. Along with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians Chapters 8 and 10, it is about those who were not strong enough in grace to realize, like Paul later explains in Romans 14, that he can eat those things offered to idols since they’re only food, and no actual idolatrous gods that so much as even exist, anyway! It’s food, offered to idols or not. To know that is to be free from that Law of certain meat diets, like pork and lobsters, and free to simply eat food.

Paul was indeed talking about holy days when she spoke of esteeming one day above another, because fasting is not a day that is emphasized with fasting. However, estimation of days was clearly under Law.

Sabbatarians spend most of their time attacking those who believe that Sunday is a day to be kept holy. However, this does not apply to those who simply hold Church gatherings on Sunday because Jesus resurrected on that day, seeing as those with this understanding do not think it is a holy day like sabbath was. Nothing was changed, so to speak, except for the change that there are no holy days in the New Covenant. That makes the overall summary inapplicable.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Varying opinion of Sabbatarians claim that Paul spoke about former pagan acquaintances by pointing out that he encouraged Gentile believers in other scriptures to keep the feasts. They argue that it was pagans, and not Jews, who were condemning them for keeping Old Covenant celebrations by referring to these words.

Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,”

However, context says otherwise. The passage be-fore Paul’s reference to judging, in reference to new moons and sabbaths in Colossians 2, makes it clear that Paul did not write about pagans who were judging believ-ers for keeping holy days and sabbaths.

Colossians 2:13-14 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

Paul said that the handwriting of ordinances was against them. That is a reference to Law. Ordinances were throughout the Old Covenant. Hebrews Chapter 9 corresponds to this passage and makes it clearer, as we discussed in earlier chapters.

An ordinance is a rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action. An ordinance may be a Law or statute of sovereign power. In this sense, it is often used in the Scriptures. Exodus 15; Numbers 10; Ezra 3.

Feasts and sabbaths were ordinances. The handwrit-ing of ordinances was against us because they were a re-membrance of sins.

So, Paul said, based on the fact that handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross, that is the reason that they should not let anyone judge them.

Judging people was done in the early church by le-galists. Those who were liberal could be accused of des-pising legalists, whereas legalists judged the liberals. The language is distinguished in Romans 14.

So, context tells us that sabbaths and new moons, drinks and holy days, were part of the handwriting of or-dinances.

Pagan practices weren't an issue. This whole argument is between two camps. Rabbinicals and Christians. Hands down. Once we start rummaging around the second and third century we are losing the picture. The biggest threat to the fledgling Christian church was no one else but the Rabinicals.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Transportation system? Jerusalem had Metrorail in the first century? lol

Sorry, the phrase just struck me as funny.

OK seriously, he said Sabbath or Winter, and the context is fleeing, so it gotta be something related with ability to flee being hindered by an external system. Which makes me think it is transportation related. Sabbath: laws, winter: weather.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Some of my studies on the topic that I made lately.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Sabbatarians claim that this verse in the Book of Ro-mans is easy to misinterpret as if it was telling us that there are no special days or sabbaths or holy days, and that every day is alike. They insist that is not the case.

The only problem for them is that Galatians Chapters 3 through 4 teaches us to not keep any days. Romans 14 falls on that clearer passage.

Those who claim sabbath-keeping is not an issue in Romans Chapter 14 insist that the actual debate with which Paul dealt was what days were correct in which they were to fast and pray. Should they fast twice a week like the Pharisees, or should they fast only on certain days and only eat at certain times?


Truth be told, this chapter is not about fasting. No-body considered a day of fasting to be esteemed above another day, simply because fasting took place on that day. Any given day itself was not suddenly magnified when a fast began on it. Nobody considered that the day they in which they would fast was a special day to be es-teemed above other days, because the issue was not the day, but rather the experience of the actual fast.

Romans 14:6 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.”

He was not associating the keeping of days with eat-ing or not eating, except in the sense that they had one common denominator – Law. Law demanded that certain foods be not eaten, and certain days be kept holy. The chapter is not themed after the issue of days alone. It’s not about sabbath or no sabbath. It’s not about any particular aspect of Law, while I still maintain that sab-bath was part of Law, and is mentioned. Paul generally spoke against the disfellowship of fellow believers, some of whom generally kept Law and others did not.

He did not mention eating in association with esteeming days in order to say that he was discussing days of fasting. He simply listed estimation of days as well as other items on a list that were distinct and separate, but all from the same Law, including what meats we can eat or not eat. It was not even about fasting, anyway, in any verse there. It was about disallowance of meats offered to idols.

The liberals were eating anything, and had the tendency to despise legalists, while the legalists had the tendency to judge liberals. There is a distinction in those terms that Pau used for a reason.

Those who felt that they could only eat certain meats would often avoid eating any meat for fear of making a mistake. So, really, it’s not even about meats not allowed under Law. Paul also discussed this in 1 Corinthians Chapters 8 and 10.

So, it’s not about combining the thought of days and not eating certain meats with fasting, as though it’s a discussion of days of fasting. It’s distinguishing those who have stronger faith and those who lack and depend on doing and not doing, as was the case of Law, according to Leviticus 18:5 where you were told that you must achieve eternal life by doing.

Sabbatarians respond by saying that there were pagan groups of people in those days who emphasized ve-gan diet and the neglect of flesh on certain days with fast-ings of certain foods at designated times.

That is not explained in the context, though. Along with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians Chapters 8 and 10, it is about those who were not strong enough in grace to realize, like Paul later explains in Romans 14, that he can eat those things offered to idols since they’re only food, and no actual idolatrous gods that so much as even exist, anyway! It’s food, offered to idols or not. To know that is to be free from that Law of certain meat diets, like pork and lobsters, and free to simply eat food.

Paul was indeed talking about holy days when she spoke of esteeming one day above another, because fasting is not a day that is emphasized with fasting. However, estimation of days was clearly under Law.

Sabbatarians spend most of their time attacking those who believe that Sunday is a day to be kept holy. However, this does not apply to those who simply hold Church gatherings on Sunday because Jesus resurrected on that day, seeing as those with this understanding do not think it is a holy day like sabbath was. Nothing was changed, so to speak, except for the change that there are no holy days in the New Covenant. That makes the overall summary inapplicable.

Fasting days are spoken about in the scriptures Joel 1:14-15, Esther 4:16, Jeremiah 36:9, Jonah 3:5, and Jonah 3:8. The Judean rabbis during the time of the first century proclaimed fasting days within the different sects. Paul, was not coming against the weekend sabbath.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

OK seriously, he said Sabbath or Winter, and the context is fleeing, so it gotta be something related with ability to flee being hindered by an external system. Which makes me think it is transportation related. Sabbath: laws, winter: weather.

Oh I see. Ok.

On Saturday certain modern Rabbinical Jews walk to the synagogue.
Now, do you not travel on Saturday? You do, because it doesn't mean anything to you. Matter of fact you would look at those Jews as in bondage because of their belief, and therefore gas your car as you sped by them. I said all that to say this, if it wasn't an issue for the people Jesus was speaking to He would of never brought it up. Because sabbath travel would be meaningless to them, as it is to you.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Realy, that doesn't prove that Jesus was going to introduce a religion void of a sabbath.

No, but it also does not prove Jesus meant for his church to keep the sabbath day either. It merely meant it was law in that day to not travel far on sabbath, and it applied to those who did not keep sabbath as well.

The commandments themselves have don't commit murder with keep the sabbath.

Sabbath was the only commandment that was explicitly stated to have been a shadow of the body of Christ, not forbiddance to murder, or forbiddance against committing adultery.

Why? It certainly we are not given any indication that it was to be nullified in the future.

Jesus knew when destruction was coming to the city. He knew it would give rise for them to flee while sabbath day journey law in Jerusalem was imposed on everyone in the city, not just sabbath keepers.

Actually they weren't the same as what Jesus was dealing with when eating wheat kernels with His disciples. Matthew 24, clearly shows Jesus' intention for the temple law system. The animal sacrifices, priesthood were all to culminate.

And sabbath was to culminate as well as COl clearly says.

Jesus was a legalist, Paul was a legalist, everyone from the Essenes, and the different schools of the Pharisees were legalists. Paul is dealing with the Judaic calendar, and the rabbinical traditions concerning that calendar. Not dealing with the sabbath instruction in the commandements. We run into some funny logic when we want to extrapolate one of the ten.

That's not the meaning of legalist in the sense we are accustomed to. Legalism means without those things being done one is lost, when Lev 18:5 said keeping the law justifies one to not be lost. Paul contrasted Lev 18:5 with the grace of Christ. Ask sabbath keepers if we're lost if we do notkeep sabbath.

Again, if Jesus was teaching that the sabbath wouldn't be an issue for His followers, then no matter what the length of difficulty. It would of been a moot point. Again, one doesn't need to be a Sabbath Keeper to see the obvious. But teaching that Jesus taught to disregard the sabbath isn't found in the Gospel. Paul certainly didn't teach to disregard the commandment.

Actually Paul did indeed teach them to not keep holy days, months and years, and that was not a change of calendars but context shows law was over as far as being a schoolmaster with its feasts and holy days was concerned.

Jesus taught all of the commandments except sabbath. And when he mentioned sabbath he referred to coming to him, not a day of the week for sabbath. Becuase it was a shadow when the others weren't. So those who rest in Christ are the real sabbath keepers not the ones today who keep the seventh day.

It's s
Definitely not to the first century Judean converts. They were dealing with issues, issues which pertained exclusively to their time. Which we don't have, going on today. New moons? Days of fastings? Meat offered to idols? mandatory circumcision of children? We are told not to commit adultery? Respect and care for parents? But a day? Nope, No day, that seems to missing? That is all I am saying here. No consistency means bad argument.

Like I've said to Esaias many many times, the day is now a spiritual fulfillment that we do keep. It's truly keeping sabbath when we experience its antitype and go beyond the mere physical day.

It's so plainly stated in Gal 4 and Rom 14 that one has to go through hoops to say otherwise.

Esaias believes that he doesn't have to go to Jerusalem in the middle east in order to keep the feasts that he believes he must keep. He says this because he feels New Jerusalem is everywhere and the old is culminated, as you put it. But that is inconsistent, because the sabbath day is also culminated.

And sabbath is part of Mosaic law for Israel.

Never before Moses was any man commanded to keep sabbath.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Whether you keep Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or non day, you have to admit that there is no teaching against the sabbath found in the ten commandments. Jesus didn't make it an issue. If I wasn't so ignored on this website you would all know what I believe. But all my posts are cherry picked and therefore I repeat myself.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Fasting days are spoken about in the scriptures Joel 1:14-15, Esther 4:16, Jeremiah 36:9, Jonah 3:5, and Jonah 3:8. The Judean rabbis during the time of the first century proclaimed fasting days within the different sects. Paul, was not coming against the weekend sabbath.

Fasting days were not focusing on the days but the fasting. Paul was coming against sabbath days and any days w=that one were considered holy under Law. It's not sinning, but it is being weak in faith. A day of fasting is not a day esteemed any better than another day. The fast itself was the focus.